Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

META: Turning In My Badge

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

Redirecting off-topic rac* traffic to appropriate newsgroups is a
thankless task. I have tried to do my best, armed with the knowledge and
experience I've accumulated throughout my tenure here, to help others
understand how these newsgroups operate. I have been occasionally thanked
for my suggestions and the tone in which I've tried to make them, but
lately I really feel shit on by a number of people who maintain that I'm
being hypocritical, and don't accept the difference between a wholly off-
topic post and putting some off-topic natter in an otherwise on-topic
post. I don't agree with them, but neither do I need the aggravation at
this point in my life, so henceforth will make no more public redirection
of off-topic rac* traffic. I hope other rac* citizens will take up the
slack, and will bear the following in mind:

* When I redirect posts, especially ones in clear violation such as "want
to buy" or "sell" posts that belong only in rec.arts.comics.marketplace, I
try to e-mail *and* post, and say so in the body of my text.

* I have always striven to be polite and to the point in my redirections,
not casting any aspersions on the poster's intelligence or intent. I have
probably not always been successful, but I think it's a worthy goal for
which to shoot.

* I have tried to put my money where my mouth is, and make at least 80% of
my posts on-topic. I still believe that 80% of my review columns have
consisted of reviews, and that at least 60-70% of the natter portion of
those columns has been comics-related.

* I think the best suggestion anyone can make, when redirecting a post, is
to show the poster how he/she can *still* post the information in question
and be on topic. I have managed, for instance, to plug the excellent
LEGIONNAIRES in the course of talking about other matters more times than
I can count (see, I just did it again). I have always felt that, if you
want to tell folks about something comics-related that you think they'll
find of interest, there's always a way to do it and still be on-topic.
It's all in the way you say things.

Sorry to have rambled, but as I say I feel rather shit upon for merely
trying to be polite and helpful, and I'm not a happy camper right now.
For all the accusations that fly about newbies not being made to feel
welcome here (with which I disagree), sometimes I think the regulars could
use a bit more respect too. :}

- Elayne
--
"The kiss originated when the first male reptile licked the first female
reptile, implying in a subtle, complimentary way that she was as succulent
as the small reptile he had for dinner the night before."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

SCAVENGER

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

Boy, I hope you don't feel that I shat upon you. While in the JLA show
thread I disagreed with you, I hope you didn't feel I was attacking you.
If so I most humbly apologize, as insulting you was never my intent.


---Todd

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

SCAVENGER (kog...@colorado.edu) wrote:
: Boy, I hope you don't feel that I shat upon you. While in the JLA show

: thread I disagreed with you, I hope you didn't feel I was attacking you.
: If so I most humbly apologize, as insulting you was never my intent.

Let it be known henceforth that Todd is a sweetheart. :)

No, Scav, it wasn't you. It's more a cumulative effect. Hey, all us
Usenet regulars suffer from burnout at one point or another... :)

damonicker

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
>
> Redirecting off-topic rac* traffic to appropriate newsgroups is a
> thankless task. .....but neither do I need the aggravation at

> this point in my life, so henceforth will make no more public redirection
> of off-topic rac* traffic. I hope other rac* citizens will take up the
> slack, and will bear the following in mind:
[tips del]

i can't decide if this is an excuse to ramble on about how upset
she gets over trivialities or if she thinks she's being helpful by
stating
the obvious.

but, to remain ontopic in a meta sort of way;
isn't it nice to see the past 2 months have shown no
major flamage over topicness, even tho there have been just as many
offtopic posts?


tony, as much as i hate to say so, you should consider this fact
carefully.
-note i'm only singling you out out of convenience; you recent
in my memory, and also to note how well you've comported yoursoelf of
late.


--
"Inexpressible and nameless is that which gives my soul agony
and sweetness and is even the hunger of my entrails." Nietzsche

SCAVENGER

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

just a quick apology here...i guess I flubbed my news-posting roll and
posted the letter i was only meaning to send to Elayne.....boy...I seem to
be doing that alot...


---SCAVENGER has got to get that YA-Newswatcher installed!

damonicker

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

Drew Zeigler wrote:

>
> In article <332DDA...@po.cwru.edu>, db...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>
> > i can't decide if this is an excuse to ramble on about how upset
> > she gets over trivialities or if she thinks she's being helpful by
> > stating
> > the obvious.
> >
> > but, to remain ontopic in a meta sort of way;
> > isn't it nice to see the past 2 months have shown no
> > major flamage over topicness, even tho there have been just as many
> > offtopic posts?
> >
> >
> > tony, as much as i hate to say so, you should consider this fact
> > carefully.
> > -note i'm only singling you out out of convenience; you recent
> > in my memory, and also to note how well you've comported yoursoelf of
> > late.
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Inexpressible and nameless is that which gives my soul agony
> > and sweetness and is even the hunger of my entrails." Nietzsche
>
> Oh puh-leeze, like Elayne really needs to be preached to

like i was preaching to her.

by someone who
> goes by a silly psuedonym instead of his real name, uses Nietzsche in a
> sig, and types in all lower case...

i am, as ever, astounded by your observational skills. i
also admire the way you stuck up for her. and i am impressed by
how you managed to remain on topic at the same time.

kudos to you!

------

okay, so here we are on another meta thread. i spent my last post
pointing out that flamage doesn't seem to be related so much to
netcopping
as it does to reaction to netcopping.

i suppose my serious question was/is; do we really need pointers on how
to netcop? after all, that is the dressing elayne covered her post
with.

elayne, when she netcopped, did it 'nicely'. yet she got into some
flamage over it. francis merely posts a generic one, and i don't
see him flamed much, although people complain about the email.
and elmo getting flamed seems to have at least as much to do with the
poster
as elmo. and none of them needed elayne's 'lesson'.


--
"It wasn't just that his folks were vegetarians, they also
discriminated among vegetables, excluding from their diet
everything red,for example, the color of anger. Most bread,
having been made by killing yeasts, was taboo." Pynchon, Vineland

Drew Zeigler

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

> i can't decide if this is an excuse to ramble on about how upset
> she gets over trivialities or if she thinks she's being helpful by
> stating
> the obvious.
>
> but, to remain ontopic in a meta sort of way;
> isn't it nice to see the past 2 months have shown no
> major flamage over topicness, even tho there have been just as many
> offtopic posts?
>
>
> tony, as much as i hate to say so, you should consider this fact
> carefully.
> -note i'm only singling you out out of convenience; you recent
> in my memory, and also to note how well you've comported yoursoelf of
> late.
>
>
> --
> "Inexpressible and nameless is that which gives my soul agony
> and sweetness and is even the hunger of my entrails." Nietzsche

Oh puh-leeze, like Elayne really needs to be preached to by someone who

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

Drew Zeigler (dzei...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: In article <332DDA...@po.cwru.edu>, db...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
: > i can't decide if this is an excuse to ramble on about how upset
: > she gets over trivialities or if she thinks she's being helpful by
: > stating the obvious.

: Oh puh-leeze, like Elayne really needs to be preached to by someone who


: goes by a silly psuedonym instead of his real name, uses Nietzsche in a
: sig, and types in all lower case...

In Damon's defense, he has used his real name (Damon Crumpler) in the
past. I don't fault him for changing his finger name, except that it
plays havoc with my killfile. <g> And yes, in addition to the lower-case
nonsense (and Elmo has gone into detail elsewhere about why that's not
good Usenet behavior, based on how people process that information when
reading), it's stuff like the above comment that makes me feel I did the
right thing in killfiling him; every time I unkillfile Damon, he says
something infuriatingly rude again and *plonk* back he goes. <g>

damonicker

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
>
> Drew Zeigler (dzei...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : In article <332DDA...@po.cwru.edu>, db...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
> : > i can't decide if this is an excuse to ramble on about how upset
> : > she gets over trivialities or if she thinks she's being helpful by
> : > stating the obvious.
>
> : Oh puh-leeze, like Elayne really needs to be preached to by someone who
> : goes by a silly psuedonym instead of his real name, uses Nietzsche in a
> : sig, and types in all lower case...
>
> In Damon's defense, he has used his real name (Damon Crumpler) in the
> past. I don't fault him for changing his finger name, except that it
> plays havoc with my killfile. <g>

cool. i am a master of unintended consequences.

And yes, in addition to the lower-case
> nonsense (and Elmo has gone into detail elsewhere about why that's not
> good Usenet behavior, based on how people process that information when
> reading),

elmo has said that it destroys the ability to speed read my posts.
big deal. it's not like these things are that dense.


it's stuff like the above comment that makes me feel I did the
> right thing in killfiling him; every time I unkillfile Damon, he says
> something infuriatingly rude again and *plonk* back he goes. <g>


gee, it's nice to see you care.

----------

having decided to remain on topic yet again, today's question is thus:


how long are people willing to be polie in netcopping?

in this last offtopic thing, about the other media chatter,
i saw at least two posts from elmo. it looked like he was getting
frustrated, but he didn't blow up, and the thread died shortly after
his second post.

janis berzins

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

damonicker wrote:
>
> elayne, when she netcopped, did it 'nicely'. yet she got into some
> flamage over it. francis merely posts a generic one, and i don't
> see him flamed much, although people complain about the email.
> and elmo getting flamed seems to have at least as much to do with the
> poster
> as elmo. and none of them needed elayne's 'lesson'.
>

Isn't netcopping is basically vigilante justice? I've never had a problem with it
but I do look on it with some amusement. I guess I kinda think of alot of it as
being like the people who stand around the dip at a party to see if anyone is double
dipping their chips. Or the kids who always wanted to be the hall monitor in
elementry school. I haven't told any body to drop dead yet, although I've only
gotten two emails about it in the year I've been participating in the group. But
that doen't mean I don't reserve the right to do so if someone's feeling about what I
should do becomes annoying. I have never seen another set of groups that are so self
interested, with meta threads and other silliness sometimes outweighing the actual
comics discussion in some of the groups. I still haven't decided if all the policing
improves the group or not. Often in other groups the off topic stuff is the most
interesting. Try the MENSA groups for total anarchy.

As to being flamed when you netcop somebody, isn't that part of the package? Does
Batman complain when the criminals hit back? If you set yourself up as the monitor of
public morals (not matter what the capacity) there are naturally folks who are going
to take exception to it.
--
bber...@dekalb.net

"They say time is the fire in which we burn."

Please visit my NEW electronic portfolio at

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/4697/

SCAVENGER

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

Oooh...I shouldn't respond...but I GOTTA!!!!


> elmo has said that it destroys the ability to speed read my posts.
> big deal. it's not like these things are that dense.
>

No, but you are!

---SCAVENGER just couldn't resist! He now returns you to your regular
scheduled newsgroup.

umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

janis berzins writes:


>As to being flamed when you netcop somebody, isn't that part of the
package? Does
>Batman complain when the criminals hit back? If you set yourself up as
the monitor of
>public morals (not matter what the capacity) there are naturally folks
who are going
>to take exception to it.

Thing is, it's not 'public morals', exactly. It's public behaviour.
You're not telling people *what* to write. You're telling them *where*
to write it. :-)

And basically, if you don't want to wade through a whole bunch of
discussions of stuff that you don't care about, someone *has* to netcop.
Anarchy, by and large, *isn't* a good thing. It's very confusing.

BTW, talking of netcopping, you should edit your posts more carefully.
It looks wonky (as above) on some readers :-)

Iain


--
University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
"But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?" - Jesus Christ Superstar

John Rear Admiral McKeon

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

<newsgroups adjusted...don't think this is really on-topic for RACDU>

On 16 Mar 1997 11:01:08 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:

>Redirecting off-topic rac* traffic to appropriate newsgroups is a

>thankless task. I have tried to do my best, armed with the knowledge and
>experience I've accumulated throughout my tenure here, to help others
>understand how these newsgroups operate. I have been occasionally thanked
>for my suggestions and the tone in which I've tried to make them, but
>lately I really feel shit on by a number of people who maintain that I'm
>being hypocritical, and don't accept the difference between a wholly off-
>topic post and putting some off-topic natter in an otherwise on-topic

>post. I don't agree with them, but neither do I need the aggravation at


>this point in my life, so henceforth will make no more public redirection
>of off-topic rac* traffic. I hope other rac* citizens will take up the
>slack, and will bear the following in mind:
>

>* When I redirect posts, especially ones in clear violation such as "want
>to buy" or "sell" posts that belong only in rec.arts.comics.marketplace, I
>try to e-mail *and* post, and say so in the body of my text.

Well, that's part of the problem. Why do you need do post it and mail
it? I think a polite email would be fine. Posting it comes across
like you're saying "HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M A NETCOP! LOVE ME!"

>* I have always striven to be polite and to the point in my redirections,
>not casting any aspersions on the poster's intelligence or intent. I have
>probably not always been successful, but I think it's a worthy goal for
>which to shoot.

Just my opinion of course, but your redirections usually sound like
you're talking down to people. When you do that, some people tend to
get ticked off, no matter how good your intentions are.

>* I have tried to put my money where my mouth is, and make at least 80% of
>my posts on-topic. I still believe that 80% of my review columns have
>consisted of reviews, and that at least 60-70% of the natter portion of
>those columns has been comics-related.

I know I'm not exactly the poster child for on-topic posts, but
shouldn't 100% of your posts be on topic? Does this mean that 80% on
topic is acceptable? If I make 8 on topic posts, is it okay for me to
post 2 "for sale" posts? Would it be okay for me to build up a "debt"
of off topic posts, if I promised to make the 80% up at a later date?

>Sorry to have rambled, but as I say I feel rather shit upon for merely
>trying to be polite and helpful, and I'm not a happy camper right now.
>For all the accusations that fly about newbies not being made to feel
>welcome here (with which I disagree), sometimes I think the regulars could
>use a bit more respect too. :}

Maybe the regulars should work on earning respect instead of demanding
it.
-
John "Rear Admiral" McKeon
Secretary of the Navy, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Named "the Rainman of prog-rock and classic rock"
by Tom Deflumere

My cat's breath smells like cat food - Ralph Wiggum

Robin Riggs

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

In article <332f69d2...@news.fls.infi.net>,

jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) wrote:

><newsgroups adjusted...don't think this is really on-topic for RACDU>

Since that's the other group Elayne actively policed it probably is
on-topic there. I haven't added it to this follow-up but I did remove the
other two alt. groups you added.

>On 16 Mar 1997 11:01:08 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
>Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
>>* When I redirect posts, especially ones in clear violation such as "want
>>to buy" or "sell" posts that belong only in rec.arts.comics.marketplace, I
>>try to e-mail *and* post, and say so in the body of my text.
>
>Well, that's part of the problem. Why do you need do post it and mail
>it? I think a polite email would be fine. Posting it comes across
>like you're saying "HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M A NETCOP! LOVE ME!"

I think it's useful as a pointer to where such information should be
posted and can be found. I've found netcop posts to others to be a useful
way of learning what should go where and so avoid the mistakes myself.

>>* I have always striven to be polite and to the point in my redirections,
>>not casting any aspersions on the poster's intelligence or intent. I have
>>probably not always been successful, but I think it's a worthy goal for
>>which to shoot.
>
>Just my opinion of course, but your redirections usually sound like
>you're talking down to people. When you do that, some people tend to
>get ticked off, no matter how good your intentions are.

I know what you mean there, I'm sure it does sound that way to some, but
I'm certain it's not the way it's intended. It's incredibly difficult to
convey the right tone of voice in a post.

>>* I have tried to put my money where my mouth is, and make at least 80% of
>>my posts on-topic. I still believe that 80% of my review columns have
>>consisted of reviews, and that at least 60-70% of the natter portion of
>>those columns has been comics-related.
>
>I know I'm not exactly the poster child for on-topic posts, but
>shouldn't 100% of your posts be on topic? Does this mean that 80% on
>topic is acceptable? If I make 8 on topic posts, is it okay for me to
>post 2 "for sale" posts? Would it be okay for me to build up a "debt"
>of off topic posts, if I promised to make the 80% up at a later date?

I think 100% is an admirable goal but I don't think anyone on these
groups actually achieves it.

>>Sorry to have rambled, but as I say I feel rather shit upon for merely
>>trying to be polite and helpful, and I'm not a happy camper right now.
>>For all the accusations that fly about newbies not being made to feel
>>welcome here (with which I disagree), sometimes I think the regulars could
>>use a bit more respect too. :}
>
>Maybe the regulars should work on earning respect instead of demanding
>it.

I think most of them earn more than they actually get. It may not be
obvious all the time but they're usually trying to help.

Robin Riggs

David Tallan

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

John "Rear Admiral" McKeon (jmc...@fls.infi.net) wrote:

: >Sorry to have rambled, but as I say I feel rather shit upon for merely


: >trying to be polite and helpful, and I'm not a happy camper right now.
: >For all the accusations that fly about newbies not being made to feel
: >welcome here (with which I disagree), sometimes I think the regulars could
: >use a bit more respect too. :}
:
: Maybe the regulars should work on earning respect instead of demanding
: it.

In my experience, humble though it is, one generally earns respect by
offering it. I think Ms. Weschler-Chaput has earned more respect than
most here in rac*. Mr. McKeon, however, judging by this article (I
can't claim to have read everything he's posted)....

ObComics: A number of comic book heroes try to earn respect in
precisely the opposite way. I think they're the ones who have
difficulty in distinguishing the difference between fear and
respect.

--
Sincerely,
David Tallan
dta...@interlog.com

damonicker

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

SCAVENGER wrote:
>
> Oooh...I shouldn't respond...but I GOTTA!!!!
>
> In article <332F1F...@po.cwru.edu>, db...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>
> > elmo has said that it destroys the ability to speed read my posts.
> > big deal. it's not like these things are that dense.
> >
> No, but you are!

what-- what do you mean by that?

Chris Coleman

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:

>Sorry to have rambled, but as I say I feel rather shit upon for merely
>trying to be polite and helpful, and I'm not a happy camper right now.
>For all the accusations that fly about newbies not being made to feel
>welcome here (with which I disagree), sometimes I think the regulars could
>use a bit more respect too. :}

I can only speak for myself, but the point where me and netcopping
went separate ways was the whole JLA tv debacle. Now, if someone
posts to racdc about a Marvel book or somesuch, then yes, by all
means, cop away. But when a simple -- and clearly labeled -- info
post about something that many, many DC fans would be interested in
degenerates into two hundred posts of argument . . . ? If that post
hadn't been netcopped, it would have been over and done with, and we
wouldn't *still* be discussing it.

I also think the "regulars" (old-timers ;-) could stand to loosen the
sphincters just a bit. I've been on usenet for about six months, and
in some groups, like rac.*, it seems that those who have been around
for a number of years seem to feel a sort of proprietary ownership to
the groups they frequent. Much of the griping and netcopping seems to
take the tone of, "Hey, this isn't what *we* want to read. You aren't
ever allowed to go off-topic here, because we aren't interested in
that. This is OUR group, play by OUR rules."

Now, I can appreciate the charters, and faqs, and all that. But --
turning to our friendly JLA post once again -- when a post is of
potential interest to readers of DC books, and when that post is
clearly labeled "[NEWS] JLA TV series", why all the animosity? If
you've been in this group for years and years, and are tired of
casting calls and the like, then for heaven's sake, why would you even
*read* a post that is clearly labeled as being about a TV series? Is
there some problem with just *ignoring* it?

And Elayne, love, a thousand pardons if I'm one of those who has
beshitted you. Can we agree to disagree? (And I'll buy the toilet
paper!)

Cole

(-o-)
<*>

"not the only one whose happy to go blind"


John Rear Admiral McKeon

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

On 19 Mar 1997 18:37:37 GMT, dta...@gold.interlog.com (David Tallan)
wrote:

>John "Rear Admiral" McKeon (jmc...@fls.infi.net) wrote:
>
>: >Sorry to have rambled, but as I say I feel rather shit upon for merely
>: >trying to be polite and helpful, and I'm not a happy camper right now.
>: >For all the accusations that fly about newbies not being made to feel
>: >welcome here (with which I disagree), sometimes I think the regulars could
>: >use a bit more respect too. :}

>:
>: Maybe the regulars should work on earning respect instead of demanding
>: it.
>
>In my experience, humble though it is, one generally earns respect by
>offering it. I think Ms. Weschler-Chaput has earned more respect than
>most here in rac*.

Despite what I've said, I actually have quite a bit of respect for
Elayne. I think she's one of the few "regulars" that adds anything of
value to this newsgroup.

>Mr. McKeon, however, judging by this article (I
>can't claim to have read everything he's posted)....

If anyone in this newsgroup ever respects me, tell me what I did and I
swear I won't do it again.

damonicker

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

janis berzins wrote:
>
> damonicker wrote:
> >
> > elayne, when she netcopped, did it 'nicely'. yet she got into some
> > flamage over it. francis merely posts a generic one, and i don't
> > see him flamed much, although people complain about the email.
> > and elmo getting flamed seems to have at least as much to do with the
> > poster
> > as elmo. and none of them needed elayne's 'lesson'.
> >
>
> Isn't netcopping is basically vigilante justice? I've never had a problem with it
> but I do look on it with some amusement. I guess I kinda think of alot of it as
> being like the people who stand around the dip at a party to see if anyone is double
> dipping their chips.

sort of. but most netcopping is redirection, like:
'please go to this newsgroup'. since we have all these newsgoups
just for [say] other media], it kinda makes sense
to talk about those things there.

> Try the MENSA groups for total anarchy.

what mensa group? i've a mind to go slumming....


> As to being flamed when you netcop somebody, isn't that part of the package? Does
> Batman complain when the criminals hit back? If you set yourself up as the monitor of
> public morals (not matter what the capacity) there are naturally folks who are going
> to take exception to it.

i dunno--- ex.---


'please talk about cerebus in comics.alternatative; that's where it's on
topic.'

[reply]-- 'you stinking fascist bastards! you can't tell me what to do!'


there's bringing things upon oneself, and then there's bringin things
upon oneself.

Bruce Baugh

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

In article <332f69d2...@news.fls.infi.net>, jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) wrote:

>Well, that's part of the problem. Why do you need do post it and mail
>it? I think a polite email would be fine. Posting it comes across
>like you're saying "HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M A NETCOP! LOVE ME!"

E-mail may do the person mailed some good. Posting may do others some
good, too.

>Just my opinion of course, but your redirections usually sound like
>you're talking down to people. When you do that, some people tend to
>get ticked off, no matter how good your intentions are.

That'd be good intentions like adding "alt.fan.karl-malden.nose" and
"alt.fan.butt-harp" to the Newsgroups line, right?

--
Bruce Baugh <*> http://www.kenosis.com
Moderator, comp.os.ms-windows.win95.moderated
List manager, Christlib, Christian/libertarian mailing list
Host, new sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er

janis berzins

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

damonicker wrote:
>
> i dunno--- ex.---
>
> 'please talk about cerebus in comics.alternatative; that's where it's on
> topic.'
>
> [reply]-- 'you stinking fascist bastards! you can't tell me what to do!'
>
> there's bringing things upon oneself, and then there's bringin things
> upon oneself.
>

I would rather people use more respect when addressing other but the
fact of the matter is that you are going to get that response some of
the time. Perhaps if people were reasonable no copping would be
necessisary at all.

On the other hand, nobody likes someone who tries to correct them. We
can take it when they have the athority to do so (speeding tickets come
to mind) but it's a lot harder to take when it's just some other guy
standing in line at the store. Usually we politely tell those people to
mind their own business. Or ignore them.

I havent' decided if the occational off topic post is worse than all the
arguing about what is on topic. I consider the latter to be pretty
repetitive. I don't read all the groups and sometimes something I would
be interested in comes up that I would never see unless it was
crossposted.

janis berzins

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>
> Thing is, it's not 'public morals', exactly. It's public behaviour.
> You're not telling people *what* to write. You're telling them *where*
> to write it. :-)

OK. Almost slipped into a rant, sorry. Nevertheless, when you decide
to become your brother's keeper your brother may not like it.

>
> And basically, if you don't want to wade through a whole bunch of
> discussions of stuff that you don't care about, someone *has* to netcop.
> Anarchy, by and large, *isn't* a good thing. It's very confusing.
>

Yet anarchy has been a part of usenet for a loong time. I think part
of the problem may be that the netcops are able to read every rac group
while many of the rest of us simply discuss things where we find them.
If someone says something interesting I pay more attention to that than
where they posted it.

> BTW, talking of netcopping, you should edit your posts more carefully.
> It looks wonky (as above) on some readers :-)

>Sorry. I fight this constantly. My poor system is limping along right
now and keeps loosing its memory. (Cyberheimer's Disease). Is this
better?

> "But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths.
> Are mine the same as yours?" - Jesus Christ Superstar

Truth would be immutible. Is what you call truth really true?

Ted Faber

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

damonicker <db...@po.cwru.edu> writes:
>Drew Zeigler wrote:
>>[baits damon after repeating the whole message]

>i am, as ever, astounded by your observational skills. i
>also admire the way you stuck up for her. and i am impressed by
>how you managed to remain on topic at the same time.

Pity his quoting style sucked.

--
Ted Faber Figment at Large fa...@lunabase.org
"Imagine the most abhorrent person. Let's call him Ted." -- Peter Himmelman


Drew Zeigler

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

In article <faber.8...@ylum.lunabase.org>, Ted Faber
<fa...@lunabase.org> wrote:

> damonicker <db...@po.cwru.edu> writes:
> >Drew Zeigler wrote:
> >>[baits damon after repeating the whole message]
> >i am, as ever, astounded by your observational skills. i
> >also admire the way you stuck up for her. and i am impressed by
> >how you managed to remain on topic at the same time.
>
> Pity his quoting style sucked.

(sig snipped, are we happy?)

Oh my, aren't we pithy today?

Could I have snipped more? Yes. I went back and took a look at my post
and, you're right, I could have snipped a paragraph or two. At the moment
I posted it seemed correct to quote his entire post since I was making
several comments about Damon's posting style.

Why do you feel the need to try to prolong this discussion? What do you
get out of making this comment?

You know you're quite the hypocrite. So, my quoting style sucks. (At
least in this particular post, usually I snip with the best of them)
Well, guess what, you made a totally unecessary post simply to snipe at
someone. I think that's perhaps even more obnoxious than my 'sucky'
quoting style. And now, I'd doing it too. Aren't we both the big men.

This is my last post to this thread. This is silly. Damon insults
Elayne, I insult Damon, Ted insults me... I quit. You win. I'm gonna
go talk about comics...

sea...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

In article <faber.8...@ylum.lunabase.org>,
Ted Faber <fa...@lunabase.org> wrote:
>
> damonicker <db...@po.cwru.edu> writes:
> >Drew Zeigler wrote:
> >>[baits damon after repeating the whole message]
> >i am, as ever, astounded by your observational skills. i
> >also admire the way you stuck up for her. and i am impressed by
> >how you managed to remain on topic at the same time.
>
> Pity his quoting style sucked.

Indeed. It's at times like these that I'm glad to be in Drew's killfile.

Sean Medlock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Shangri-Elmo

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) writes:
> Just my opinion of course, but your redirections usually sound like
> you're talking down to people.

It is literally impossible to write a redirection which will come across
as non-threatening, non-arrogant, or non-condescending to everyone.
Your reaction to Elayne's redirections is *your* reaction; Elayne can't
control it and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do the actual
content of what Elayne wrote. The price of writing redirection posts--
and the prime cause of netcop burnout--is people getting het up about
your carefully neutral words because they can't stand to be told what
to do.
--
"Ever since the young men have owned motorcycles, incest has been dying out."
--Max Frisch

elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow

damonicker

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

Drew Zeigler wrote:
>
> In article <faber.8...@ylum.lunabase.org>, Ted Faber
> <fa...@lunabase.org> wrote:

> You know you're quite the hypocrite. So, my quoting style sucks. (At
> least in this particular post, usually I snip with the best of them)
> Well, guess what, you made a totally unecessary post simply to snipe at
> someone. I think that's perhaps even more obnoxious than my 'sucky'
> quoting style. And now, I'd doing it too. Aren't we both the big men.
>
> This is my last post to this thread. This is silly. Damon insults
> Elayne, I insult Damon, Ted insults me... I quit. You win. I'm gonna
> go talk about comics...

i thought it was sufficiently ontopic to demonstrate by example
the objections i had with elayne's post.

your [and ted's] followups merely continued that.

i'm glad you see this now.
----


i have decided there should be a new usenet[tm] rule:
any META thread invariably degenerates into insults
within 5 postings.

Michael R. Grabois

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 14:17:11 -0800, damonicker <db...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:

>janis berzins wrote:
>
>sort of. but most netcopping is redirection, like:
>'please go to this newsgroup'. since we have all these newsgoups
>just for [say] other media], it kinda makes sense
>to talk about those things there.
>
>> Try the MENSA groups for total anarchy.
>
>what mensa group? i've a mind to go slumming....
>

Try rec.org.mensa and rec.org.mensa.flame.flame.flame (how'd that one get in
the rec.* hierarchy?).

ObLSH: Brainiac 5 looks down on MENSA members.


--
Michael R. Grabois | http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mgrabois
Houston, TX | or...@ix.netcom.com CI$: 74737,2600
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"People say losing builds character. That's the stupidest thing I ever
heard. All losing does is suck. " -- Charles Barkley, 9/29/96

janis berzins

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

Michael R. Grabois wrote:
> ObLSH: Brainiac 5 looks down on MENSA members.


Yeah, but that's only cause he's got 'em in a bottle on his desk.

Ted Faber

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) writes:
><newsgroups adjusted...don't think this is really on-topic for RACDU>

Let's have a look at that adjustment, shall we?
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,alt.butt.harp

It's not on topic for alt.butt.harp, either. Despite its name, a.b.h.is (or
was when I could still get it) a group devoted to a specific net.author,
RICHH. You've just dropped a (dumb) flame into someone's stories group.

Nice redirect. This is sarcasm.
.


>Maybe the regulars should work on earning respect instead of demanding
>it.

Maybe you should be a little more careful about flagrantly violating
nettiquette when lecturing others on the topic.

"Usenet: a vast collection of people being polite to each other in the most
creative possible ways!" -- James 'Kibo' Parry

Peter Williams

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

I've just come across this, and decided for some strange reason to =
finally
voice an opinion on this matter. Strange days indeed. =20
Advance warning - this will ramble, and I hold nothing against Chris; =
this
just happened to inspire me to write. Anyhew:

On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:16:27 GMT, col...@aeneas.net (Chris Coleman) =
wrote:

>I also think the "regulars" (old-timers ;-) could stand to loosen the
>sphincters just a bit. I've been on usenet for about six months, and
>in some groups, like rac.*, it seems that those who have been around
>for a number of years seem to feel a sort of proprietary ownership to
>the groups they frequent. Much of the griping and netcopping seems to
>take the tone of, "Hey, this isn't what *we* want to read. You aren't
>ever allowed to go off-topic here, because we aren't interested in
>that. This is OUR group, play by OUR rules."
>
>Now, I can appreciate the charters, and faqs, and all that. But --
>turning to our friendly JLA post once again -- when a post is of
>potential interest to readers of DC books, and when that post is
>clearly labeled "[NEWS] JLA TV series", why all the animosity? If
>you've been in this group for years and years, and are tired of
>casting calls and the like, then for heaven's sake, why would you even
>*read* a post that is clearly labeled as being about a TV series? Is
>there some problem with just *ignoring* it?

Okay. Uptime wars out of the way first. I've been lurking / posting /
=46AQing / reviewing in some minor capacity or other since about 1991 =
(egad -
has it really been six years already?). In that time I've seen splits,
flamewars, impassioned debates, inside info, births, deaths, marriages, =
and
at least a tenfold increase in traffic (and that's being conservative by
close to an order of magnitude).

The last thing is the biggie. Back in the "good old days" of
rec.arts.comics, I could (and did) read every single post in the group
without breaking a sweat. I'd log on more than once a day and often =
there'd
be no new messages. Flash forward to 1997. I have (thanks to my nifty
Agent newsreader) an almost-complete live archive of racdcu back to Jan =
16th
(ie about 2 months). There are in excess of ten *thousand* messages in
racdcu *alone*. Add to that 2500 in lsh, 2000 in vertigo, 7500 in =
marvelu
and close to 9000 in misc, and we're talking over 30k messages in *part* =
of
the heirarchy over just 2 months. That's around 500 a *day*.

With this kind of volume, it's damn near essential to try and segregate
stuff. If you don't, we all get buried under a ton of stuff we *don't* =
want
to read, and the stuff we *do* want to read gets expired way too fast.

[HowTheNetWorks Note: for those who didn't know, UseNet is an almost
constant stream of messages. Each ISP sets a time of how long they want =
to
hold onto the messages in a group before they "expire" them (ie delete
them). This time limit is usually based on how much space they take up.
The more volume in a group, the faster it usually expires.]

Do the "old coots" sometimes seem to have a proprietary grip on the =
group.
Heck, yes! Mostly because they're the ones who've shepherded / supported=
/
guided it to this point. UseNet is (or at least used to be) about =
people.
rac was where you'd come to read about what Dave thought of the latest
comics, or to get the occasional piece of inside gossip, or to argue over
Hank v. Atom in A:2001, or to bemoan the lack of good stories, or to =
praise
your favourite creators. When there's only 40 or 50 posts a day, it's =
easy
to keep up. You got to know people, they got to know you, and it was =
like
an extended group of friends or acquaintances.

=46lash forward to now. I get spammed in the newsgroups and in my email =
on a
daily basis with complete offtopic garbage. People argue about how they
shouldn't have to do what "the rules say" because they weren't asked =
about
what rules *they* wanted. You can't move without hitting a review or =
ten.
Any topical event gets posted by ten or twenty well-meaning people. I'd =
be
lucky if I knew one percent of people who posted here. I despair at even
trying to keep up with rac anymore.

I guess what I'm trying to say here boils down to this. A lot of people
think that the 'Net' is something that sprang up in the last year or =
three.
It didn't. A lot of people act as if UseNet is like TV - the stuff that =
you
don't watch doesn't affect what you're viewing. It does. A lot of =
people
don't believe that the 'new, exciting' topics that they're trying to have
discussions about have been hashed out to death more than a dozen times =
in
the past. They have. The old fogeys simply are the ones that remember =
when
things were a little more manageable, when it was possible to hold an
intelligent discussion without being surrounded by "DC ROOLZ, MARVEL SUX"
level arguments. They're also usually the ones who have a greater
understanding of the effects that UseNet has on people, and people have =
on
UseNet, mostly because they've seen these effects first-hand.

UseNet is not anarchy. It isn't democracy. It isn't a dictatorship. =
There
are no Evil Overlords. There are no downtrodden masses. If you want
something badly enough here, and you can convince enough people to =
support
you, it *will* happen. =20

Hmm. I seem to have gotten off track a little. Back to the specific =
points
in your message. <g> There's a common misunderstanding about the way =
UseNet
works. Many people seem to think that since they want to tell people =
about
something, they should post it anywhere where people who might be =
interested
might look. Some people extend this to the whole of UseNet - hence spam.
UseNet doesn't work like that. People go looking for stuff. If I want =
to
know about BOOKS OF MAGIC, I look in rac.vertigo. If I want to read =
about
LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES, I look in rac.lsh. If I want to read about a JLA=
TV
series, I'd look in raci for an announcement, and probably raco-m for
discussion. Yes, the lines do blur. Yes, the splits aren't perfect. =
Yes,
things could be worded better. Yes, if we had the choice again we might
have done it differently. But we're all trying to make the best of what =
we
have.

What it really comes down to is that the people who want to try and make =
it
work tend to be a little forceful, simply because there's always a =
nagging
fear that if you let this one go, it'll be harder to justify stopping the
next one, and the next one, and eventually you lose any real value in the
groups. And that would be a great shame.

Regards,

Pete - who probably shouldn't have bothered to post this, but just hates
people being uninformed about why things happen...
--
Peter Williams is pet...@zip.com.au or 100400,641. Sydney, Australia.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research!"
Disclaimer: Any opinions lurking above are mine, all mine! Bwahahaha ...

Chris Coleman

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

pet...@zip.com.au (Peter Williams) wrote:

>Advance warning - this will ramble, and I hold nothing against Chris

No problem; I have *no trouble* "agreeing to disagree". We can go
back & forth with this as long as anyone wants to waste space. ;-)

(And I'm including the rest of Peter's comments down below; this post
is already too big to go point by point with it.)

First off, I'd remind everyone that this whole mess started when
someone (sorry, forgot who) posted a message with the header "NEWS:
JLA TV series". And -- big surprise -- that's what the post was
about: the announcement that CBS had optioned DC's Justice League as a
possible weekly series for the next fall season. And a short post it
was, just a paragraph or so, just a "thought y'all would like to know
kind of thing". I, for one, did indeed appreciate the info, because I
read JLA (and have followed the various Justice League books for about
a decade), and am greatly interested in this series. Now, we could
debate all day whether or not this post was "on topic" for rac.dcu, or
whether it should have gone to rac.om. Personally, I'd say at least
the initial announcement belonged in both; can something not be on
topic in two groups? And if it can't, isn't it at least possible that
others out there in rac'land who read JLA might be at least slightly
interested in the tv series?

So that's all there was: a simple, short informational post; clearly
labeled as "NEWS"; clearly labeled as being about a tv show.

And then the post got netcopped. Several weeks and hundreds of posts
later, we're still on this mess. Left alone, the post would have been
there, been read, and been gone. There was no call for discussion on
it, there was no need for discussion on it; no casting, writing,
directing, etc., announcements have been made by CBS, so there's
really nothing to discuss about the original post. It should have
been a mere footnote, and already forgotten. Instead, due to the
excessive netcopping of some on this group, the thread is still alive
and going. And going, and going . . . like that damn Energizer bunny.
By trying to redirect a post into another group -- to save space on
rac.dcu -- we've now got an inordinate amount of "bandwidth" being
wasted.

And this is not the first time this has happened. This is merely the
one that, for me, apparently for many, broke the camel's back.

Would any of you "regulars" be surprised to know that a number of
rac'ers have privately e-mailed me, thanking me for saying what
they've been wanting to for months? Some of them are lurking,
literally afraid to post anything to rac, wary of joining in the
discussion for fear of going off-topic and getting publicly chastised
for it.

Is that really what you want?

I can understand that some of you have been here for years and years.
I can understand the need for having different groups for different
topics. I can appreciate that several of you were involved in writing
the charter. But that doesn't mean you have any authority or
ownership here. *You* do not own rac. *I* do not own rac. *Elayne*
does not own rac. *Peter* does not own rac. *Elmo* does not own rac.
*None* of us own anything here, and none of us has any right or reason
to intimidate people into being afraid to speak up and say their
peace. That may not be what any of you have intended, but that is
exactly the result that I'm seeing lately.

Again, is that *really* what you want?

(I don't want to complain about the status quo without offering an
alternative; in the future when someone posts something off-topic,
instead of publicly chastising them with a followup on rac, why not
send a private e-mail with a copy of the faq? Those who go off-topic
are usually new posters, and sending a copy of the faq, along with a
polite "thanks for joining in the discussion" type of welcome letter
might be more appropriate.)

Back to Peter's comments. A large part of your message could be
considered *extremely* condescending. I didn't take offense to it,
because I'm sure you had good intentions, but it comes off as though
you're talking down to me. That entire lecture about how Usenet works
was totally unneeded. Just because I've only been on the 'net for six
months or so does not mean that I know nothing about it. I have a
degree in computer programming, and I've been around computers my
entire life. My dad has been in programming for nearly four decades.
Anyone else remember IBM punchcards? Removable mainframe hard drives?
Eight inch floppy disks? Been there, done that. We've had a computer
of some sort in the house for about as long as I can remember. I am
not computer illiterate, I am not internet illiterate. I've only been
"online" for six months because that's about how long we've had a
local ISP. I live in a small (think 8,000 and under) town, and we
just got a local access number last summer. And we were the first
ones in town to sign up. For you -- and others -- to see me mention
being here for six months and ASSume that I don't understand how
things work is extremely presumptuous. For you -- and others -- to
see me questioning the charter (or the regulars, for that matter) and
ASSume that I don't understand it is equally presumptuous. Just
because I disagree with you does not mean that I am a "stupid newbie"
who needs the "old-timers" to come enlighten him. If I don't
understand something, I'll be the first one to ask, "Hey, what's
this?" If I say, "Hey, I don't agree", that does *not* mean I need a
dissertation on the subject.

I'm also not real concerned about how many posts you keep floating
around on your hard drive, Peter. If you *choose* to keep thirty
thousand posts, that's your problem. If you have trouble wading
through the new posts as a result, that again is *your* problem. I
keep my newsreader set to purge after two weeks, but it usually
doesn't get the chance; I delete most messages after I read them,
frequently leaving a group empty when I finish up for the day. I mark
the new headers I'm interested in, delete the others, retrieve the
messages, post replies where I want to, and then go on to the next
group. I'd be amazed if I had more than five thousand posts total --
this is for about twenty groups -- on my hard drive at any time. You
only have as much mess to wade through as you choose to keep active.

And as to your whole argument that the "old fogeys" remember when
there were only 40 or 50 posts, and everybody knew everybody . . .
what can I say but "THINGS CHANGE".

Cole

(-o-)
<*>

"Did I ask too much? More than a lot? You gave me nothing, know it's
all I got."

Alan D. Earhart

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

In article <icicle-2403...@regulus.execpc.com>, ici...@execpc.com
(The Icicle) wrote:

> That was all Jason Fliegel, quoting Chris Coleman. Mr. Fliegel is wrong
> of course. Mr. Coleman's position is superior. Better that you privately
> e-mail everyone in rac heirarchy than harangue one person in public.
> Netcops are the only authority positions that from which you cannot be
> fired or hired. They are not based on merit, acheivement or better
> understanding, only the presumption of same. I susbscribe to the
> hypothesis that most netcops, feeling a lack of personal acheivement, glom
> onto the role here since it gives them some minor feeling of control that
> they lack in their daily lives. They should be pitied as much as reviled.

You're wrong in your generalization. Plain and simple, your position is
inferior.

Oh, I've tossed this out of racdu. I've spoken for the racdu charter since
you don't wish to.

This is stupid. You brand the netcops with your own generalizations and do
that which you accuse them of, a "minor feeling of control" by blasting
them in a public forum. Gee, why not email them privately?

Goodnight...

--
alan
aear...@chemistry.ohio-state.edu
Unofficial Fantastic Four Page at-
<http://members.aol.com/earhartal/comics/ffweb.html>

Jason Fliegel

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

In article <5h74o1$7...@newsboy.isdn.net>,

Chris Coleman <col...@aeneas.net> wrote:
>
>Would any of you "regulars" be surprised to know that a number of
>rac'ers have privately e-mailed me, thanking me for saying what
>they've been wanting to for months? Some of them are lurking,
>literally afraid to post anything to rac, wary of joining in the
>discussion for fear of going off-topic and getting publicly chastised
>for it.
>
>Is that really what you want?

With all due respect, yes, that's what I want. What are you people so
afraid of? Chastisement? I've been chastised before, and life goes on.
Nobody remembers who was on which side of the debate over where to post
the news about Diamond going exclusive with DC, and, more to the point,
nobody gives a damn. Do you really think somebody's going to burn your
house down over where you posted about the JLA TV series?

I'll also point out that if you think "Thanks for the information, but
this would be more appropriate in rac.xyz" is chastisement, you need some
perspective.

>
>(I don't want to complain about the status quo without offering an
>alternative; in the future when someone posts something off-topic,
>instead of publicly chastising them with a followup on rac, why not
>send a private e-mail with a copy of the faq? Those who go off-topic
>are usually new posters, and sending a copy of the faq, along with a
>polite "thanks for joining in the discussion" type of welcome letter
>might be more appropriate.)
>

Several reasons:

1. A public posts tells not only the original poster, but potential
follow-up posters, where they should be posting. If you send me an e-mail
telling me I should have posted my thread about Spiderman to rac.marvel
rather than rac.misc (rather than posting the correction), there's a good
chance someone will follow-up my post in rac.misc. Then you'll have to
e-mail that person, too. In the meantime, someone else will follow-up in
the wrong newsgroup. A public net.copping communicates to all of those
poeple.

2. A public net.copping also communicates to the person who was thinking
of posting about Captain America in rac.misc. If you e-mail me about my
Spiderman post, he's going to send his post to rac.misc. If you publicly
net.cop me, he's going to get the message, too, and take his post to
rac.marvel.

--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
1L, University of Chicago Law School


The Icicle

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

> >(I don't want to complain about the status quo without offering an
> >alternative; in the future when someone posts something off-topic,
> >instead of publicly chastising them with a followup on rac, why not
> >send a private e-mail with a copy of the faq? Those who go off-topic
> >are usually new posters, and sending a copy of the faq, along with a
> >polite "thanks for joining in the discussion" type of welcome letter
> >might be more appropriate.)
> >
>
> Several reasons:
>
> 1. A public posts tells not only the original poster, but potential
> follow-up posters, where they should be posting. If you send me an e-mail
> telling me I should have posted my thread about Spiderman to rac.marvel
> rather than rac.misc (rather than posting the correction), there's a good
> chance someone will follow-up my post in rac.misc. Then you'll have to
> e-mail that person, too. In the meantime, someone else will follow-up in
> the wrong newsgroup. A public net.copping communicates to all of those
> poeple.
>
> 2. A public net.copping also communicates to the person who was thinking
> of posting about Captain America in rac.misc. If you e-mail me about my
> Spiderman post, he's going to send his post to rac.misc. If you publicly
> net.cop me, he's going to get the message, too, and take his post to
> rac.marvel.
>

That was all Jason Fliegel, quoting Chris Coleman. Mr. Fliegel is wrong


of course. Mr. Coleman's position is superior. Better that you privately
e-mail everyone in rac heirarchy than harangue one person in public.
Netcops are the only authority positions that from which you cannot be
fired or hired. They are not based on merit, acheivement or better
understanding, only the presumption of same. I susbscribe to the
hypothesis that most netcops, feeling a lack of personal acheivement, glom
onto the role here since it gives them some minor feeling of control that
they lack in their daily lives. They should be pitied as much as reviled.

Mr. Fliegel's logic is based purely on supposition that net-copping
deters erroneous posts or increases public awareness. No netcop has ever
bothered to test that assumption. A more obvious result of netcopping is
1) Endless META posts and 2) Gang-bangs of hapless posters by multiple
netcops. Half the time, the offending poster retaliates and we get the
very thread we are in now, which must stretch back to Babylonian times.
The absolute best way to netcop is not to participate in the thread. If
no one talks to the offender, the thread will go away. Stray starts will
always exist and the so-called "regulars", have all driven many a thread
off-topic. This group is defined by it's participants as much as it's
charter. Your goal, as a member of this group, should be to particpate
instead of enforcing the charter. The charter can speak for itself.

D.

--
"Look! Up in the sky!"

Keeper of the Comic Archives
http://www.execpc.com/~icicle/main.html
Improving Golden and Silver Age comic collecting through information


Denise L. Voskuil

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

On 25 Mar 1997 03:57:59 GMT, ici...@execpc.com (The Icicle) wrote:

> That was all Jason Fliegel, quoting Chris Coleman. Mr. Fliegel is wrong
>of course. Mr. Coleman's position is superior. Better that you privately
>e-mail everyone in rac heirarchy than harangue one person in public.

Truly just curious, do you consider your post 'haranguing in public'?
I'm a little confused here, as you're basically 'netcopping' his
'netcopping' style.

[snip]


> Mr. Fliegel's logic is based purely on supposition that net-copping
>deters erroneous posts or increases public awareness. No netcop has ever
>bothered to test that assumption.

When I privately, politely E-mailed for-sale posters to chi.general
and alt.travel.road-trip when those groups were more likely to have
private redirections (among other groups), I got complaints of "but
everyone else is doing it; why are you picking on me?" I had to try
to politely respond that I _was_ E-mailing other people, and they
couldn't tell because, well, it was by _E-mail_. Is this good enough?

>A more obvious result of netcopping is
>1) Endless META posts and 2) Gang-bangs of hapless posters by multiple
>netcops. Half the time, the offending poster retaliates and we get the
>very thread we are in now, which must stretch back to Babylonian times.

And private E-mail doesn't allow anyone to see if a redirection has
already been made - I have seen angry posts by people being redirected
via E-mail, asking people to stop "mailbombing" them with the right
place to go. Polite, friendly pointers to the FAQ and the right group
(of the "hi new poster, welcome to rac.*, here's a great place for you
to post this! :) " type) still seem to me to be the best.

- Denise

--
Denise Voskuil - dvoskuil AT mcs.com; http://www.mcs.net/~dvoskuil/
**Remove the "NO_ADS" in my E-mail address to reply**
"In literature as in love, we are astonished at what is
chosen by others." - Andre' Maurois

Tom Galloway

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

In article <icicle-2403...@regulus.execpc.com> ici...@execpc.com (The Icicle) writes:
> Netcops are the only authority positions that from which you cannot be
>fired or hired. They are not based on merit, acheivement or better
>understanding, only the presumption of same.

Lessee...how many ways is this wrong?

Since net.copping is done individually by volunteers, of course one can't be
hired or fired. However, if one does a bad job of it (for spectacular
examples of such, see the various Kook Kabal posts in the news. hierarchy
such as the ones by Steve "Speedbump" Boursy and Ricardo Gonzales), one
gets one's net.copping net.copped.

And thus, to be a successful net.cop, one must make net.cop posts which
have merit, based on the achievement of understanding how Usenet and rac
work, and are very definitely based on better understanding.

And, of course, there's the old saw about proclaiming net.cops to be
authority figures when it fits an argument, but denying they have any
authority when it fits that other argument.

>I susbscribe to the hypothesis that most netcops, feeling a lack of
>personal acheivement, glom onto the role here since it gives them some minor
>feeling of control that they lack in their daily lives. They should be
>pitied as much as reviled.

Odd, most of the net.cops hereabouts that are known to me personally have
oodles of personal achievement. I certainly do. Personally, I rather pity
someone who comes to such a conclusion as above without any evidence that
they have any knowledge of the personal lives of the people they attempt to
slander. Do name some specific examples of this...and while we're at it,
could this be envy due to being at the UW-Milwaukee med school, which a
friend of mine turned down this year when she got another offer? Couldn't
you do any better? Or is this an example of lack of achievement in your own
daily life which causes you to personally attack people who are trying
to make Usenet and rac a better place?

Not to mention that net.copping is both a volunteer task (as I noted,
you've switched to using net.cops as authority figure here) and a generally
thankless and frustrating one, hardly a task someone seeking control
would go after.

> Mr. Fliegel's logic is based purely on supposition that net-copping
>deters erroneous posts or increases public awareness. No netcop has ever
>bothered to test that assumption.

Bullshit. I've been on Usenet since almost day one. I've seen what happens
to groups without net.copping. The assumption has been tested many times.
Heck, just take a look at the last six months of news.groups and note the
number of discussion groups which have been going moderated...the next
step after net.copping doesn't work.

>A more obvious result of netcopping is 1) Endless META posts

Due to idiots like yourself who aren't content with people trying to keep
up the neighborhood, but have to post attacks on net.cops, hierarchy rules,
and how Usenet works without any knowledge of same.

>2) Gang-bangs of hapless posters by multiple netcops.

Can we load the word choice just a *bit* more here? If the poor poster
would bother to learn about the rules and why they are how they are
instead of trying to post back, things'd be much quieter and saner.

> The absolute best way to netcop is not to participate in the thread. If
>no one talks to the offender, the thread will go away.

Right. Yeah. Boy, that really stops casting calls. That really helped make
rac.xbooks a coherent group until the recent reclaimation. Uh huh. Yep,
you really know what you're talking about here.

>off-topic. This group is defined by it's participants as much as it's
>charter. Your goal, as a member of this group, should be to particpate
>instead of enforcing the charter. The charter can speak for itself.

But it doesn't. Used to be one could count of people coming on to Usenet
either getting basic info before they started, or being told by their
sysadmin or other sources at their site to get said info. In these days
of "consumer Usenet" instead of "volunteer Usenet" or "cooperative
Usenet", it's not what you can give to Usenet, but rather what people
are taking. Whether you like it or not, people who have the experience
to see what has and is happening to Usenet are trying to explain to
newbies things which they need to know in order for Usenet to function.

>Improving Golden and Silver Age comic collecting through information

And Fighting To Hurt rac though misinformation and discouraging posting
of information.

tyg t...@netcom.com

Tom Galloway

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

In article <5h74o1$7...@newsboy.isdn.net> col...@aeneas.net (Chris Coleman) writes:
>Now, we could debate all day whether or not this post was "on topic" for
>rac.dcu, or whether it should have gone to rac.om.

Debate all you like, but by the group charters it belongs in rac.o-m only
based on its content (save for a crosspost to rac.info).

>Personally, I'd say at least the initial announcement belonged in both;

And that's why we have charters. Personally, I might even agree with you.
However, whether I personally like it or not, rac.other-media was created
with a charter saying that all adaptations of characters which started
in comics done in media other than comics are to be discussed there and
only there. Thus, my personal opinion doesn't matter.

>can something not be on topic in two groups?

Easily. For example, the post would've been on topic in rac.other-media,
rac.info, and rec.arts.tv, just off the top of my head. And just this
evening I crossposted something to rac.o-m, rac.info, and
rac.marvel.universe. Because while it was a mainly a other-media bit of
news, this particular one potentially has an impact on the comics, something
I specifically mention in the post. Set the followups to other-media though.

However, with the exception of rac.info, posts which deal exclusively
with something under the charter of one rac group are not to be crossposted
to another. So, for example, Marvel v. DC is perfectly suitable for
crossposting between rac.marvel.universe and rac.dc.universe (and
possibly even xbooks and lsh as well if characters from there are in it).
But JLA in a tv series info is only under the other-media charter.

>And if it can't, isn't it at least possible that others out there in rac'land
>who read JLA might be at least slightly interested in the tv series?

Yes. I'm also interested in how the UNC Tar Heels do in the Final Four.
And what the state of various political upheavals in the US Chess
Federation are. And a whole lot of other things. I go to the appropriate
groups to read about and discuss them.

>And then the post got netcopped. Several weeks and hundreds of posts
>later, we're still on this mess. Left alone, the post would have been
>there, been read, and been gone.

Excuse me? I seem to recall a fair number of non-net.cop related followups
which went into the inevitable casting discussion which rac.veterans *know*
will follow such.

>Instead, due to the excessive netcopping of some on this group, the thread
>is still alive and going. And going, and going . . . like that damn
>Energizer bunny.

Excuse me again. Had people not felt compelled to show that they don't
know the rules and aren't interested in learning and/or following them,
the thread would've ended with the initial net.copping. It's the fault
of those who are not aware of or following the rules that these threads
become interminable.

>And this is not the first time this has happened. This is merely the
>one that, for me, apparently for many, broke the camel's back.

Too bad. My camel's back was broken many months ago by people who keep
refusing to understand how and why Usenet and rac work and keep doing
their best, intentional or not, to make the place much less useful and
interesting.

>Would any of you "regulars" be surprised to know that a number of
>rac'ers have privately e-mailed me, thanking me for saying what
>they've been wanting to for months? Some of them are lurking,
>literally afraid to post anything to rac, wary of joining in the
>discussion for fear of going off-topic and getting publicly chastised
>for it.
>Is that really what you want?

Yes.

Believe it or not, for years it's been standard advice that you not post
to Usenet until you have some understanding of what's going on, that you
not post to a group until you read enough of it to get an understanding
of how it works and its "feel", and until you've read its FAQ to
know what topics have been hashed to death already and had answers
provided. I consider this a very good thing for Usenet posters to consist
of people who understand the cooperative nature of the system and aren't
helping, deliberately or not, to destroy it.

The rules for what's on-topic where are regularly and clearly posted.
If you don't understand them, email the person posting them and ask
questions. I will be shocked if anyone in rac doing such is not willing
to take the time to answer the questions in a reasonably courteous
manner (assuming a reasonably courteous query).

>the charter. But that doesn't mean you have any authority or
>ownership here. *You* do not own rac. *I* do not own rac. *Elayne*
>does not own rac. *Peter* does not own rac. *Elmo* does not own rac.
>*None* of us own anything here, and none of us has any right or reason
>to intimidate people into being afraid to speak up and say their
>peace. That may not be what any of you have intended, but that is
>exactly the result that I'm seeing lately.
>
>Again, is that *really* what you want?

Once again, yes. And, dammit, I do own rac. I and everyone who helped
make this place somewhere that people want to read and participate in
own this cooperative enterprise. And, for some reason, we get just
a bit testy when people who *do* *not* *understand* *how* *this*
*works* demand that things be immediately changed to suit them, even
if our actual experience over the years shows that these changes will
destroy what makes this place worthwhile.

Believe it or not, Usenet is remarkably fragile. While I disagree that
Usenet has ever actually been an anarchy (if anything, it's becoming
more of one), the statement used to be made that "Usenet is the world's
largest functioning anarchy". But, as Larry Niven pointed out in a story,
anarchy is not a particularly stabile structure. It, or in the case of
Usenet, a cooperative, last as long as people both understand how it
works and are willing to put the maintenence of the cooperative/anarchy
ahead of their own short term personal gain.

Usenet is not something that is obvious in how it works. At this point,
I'd say it's a minimum of six months of being involved in it and
fairly actively trying to understand it before I'm willing to consider
that someone understands it well enough to possibly propose sensible
changes other than by blind luck.

>(I don't want to complain about the status quo without offering an
>alternative; in the future when someone posts something off-topic,
>instead of publicly chastising them with a followup on rac, why not
>send a private e-mail with a copy of the faq?

Sigh. Do you really think you're even anywhere near the first person
to suggest this? Even in the first hundred or more on rac alone?
See Jason's response to this post about why public net.copping is done.

>That entire lecture about how Usenet works was totally unneeded. Just
>because I've only been on the 'net for six months or so does not mean
>that I know nothing about it.

Yes it was needed (as was my lecture above). And yes, it does mean you
know nothing about Usenet. See below.

>I have a degree in computer programming, and I've been around computers my
>entire life.

So? I know well respected Ph.D.s in computer science who don't know
anywhere near as much about Usenet and how it works in either the technical
or social sense as some middle school students (and, btw, this even dates
back to the beginning of Usenet when a 16 year old was one of the most
popular and respected posters...because she wrote well and understood
how things worked).

>Anyone else remember IBM punchcards? Removable mainframe hard drives?
>Eight inch floppy disks? Been there, done that.

Yep, I remember. And I had Fred (Mythical Man-Month) Brooks for Software
Engineering back when Usenet was first started. None of this has any
correlation to knowledge about Usenet though.

>I am not computer illiterate, I am not internet illiterate. I've only been
>"online" for six months because that's about how long we've had a local ISP.

But you are Usenet illiterate. I have a Master's and extensive other
graduate work in CS, and there are areas of CS I'm "illiterate" in because
I've not worked with them. Saying that you are ignorant about Usenet and
how it works does not mean that you're stupid. It means you lack knowledge
about a particular area/field/entity. As an example, the late Isaac Asimov
was considered to be extremely smart and knowledgable about a broad range
of topics. He was ignorant of Usenet, and I suspect would be even if he
were alive today.

>For you -- and others -- to see me mention being here for six months and
>ASSume that I don't understand how things work is extremely presumptuous.

But accurate. Particularly when your posts show that you don't understand
how things work (see your suggestions above).

And I'll "assume" that your use of "ASSume" was meant to invoke the to
me idiotic bit of "saying 'assume' makes an ass of you to me". Sorry,
but my own research and others show that making assumptions is a necessary
part of cognitive information processing. It's when you hang on to
assumptions when they are invalid, or make bad ones based on information
when it's a problem. In this case, the assumption that someone doesn't
know how the net works if they've been on for six months is usually correct.
Given that your proposals are ones that people who know how the net works
know are ignorant, it's quite correct to assume that you don't understand
how things work.

>For you -- and others -- to see me questioning the charter (or the
>regulars, for that matter) and ASSume that I don't understand it is equally
>presumptuous. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I am a
>"stupid newbie" who needs the "old-timers" to come enlighten him.

Sigh. "Questioning" the charter is a waste of time. If you don't like it,
either do something to try to effect change or be quiet. Just complaining
about it does no good. And keep in mind that once again, you're hardly
the first to do so. Around the first thousand, one gets a bit tired of it.

And disagreeing isn't a crime. But when the points you bring up have
been previously hashed out over and over, and it's clear from your bringing
them up that you *don't* understand how things work or you wouldn't have
brought them up, it's like saying "I've been in this physics class for
a whole semester now, and clearly it's all wrong" to someone with a
Ph.D. in physics.

tyg t...@netcom.com


John Rear Admiral McKeon

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 02:10:39 GMT, jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason
Fliegel) wrote:

>
>With all due respect, yes, that's what I want. What are you people so
>afraid of? Chastisement? I've been chastised before, and life goes on.
>Nobody remembers who was on which side of the debate over where to post
>the news about Diamond going exclusive with DC, and, more to the point,
>nobody gives a damn. Do you really think somebody's going to burn your
>house down over where you posted about the JLA TV series?
>
>I'll also point out that if you think "Thanks for the information, but
>this would be more appropriate in rac.xyz" is chastisement, you need some
>perspective.
>

That would be fine if that was all it was, but a lot of times the
"chastisement" gets CC'd to the user's postmaster, even on the first
offense. Is talking about Captain American in RAC.misc such a crime
against humanity that the user's account should be yanked?

David W. Stepp

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

<tygE7L...@netcom.com>, t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:

> In article <icicle-2403...@regulus.execpc.com>
ici...@execpc.com (The Icicle) writes:

> And thus, to be a successful net.cop, one must make net.cop posts which
> have merit, based on the achievement of understanding how Usenet and rac
> work, and are very definitely based on better understanding.
>

You, nor anyone else, have ever made in effort to weed out the good
from the bad. Furthermore, how much "bad" netcopping is tolerated? How
many people do you think represent an acceptable loss so that you can have
the pleasure of saying there are not casting calls on rac.du? I hope it;s
not many because despite the fact that you have been whining about the
importance of this for years, there are *still* casting calls in rac.du.
All netcops have managed to do is scare off a handful who probably were
just mistaken.

> And, of course, there's the old saw about proclaiming net.cops to be
> authority figures when it fits an argument, but denying they have any
> authority when it fits that other argument.

That old saw, which you distort, is that netcops presume they have
authority, present themselves to the unknowning as though they had
authority, when in fact, they have none. It is the presumption of
authority that most of us objecting to this find offensive. None of us
have illusions that they might actually be important.

(personal stuff deleted. FYI, I don't work at UW-MKE. There is no UW med
School is MKE. Try harder)

> Not to mention that net.copping is both a volunteer task (as I noted,
> you've switched to using net.cops as authority figure here) and a generally
> thankless and frustrating one, hardly a task someone seeking control
> would go after.

You don't know much about power. To netcop is to grant one, at least
momentarily, the illusion of authority. Most people who crave power find
it justifies itself anf since most people are fairly ignorant of the
Internet, finding sheep to cow usually isn't that difficult. Lest you
stoop to personal attacks again, I will point out that when I bother to be
contrary, it's not on unsuspecting newbies.



> Bullshit. I've been on Usenet since almost day one. I've seen what happens
> to groups without net.copping. The assumption has been tested many times.
> Heck, just take a look at the last six months of news.groups and note the
> number of discussion groups which have been going moderated...the next
> step after net.copping doesn't work.
>

I have no objection to moderation. I have no real objection to
designated netcops. I have a real objection to forms of newsgroup
direction that we agree on. If we "elect" netcops, if "volunteers" want to
do it legitmately, I have no objection. If we decide, as a group, what
kind of thread ("casting calls", "Who'd win", "For Sale") merits
netcopping and who shall do it, then it seems to me a fair compromise. But
I (who have been here 7 years in various forms) see as much redirection of
posts that people find interesting as not. For Sale posts have gone down
since Elmo started posting the FAQ to racmp. Most bad things go away
without offending people.

> >A more obvious result of netcopping is 1) Endless META posts
>
> Due to idiots like yourself who aren't content with people trying to keep
> up the neighborhood, but have to post attacks on net.cops, hierarchy rules,
> and how Usenet works without any knowledge of same.
>

While I dispare motives, Mr. Galloway, I never stoop to name-calling or
personal attacks. Try to live up to my standard. You must also realize
that while your presence at Usenet infancy gives you an understanding of
it's early days, questioning the validity of out-of-date charters and
authority figures is the cornerstone of democratic society.

> Can we load the word choice just a *bit* more here? If the poor poster
> would bother to learn about the rules and why they are how they are
> instead of trying to post back, things'd be much quieter and saner.
>

Yes and people could choose not to smoke which absolves tobacco
companies of smoking deaths. Most people now come from Internet providers
that dsitribute misinformation about Usenet. They post with questions in
ignorance of your rules. Most would conform to the mean if they aren't
smacked on day one. You can argue til you're blue in the face about
whether it's a few or a lot of just one, but I would argue equally long
that one is too much.

> > The absolute best way to netcop is not to participate in the thread. If
> >no one talks to the offender, the thread will go away.
>
> Right. Yeah. Boy, that really stops casting calls. That really helped make
> rac.xbooks a coherent group until the recent reclaimation. Uh huh. Yep,
> you really know what you're talking about here.
>

We still have casting calls. We have no observable drop in FS posts
(which I have always argued were minor). We still talk about politics,
economics, homosexuality and religion outside the confines of comics. Cops
need laws to enforce. Netcops need netlaws to enforce. The charter is more
vague than the Articles of Confedration. That's OK as well but it's
impossible to enforce beyond the most obvious of infractions, which are
usually few and resistant to your netcopping anyway.

> But it doesn't. Used to be one could count of people coming on to Usenet
> either getting basic info before they started, or being told by their
> sysadmin or other sources at their site to get said info. In these days
> of "consumer Usenet" instead of "volunteer Usenet" or "cooperative
> Usenet", it's not what you can give to Usenet, but rather what people
> are taking. Whether you like it or not, people who have the experience
> to see what has and is happening to Usenet are trying to explain to
> newbies things which they need to know in order for Usenet to function.
>

If that is your goal, you've failed. Take heart, it wasn't that great a
goal. Your goal should be to faciliate reorgs, quietly redirect if need
be, post more interesting things to argue about than casting calls to
provide competeing entertainment and abandon your idea public flogging
will improve cooperation. Usenet is here to use. That's why it has the
name. If you really wanted to be a public servant, you would help peple
get the info they need without enforcing your view that the way Usenet has
been is the way it will stay. This is an evolving community and whether
you like it or not, we might just decide we don't like your rules.

D.

Bryant Durrell

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

In article <33374f67...@news.mcs.net>,

Denise L. Voskuil <dvoskuil@mcs._NO-ADS_.com> wrote:
>And private E-mail doesn't allow anyone to see if a redirection has
>already been made - I have seen angry posts by people being redirected
>via E-mail, asking people to stop "mailbombing" them with the right
>place to go. Polite, friendly pointers to the FAQ and the right group
>(of the "hi new poster, welcome to rac.*, here's a great place for you
>to post this! :) " type) still seem to me to be the best.

How would people feel about an automailer that sends a brief welcome
message (something like Elmo's How To..., perhaps even that very FAQ)
to every first-time poster on rac.dc.u? There's one of these in place
on a couple of the WWW groups, and reports are that it works rather
well. Check out http://www.boutell.com/boutell/usenet2.html for a more
detailed explanation of what I'm thinking about.

This has the advantage of making the rules clear to everyone reading
the group; one of the valid anti-netcop complaints I've seen is that
it's hard for a new user to know what's appropriate. While they
should, yes, read the FAQ, there are a lot of ways to start reading
Usenet without being informed of what a FAQ is. Like it or not, I
think it's more appropriate to deal with the situation politely than to
bitch at people who didn't have any way of knowing they were making a
mistake.

--
Bryant Durrell (sysadmin, cynic, coyote) | "well, it seems doable so we should
dur...@innocence.com / dur...@bofh.net | do it. if we can't then we should
http://www.innocence.com/~durrell | get no biscuits." -- t...@meer.net

Denise L. Voskuil

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

In article <5h93dt$q...@shellx.best.com>, dur...@best.com says...

>In article <33374f67...@news.mcs.net>,
>Denise L. Voskuil <dvoskuil@mcs._NO-ADS_.com> wrote:
>>Polite, friendly pointers to the FAQ and the right group
>>(of the "hi new poster, welcome to rac.*, here's a great place for you
>>to post this! :) " type) still seem to me to be the best.

>How would people feel about an automailer that sends a brief welcome
>message (something like Elmo's How To..., perhaps even that very FAQ)
>to every first-time poster on rac.dc.u? There's one of these in place
>on a couple of the WWW groups, and reports are that it works rather
>well. Check out http://www.boutell.com/boutell/usenet2.html for a more
>detailed explanation of what I'm thinking about.

Not a bad idea, but people posting to Usenet from multiple addresses (like me
in this very thread, for example) would get one each time they posted with a
new address. Also, people who posted with addresses that are wrong - mangled
to avoid spam for instance (again, like me) - would not receive the pointer
without some human intervention. It still might be worth discussion.

- Denise

--
Denise L. Voskuil - dvoskuil@: uic.edu/mcs.com/eden.com
**Please remove the _delete_ in my address to reply via E-mail;
I'm sick of spammers grabbing my address off of Usenet.**
I'm too low in the hierarchy here to officially even
*have* an opinion.


Tom Galloway

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

In article <5h9dbf$j...@piglet.cc.uic.edu> dvoskuil@_delete_uic.edu (Denise L. Voskuil) writes:
>In article <5h93dt$q...@shellx.best.com>, dur...@best.com says...
>>How would people feel about an automailer that sends a brief welcome
>>message (something like Elmo's How To..., perhaps even that very FAQ)

Kurt Busiek also suggested this to me about a month back. I did toss out
the idea on IRC when a fair number of experienced/responsible posters
were about, and people there generally weren't thrilled with it, and
worried that it might be considered spam mail. Personally, I like the
idea (and seem to recall it used to be done on the Babylon 5 group
pre-moderation), but I'd 1) like to see something of a group consensus
that it's a good thing and 2) see some volunteers willing and able to
host the bot [I won't have time to even consider doing so for several
months].

>Not a bad idea, but people posting to Usenet from multiple addresses (like me
>in this very thread, for example) would get one each time they posted with a
>new address. Also, people who posted with addresses that are wrong - mangled
>to avoid spam for instance (again, like me) - would not receive the pointer
>without some human intervention. It still might be worth discussion.

In terms of the altered addresses, at least so far it's the more experienced
folk who are (or even have the ability and knowledge to do so) changing
their addresses, so at the moment this wouldn't impact too many Usenet
newbies as opposed to possible rac newbies who are experienced elsewhere
on Usenet. For the multiple addresses, I think that'd fall under a small
problem that's worth dealing with. I would hope that the bot could be
programmed with a cache of addresses gotten from Dejanews or somesuch
so that it's first act wouldn't be to send a message to all recent posters,
regardless of their experience level.

tyg t...@netcom.com

Kate the Short

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

In article <tygE7M...@netcom.com>, Tom Galloway <t...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <5h93dt$q...@shellx.best.com>, dur...@best.com says...
>>>
>>>How would people feel about an automailer that sends a brief welcome
>>>message (something like Elmo's How To..., perhaps even that very FAQ)
>
>In terms of the altered addresses, at least so far it's the more experienced
>folk who are (or even have the ability and knowledge to do so) changing
>their addresses, so at the moment this wouldn't impact too many Usenet
>newbies as opposed to possible rac newbies who are experienced elsewhere
>on Usenet. For the multiple addresses, I think that'd fall under a small
>problem that's worth dealing with. I would hope that the bot could be
>programmed with a cache of addresses gotten from Dejanews or somesuch
>so that it's first act wouldn't be to send a message to all recent posters,
>regardless of their experience level.

And this would be bad because...?

Let's be serious here. It's one piece of email, the posters would likely
expect it, and some of us could use the reminder anyways. :)


kate.

VOTE on the proposed rec.arts.comics.reviews newsgroup by MARCH 26, 1997
Subscribe to news:news.announce.newgroups , news:rec.arts.comics.info
or email mailto:bost...@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu and request a copy!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kate the Short -(ka...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu)- at the U. of Chicago
Read FAQs at: http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/keweizel/faq.html


Todd VerBeek, gwm

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

follow-ups to rec.arts.comics.misc, please

>jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel) wrote:
>>I'll also point out that if you think "Thanks for the information, but
>>this would be more appropriate in rac.xyz" is chastisement, you need some
>>perspective.

My pal jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) said:
>That would be fine if that was all it was, but a lot of times the
>"chastisement" gets CC'd to the user's postmaster, even on the first
>offense.

Could you quantify this a little better? One or two examples would be
helpful to start with. Frankly, I'm skeptical that this happens =at all=
(except in cases where someone is chronically abusing the system), let alone
"a lot of times".

Cheers, Todd
------
For up-to-date info about my love Andy's recovery from
his brain aneurysm, see http://verbeekt.cit.hope.edu/Andy/

umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

The Icicle writes:

> Netcops are the only authority positions that from which you cannot be
>fired or hired. They are not based on merit, acheivement or better

>understanding, only the presumption of same. I susbscribe to the


>hypothesis that most netcops, feeling a lack of personal acheivement, glom
>onto the role here since it gives them some minor feeling of control that
>they lack in their daily lives. They should be pitied as much as reviled.

Ummmmm.... yeah..... And you say *netcops* insult people?

> Mr. Fliegel's logic is based purely on supposition that net-copping
>deters erroneous posts or increases public awareness. No netcop has ever

>bothered to test that assumption. A more obvious result of netcopping is


>1) Endless META posts and 2) Gang-bangs of hapless posters by multiple
>netcops. Half the time, the offending poster retaliates and we get the
>very thread we are in now, which must stretch back to Babylonian times.

This most often happens when the net.cops are especially vicious and
abusive. Believe me, I can show you exactly what I mean on
Rec.sport.pro-wrestling, where one guy goes ape-shit on anyone who asks
for PPV results.

The point is, net.cops should be polite, and ask the people to take it
elsewhere. If they are *not* polite, then they cease to be net.cops, and
start being as annoying as the original poster.

Iain


--
University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

David W. Stepp writes:

> <tygE7L...@netcom.com>, t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:

> That old saw, which you distort, is that netcops presume they have
>authority, present themselves to the unknowning as though they had
>authority, when in fact, they have none. It is the presumption of
>authority that most of us objecting to this find offensive. None of us
>have illusions that they might actually be important.

The presumption is that the charter should be followed. And it's easier
to say so, than wait for people to 'discover' it on their own.

>You don't know much about power. To netcop is to grant one, at least
>momentarily, the illusion of authority. Most people who crave power find
>it justifies itself anf since most people are fairly ignorant of the
>Internet, finding sheep to cow usually isn't that difficult. Lest you
>stoop to personal attacks again, I will point out that when I bother to be
>contrary, it's not on unsuspecting newbies.

Most net.copping isn't done as a powertrip, and much of it is done
against people who purposely abuse the system for their own jollies.

>do it legitmately, I have no objection. If we decide, as a group, what
>kind of thread ("casting calls", "Who'd win", "For Sale") merits
>netcopping and who shall do it, then it seems to me a fair compromise. But
>I (who have been here 7 years in various forms) see as much redirection of
>posts that people find interesting as not. For Sale posts have gone down
>since Elmo started posting the FAQ to racmp. Most bad things go away
>without offending people.

It was decided, as a group, what kind of thread were allowed on the group
when the charter was enabled. After that, it's expected that everyone
more-or-less keeps an eye on what's happening, to make sure the charter
is followed.

> While I dispare motives, Mr. Galloway, I never stoop to name-calling or
>personal attacks. Try to live up to my standard.

That is quite possible the biggest load of bull that's piled up in this
discussion. You intentionally say that all net.coppers are pathetic
power-mongerers, and then complain about *you* being insulted? It's okay
when it's directed at a *group* of people, but not at an individual.
*Who's* standards should we live up to?

>You must also realize
>that while your presence at Usenet infancy gives you an understanding of
>it's early days, questioning the validity of out-of-date charters and
>authority figures is the cornerstone of democratic society.

And then you call Galloway out-of-date. *Very* classy. I must be
horribly uninformed as to what constitutes an insult these days.

> If that is your goal, you've failed. Take heart, it wasn't that great a
>goal. Your goal should be to faciliate reorgs, quietly redirect if need
>be, post more interesting things to argue about than casting calls to
>provide competeing entertainment and abandon your idea public flogging
>will improve cooperation. Usenet is here to use. That's why it has the
>name. If you really wanted to be a public servant, you would help peple
>get the info they need without enforcing your view that the way Usenet has
>been is the way it will stay. This is an evolving community and whether
>you like it or not, we might just decide we don't like your rules.

But what you've been telling him throughout is that he *can't* inform
people what can be done on the group, which is what about net.copping is
*about*!

And if you don't like the rules, try to change them. Don't insult the
people who live with them as they exist.

umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

John "Rear Admiral" McKeon writes:

>On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 02:10:39 GMT, jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason
>Fliegel) wrote:

>>I'll also point out that if you think "Thanks for the information, but
>>this would be more appropriate in rac.xyz" is chastisement, you need some
>>perspective.

>That would be fine if that was all it was, but a lot of times the


>"chastisement" gets CC'd to the user's postmaster, even on the first

>offense. Is talking about Captain American in RAC.misc such a crime
>against humanity that the user's account should be yanked?

Ummmm... no, that's overkill. OTOH, I haven't seen that very often (OK,
ever before). As such, you're using extreme examples to invalidate the
entire concept of net.copping. By the same theory, I could use
environmentalists bombing printing presses to invalidate the
environmental movement.

David W. Stepp

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

In article <ummacnai.859329605@castor>, umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca () wrote:
>
> Ummmmm.... yeah..... And you say *netcops* insult people?
>
No, I said netcops offend the unknowing. If they picked on regular
users, it would be less of a problem. Lots of the people (like the guy you
allude to in the wrestling group) get off on hassling people that don't
know any better. They're an easy mark. Since there is no way to eliminate
good netcops from the bad, and I who have been here for the last several
years don't see that great an improvement from public netcopping, I have
long advocated that public netcopping be abolished. Private netcopping
could also be done equally badly but would be difficult to prove. Most
people would resist getting abusive in e-mail since it would be closer to
a realm of personal harassment so I imagine it would occur less. I don't
object to the idea of netcops so much as I object to idea of vigilante
netcops.

Carl Fink

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

In article <dstepp-2503...@d558-1.phys.mcw.edu>,

dst...@post.its.mcw.edu (David W. Stepp) wrote:

> You, nor anyone else, have ever made in effort to weed out the good
>from the bad.

Nonsense. Pay attention.

> That old saw, which you distort, is that netcops presume they have
>authority, present themselves to the unknowning as though they had
>authority, when in fact, they have none.

This is nonsense, though. It requires, again, that you not pay
attention, since real netcopping has never in my experience said any
such thing.

> While I dispare motives, Mr. Galloway, I never stoop to name-calling or
>personal attacks.

No, you disguise them. Did you really think that making completely
imaginary assumptions about "netcops" as a group wouldn't offend us as
indviduals?

>Try to live up to my standard.

No, I think Tom and I will continue to be direct in our disdain for
you. It's more honest than your "insult them but hide behind this
screen" method.

Again, oh Payer of No Attention: if you don't like the charters,
change them. Don't whine about them.
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com
". . . my purpose is not to examine all the possibilities. My purpose is to
create strife and controversy for no reason." Dave Barry

Tom Vincent

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

In article <33394c3c...@198.110.98.23>, ver...@hope.edu (Todd
VerBeek, gwm) wrote:

>follow-ups to rec.arts.comics.misc, please


>
>>jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel) wrote:
>>>I'll also point out that if you think "Thanks for the information, but
>>>this would be more appropriate in rac.xyz" is chastisement, you need some
>>>perspective.
>

>My pal jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) said:

>>That would be fine if that was all it was, but a lot of times the
>>"chastisement" gets CC'd to the user's postmaster, even on the first
>>offense.

Our friend Todd's pertinent comments have been snipped as I wanted to
address the above comments, not his. I left his atribution simply because I
really like the way he does those "my pal" things in his attribs., and I'm
not the sort to take credit for the work that others do.

Anyway...
About a year ago, I got netcopped via email for responding to a spam post.
I did it as an honest mistake- someone had plastered those "I'll airbrush
anything on anything" posts everywhere, which prompted a followup
discussion about whether this person had the right to do these "airbrushed
masterpieces".

Being one with a pretty reasonable understanding of copyright laws as they
pretain to artwork and comics, and the subsequent screwing of creators via
arcane Work For hire provisions, I chimed in with my own $0.02, prompting
an almost instantaneous form letter netcop warning.

I did not take the lest offense at this, as I was unaware this thing had
been spammed all over the four color world of the net. Indeed, I was
grateful for the letter, and promptly replied with an apology AND thank you
to said nc for showing me the error of my ways in such a discreet fashion
so that I might avoid further embarrasing myself.

By the time I got spammed with the fourth or fifth form letter admonishing
me for answering spam, my patience was wearing a bit thin.

No answers here, no solutions... just a mildly amusing anecdote.

---TV

--
"I should tell you, that I have worked in Washington for over 25 years and
have never been shaken down by anyone before like Dan Burton's threats. No
one has ever dared to threaten me into contributing money, and no one has
ever followed through on such threats by contacting one of my clients."

Mark Siegel, formerly a lobbyist for the government of Pakistan on Rep. Dan
Burtons attempts to coerce him into raising money for Burton's reelection.
[Washington Post, 3/19/97] Republican Burton is currently leading the
charge against aleged fudraising "shakedowns" by the White House.

David W. Stepp

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

In article <ummacnai.859330501@castor>, umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca () wrote:

(A lot)

You miss several points. I don't consider it an insult to practice
negative characterization of net-cops. I think it's an accurate depiction
of the majority of them. It's an attempt to get attention. RAC.marketplace
never has much need for net-copping. We venture off topic at time by the
strict definition of the charter but no one ever complains. Netcops, I
conclude, are not required for cohesive group function. Lest you think we
all read the charter and act accordingly, we haven't posted our FAQ
formally in eons. People who don't follow the rules are ignored and they
go away. The same would work here.
Furthermore, there is a serious double-standard among the netcops.
Elayne clogs up Usenet with personal drivel and no one dares say a word.
Someone posts a question asking about the industry or some other
generalized topics and she is the first to netcop. The only person I would
consider supporting as official netcop is Elmo because he keeps track of
the rule to some extent and rarely comes unglued (though not unheard of).
I don't per se think netcops are a bad idea but the continued existence of
this thread argues that it is a continual problem.
Regarding Tyg, I have never cast asperstions as Tyg's personal life. I
don't even know, or care, what his occupation is. To my knowledge, he
rarely netcops, though he supports it. I do think his assertion that he
"owns Usenet" based on his years of occupation of it makes him difficult
to take seriously. Likewise, the fact that many people consider things
that are posted here fair game while others object because it off-charter
indicates by definition, that adhereing to the absolutes of the original
document is an out-dated position. Even the Constitution is subject to
revision based on the will of the citizens at the time. I don't object to
questioning the validty or rigidity of the charter. I don't really object
to adhering to blindly if that is your whim. I object when individuals,
even if they authored the original document, impose a rigid view of it on
others. If you take that as insult, consider yourself insulted.

D.

Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

Cole, losing his grip, wrote (to someone else):

> You have no involvement in this part of the discussion, so
> you should butt out and mind your own damn business.

Whatever the merits of Cole's previous remarks (I've not been
following this thread), this particular line is ridiculous. If you
don't want people to butt in, then take it out of the newsgroup and
into email or somesuch.

(And, FWIW, "damn" is a =verb=; the adjective that Cole wants is
"damned".)

It's always Dark. Light only hides the Darkness.

Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan (619) 535 - 0546
atha...@UCSD.edu 132.239.147.2 <75013,676>
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dmckiern
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Mc_Kiernan


Ken Arromdee

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca () wrote:
>The presumption is that the charter should be followed.

This is untrue. For instance, pointers and topic drift are not allowed by
the charter, yet don't get netcopped.

Yes, I know that these are deliberately not netcopped because they are
unintrusive and serve a useful purpose despite being barred by the charter,
but hey, that's my _point_.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@randomc.com, karr...@nyx.nyx.net,
http://www.randomc.com/~arromdee)

"2000 members of the vegetable kingdom and I have to work with _tomatoes_!"

Denise L. Voskuil

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:34:01 GMT, col...@aeneas.net (Chris Coleman)
wrote:

>A lot of condescending shit that I've snipped. Tom, I'm not going to
>even bother trying to write an intelligent response to all of your
>mess for two simple reasons:

[snip]
> 2) I wasn't talking to
>you, anyhow. My post was in *specific* response to a previous post by
>Peter Williams. Why did you feel the need to pre-empt Peter's
>responses? You have no involvement in this part of the discussion, so


>you should butt out and mind your own damn business.

Excuse me, but you're having a conversation in a _public forum_. It's
_everyone's_ 'business' - anyone is fully justified in having
'involvement' in it - unless you take it to E-mail. If you don't want
other people commenting on what you write, then you should do just
that.

- Denise

--
Denise Voskuil= dvoskuil@: mcs.com/eden.com/uic.edu


*Remove the "NO_ADS" in my E-mail address to reply*

Hepcats: http://www.mcs.net/~dvoskuil/hepcats/
Empty Love Stories: http://www.redweb.com/emptylove/

Chris Coleman

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:

A lot of condescending shit that I've snipped. Tom, I'm not going to
even bother trying to write an intelligent response to all of your

mess for two simple reasons: 1) You obviously haven't really
understood a single thing I've said, (how many damn times do I have to
reiterate that yes, I *do* *know* *how* *things* *work*? Do you want
to give me a test or something?) and I don't see how restating things
could possibly change your opinion of me; and 2) I wasn't talking to


you, anyhow. My post was in *specific* response to a previous post by
Peter Williams. Why did you feel the need to pre-empt Peter's
responses? You have no involvement in this part of the discussion, so
you should butt out and mind your own damn business.

Cole


Todd Yancy

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:

>Redirecting off-topic rac* traffic to appropriate newsgroups is a
>thankless task. I have tried to do my best, armed with the knowledge and
>experience I've accumulated throughout my tenure here, to help others
>understand how these newsgroups operate. I have been occasionally thanked
>for my suggestions and the tone in which I've tried to make them, but
>lately I really feel shit on by a number of people who maintain that I'm
>being hypocritical, and don't accept the difference between a wholly off-
>topic post and putting some off-topic natter in an otherwise on-topic
>post. I don't agree with them, but neither do I need the aggravation at
>this point in my life, so henceforth will make no more public redirection
>of off-topic rac* traffic. I hope other rac* citizens will take up the
>slack, and will bear the following in mind:

<lots more snipped>

When redirection of posts generates more posts than the original
subject, it gets rediculous. Especially when it's something like
Watchman post in dcu.

Another complaint is the uber-post you (Elayne) are currently doing.
Homage and Marvel comics are not on topic in dcu, and DC and Homage
are not on topic in Marvel. (I suppose DC and Marvel are acceptable in
Misc in a combined post.) How much more time would it take to do
separate posts which discuss only the books which are on topic for
each newsgroup?


Todd
tod...@lightspeed.nospam.net
Let's see if THIS stops the junk e-mail!

The Icicle

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

In article <NPHOzgen...@panix.com>, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) wrote:


Carl. Carl...Have I told you lately about your dosage? Up it.

> > While I dispare motives, Mr. Galloway, I never stoop to name-calling or
> >personal attacks.
>

> No, you disguise them. Did you really think that making completely
> imaginary assumptions about "netcops" as a group wouldn't offend us as
> indviduals?

No, Actually I have never seen you netcop so you taking it personally
is beyond me. You may take it personally if it makes you feel your spiel
is justified but it doesn't change much.

> >Try to live up to my standard.
>

> No, I think Tom and I will continue to be direct in our disdain for
> you. It's more honest than your "insult them but hide behind this
> screen" method.
>
> Again, oh Payer of No Attention: if you don't like the charters,
> change them. Don't whine about them.

You don't understand. Whining is what you do. Point out errors is what
I do. You may direct your disdain anywhere you like. Because I will not
attack you personally, I won't give directions as to where. I am perfectly
willing to open a discussion of the charter. The problem I think is not
the charter any more than Christianity's problem stems from the Bible.
It's a matter of interpretation. Most of us interpret the charter (and the
Bible) fairly loosely. Others (possibly you, if you crave personal
attention) take it quite literally. Some transgressions are obvious but so
much so that egregious netcopping isn't required. Others are subtle enough
that netcopping is overkill. The fact is, despite all the disdain you and
anyone like you can muster, we are occasionally going to discuss the JLA
TV show, read For Sale posts and venture off charter. The momentum of the
newsgroup carries in that direction without the intervention of netcops or
other self-appointed guardians of the sacred documents. We heretics are
just along for the ride. You'll have to forgive us if we play our music
too loud for your ears.


D.

--
"Look! Up in the sky!"

Keeper of the Comic Archives
http://www.execpc.com/~icicle/main.html

umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

David W. Stepp writes:

> You miss several points. I don't consider it an insult to practice
>negative characterization of net-cops. I think it's an accurate depiction
>of the majority of them.

You know the majority of them, all of a sudden? You basically call them
pathetic human beings, and consider that non-insulting??? And
practicing negative characterizations would be filed under words like
'discrimination' and 'bigotry' under a different circumstance.

This is truly astounding.

All right, let's run through this one more time. Just to be sure. Most
people who actively net.cop do it politely, as a way to keep things
orderly. When they stop being polite (in most circumstances), it stops
being net.copping, and starts being harrassment.

This is not the action of power-mongerers. This is the action of people
who appreciate when they don't have to wade through excess posts.

> It's an attempt to get attention.

Sooooo many jokes come to mind, but they'd all be misconstrued :-)

> Lest you think we
>all read the charter and act accordingly, we haven't posted our FAQ
>formally in eons. People who don't follow the rules are ignored and they
>go away. The same would work here.

I don't have much to answer against that, except that rac.marketplace
would have a smaller overall readership, and that off-topic threads
wouldn't go very far.

> Furthermore, there is a serious double-standard among the netcops.
>Elayne clogs up Usenet with personal drivel and no one dares say a word.
>Someone posts a question asking about the industry or some other
>generalized topics and she is the first to netcop. The only person I would
>consider supporting as official netcop is Elmo because he keeps track of
>the rule to some extent and rarely comes unglued (though not unheard of).
>I don't per se think netcops are a bad idea but the continued existence of
>this thread argues that it is a continual problem.

Elayne's 'personal drivel' (as she usually identified it herself) was
mostly part of review posts i.e. still having some part on-topic. And
that's allowable, and always has been allowable. She understands the
rules very well.

> Regarding Tyg, I have never cast asperstions as Tyg's personal life. I
>don't even know, or care, what his occupation is. To my knowledge, he
>rarely netcops, though he supports it. I do think his assertion that he
>"owns Usenet" based on his years of occupation of it makes him difficult
>to take seriously.

His assertion was that everyone who posts to usenet owns it, to some
extent. Those who post more have more ownership.

> Likewise, the fact that many people consider things
>that are posted here fair game while others object because it off-charter
>indicates by definition, that adhereing to the absolutes of the original
>document is an out-dated position. Even the Constitution is subject to
>revision based on the will of the citizens at the time. I don't object to
>questioning the validty or rigidity of the charter. I don't really object
>to adhering to blindly if that is your whim. I object when individuals,
>even if they authored the original document, impose a rigid view of it on
>others. If you take that as insult, consider yourself insulted.

If you want to change the charter, fine. Go for it. I don't hear enough
voices in these threads supporting your position to justify the attempt,
though.

In the mean time, everyone's still expected to follow the guidelines.
That's not beyond a reasonable goal. When people don't agree with the
Constitution, is it alright for them to go ahead and ignore it? Of
course not. They still have to abide by it until changes are made.

Tom Galloway

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

In article <5h9uce$7...@newsboy.isdn.net> col...@aeneas.net (Chris Coleman) writes:
>(how many damn times do I have to reiterate that yes, I *do* *know* *how*
>*things* *work*? Do you want to give me a test or something?)

Followed by:

>2) I wasn't talking to you, anyhow. My post was in *specific* response to a
>previous post by Peter Williams. Why did you feel the need to pre-empt
>Peter's responses? You have no involvement in this part of the discussion,
>so you should butt out and mind your own damn business.

Lessee....

Doesn't understand difference between Usenet post and email. -20
Doesn't understand why people have an interest in keeping Usenet
functioning and would post to try to explain such. -40
Tries to tell someone they shouldn't post about something
on-topic. -30

Guess what? You just gave yourself a test and failed it. The second
part of your message clearly shows that you don't understand how things
work. If you want to consider that condecending, that's your problem.
Personally, I'd suggest trying to actually learn instead of proclaiming
that you don't need to.

tyg t...@netcom.com

John Rear Admiral McKeon

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

On 24 Mar 97 05:27:31 GMT, Ted Faber <fa...@lunabase.org> wrote:

>jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) writes:
>><newsgroups adjusted...don't think this is really on-topic for RACDU>
>
>Let's have a look at that adjustment, shall we?
>>Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,alt.butt.harp
>
>It's not on topic for alt.butt.harp, either. Despite its name, a.b.h.is (or
>was when I could still get it) a group devoted to a specific net.author,
>RICHH. You've just dropped a (dumb) flame into someone's stories group.

Bzzzt. Thank you for playing.

Have you looked at alt.butt.harp lately? It has nothing to do with
whoever this RICHH is. Try reading
http://www.users.nwark.com/~tjmiller/index.html and follow the links
for a summary of "the harp". The alt.fan.karl-malden.nose FAQ is
available at http://www.fls.infi.net/~jmckeon/afkmn.html. Once you
have read these, you will see that this thread is very on topic for
both groups.

>Nice redirect. This is sarcasm.

Blow me. This is not.

>>Maybe the regulars should work on earning respect instead of demanding
>>it.
>
>Maybe you should be a little more careful about flagrantly violating
>nettiquette when lecturing others on the topic.

Uh, maybe it came across wrong, but where exactly did I lecture others
about netiquette?

>Ted Faber Windbag at Large fa...@lunabase.org
>"Imagine the most abhorrent person. Let's call him Ted." -- Peter Himmelman
>

My geese said to send you a "honk".

John Rear Admiral McKeon

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:10:59 GMT, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, gwm)
wrote:

>follow-ups to rec.arts.comics.misc, please

>My pal jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) said:


>>That would be fine if that was all it was, but a lot of times the
>>"chastisement" gets CC'd to the user's postmaster, even on the first
>>offense.
>

>Could you quantify this a little better? One or two examples would be
>helpful to start with. Frankly, I'm skeptical that this happens =at all=
>(except in cases where someone is chronically abusing the system), let alone
>"a lot of times".

Well, I'll give something specific that happened to me. In responding
to a flame thread, it was crossposted to alt.flame, alt.butt.harp,
alt.fan.karl-malden.nose...the usual. What I didn't notice is that
racm.xbooks was added at the end, and I ended up posting there. Now
I'll be the first one to admit that I screwed up on that, but it
wasn't malicious or anything. Well, wouldn't you know it, "Kate the
Short" and a couple others who I can't remember had their knee-jerk
reaction, and sent complaints to my postmaster, with my address cc'd.
Prior to that, I had never posted there, and haven't posted there
since.

Anyway, my point is that a "polite" reminder would have been just fine
to keep me from doing it again. I'm not sure why complaining to my
postmaster was necessary on my first "offense".

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

Todd Yancy (tod...@lightspeed.nospam.net) wrote:

: When redirection of posts generates more posts than the original
: subject, it gets rediculous.

Agreed, but the ridiculousness always seems to come when people *complain*
about the redirection.

: Another complaint is the uber-post you (Elayne) are currently doing.

You mean my column? I'm not doing it any more. I've gone back to
individual reviews.

: How much more time would it take to do


: separate posts which discuss only the books which are on topic for
: each newsgroup?

More time than I had when I did the column, which is why I structured it
that way. Personally, I prefer individual reviews in their proper
newsgroups, but when I didn't have the time to do that I went for the
capsules, cross-posting to racdu and racmu and setting all followups to
racm. Some people preferred that, others didn't. Thanks for your input.

- Elayne
--
"The kiss originated when the first male reptile licked the first female
reptile, implying in a subtle, complimentary way that she was as succulent
as the small reptile he had for dinner the night before."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

Kate the Short

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

John "Rear Admiral" McKeon <jmc...@fls.infi.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:10:59 GMT, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, gwm)
>wrote:
>
>>follow-ups to rec.arts.comics.misc, please
>
>>My pal jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) said:
>>>That would be fine if that was all it was, but a lot of times the
>>>"chastisement" gets CC'd to the user's postmaster, even on the first
>>>offense.
>>
>>Could you quantify this a little better? One or two examples would be
>>helpful to start with. Frankly, I'm skeptical that this happens =at all=
>>(except in cases where someone is chronically abusing the system), let alone
>>"a lot of times".
>
>Well, I'll give something specific that happened to me. In responding
>to a flame thread, it was crossposted to alt.flame, alt.butt.harp,
>alt.fan.karl-malden.nose...the usual. What I didn't notice is that
>racm.xbooks was added at the end, and I ended up posting there. Now

Polite reminders and MANY requests to stop crossposting those posts to
racm.xbooks were crossposted into the thread, with followups set. After a
few weeks, I chose, as an INDIVIDUAL, to ramp up that.


>I'll be the first one to admit that I screwed up on that, but it
>wasn't malicious or anything. Well, wouldn't you know it, "Kate the
>Short" and a couple others who I can't remember had their knee-jerk
>reaction, and sent complaints to my postmaster, with my address cc'd.
>Prior to that, I had never posted there, and haven't posted there
>since.

At that time, racm.xbooks had been invaded by MANY crossposts. If you are
unable to check your newsgroup headers and see what groups you are posting
to, even though many individual replies, requests to stop crossposting, and
posts to the involved newsgroups ask you *exactly* that, then yes, I *will*
cc it to your postmaster. It isn't something I do lightly, and that isn't
something I'll do with any single occurrence of anything.

For me to contact a postmaster means that there's massive crossposting of
unwanted stuff into a group it doesn't belong to, and that the persons
involved haven't taken the time to change what they're doing. It was not
knee-jerk; it was deliberate and thought-out.

Please don't assume that the behavior exhibited by an individual or two in
the case of massive crossposts into a newsgroup is treated the same as a
make-money-fast post or the netcopping of MEOW cascades is the same as the
netcopping of a forsale post or movie post. Big difference.


>Anyway, my point is that a "polite" reminder would have been just fine
>to keep me from doing it again. I'm not sure why complaining to my
>postmaster was necessary on my first "offense".

While it may have been *your* first offense, I saw *many* crossposts into
rac.mx with your name on them. Many. The first replies got no answer. So
I made a decision and acted on it. IF you want to talk about what I did,
as an individual, in that circumstance, please feel free to contact me
through email.


kate.

| Kate the Short -(ka...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu)- at the U of Chicago |
| Visit my web page! (http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/keweizel/) |
| Keeper of: RAC.MX Read Before Posting and Where Can I Find It? FAQs |
| Patron Saint of rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks, & Really Short Person |


Chris Brand

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

Kate the Short wrote:
>
> In article <tygE7M...@netcom.com>, Tom Galloway <t...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >>In article <5h93dt$q...@shellx.best.com>, dur...@best.com says...
> >>>
> >>>How would people feel about an automailer that sends a brief welcome
> >>>message (something like Elmo's How To..., perhaps even that very FAQ)
> >
[big snip, including everyhting Kate actually wrote]

I recently posted to rec.games.diplomacy for the first time and received
a "welcome to r.g.d" email which, IIRC, was a cutdown FAQ.

I was surprised but it did seem like a good idea.

I don't know whether r.g.d had a problem with off-topic stuff, but it
seems fairly on-topic now.

--
Chris
Stating my own opinions, not those of my company.

damonicker

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

thanks elayne for another endless meta thread.

umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>
> David W. Stepp writes:
>
> > <tygE7L...@netcom.com>, t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:

>
> >You don't know much about power. To netcop is to grant one, at least
> >momentarily, the illusion of authority. Most people who crave power find
> >it justifies itself anf since most people are fairly ignorant of the
> >Internet, finding sheep to cow usually isn't that difficult. Lest you
> >stoop to personal attacks again, I will point out that when I bother to be
> >contrary, it's not on unsuspecting newbies.
>
> Most net.copping isn't done as a powertrip, and much of it is done
> against people who purposely abuse the system for their own jollies.

i just wanted to say that i've become convinced netcopping is a good
thing.

so i do it. when i do, i answer the person's point, and then redirect.
no power trip.

--
"It wasn't just that his folks were vegetarians, they also
discriminated among vegetables, excluding from their diet
everything red,for example, the color of anger. Most bread,
having been made by killing yeasts, was taboo." Pynchon, Vineland

Bryant Durrell

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

In article <E7MD4...@midway.uchicago.edu>,

Kate the Short <ka...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <tygE7M...@netcom.com>, Tom Galloway <t...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>In article <5h93dt$q...@shellx.best.com>, dur...@best.com says...
>>>>How would people feel about an automailer that sends a brief welcome
>>>>message (something like Elmo's How To..., perhaps even that very FAQ)
>>
>>In terms of the altered addresses, at least so far it's the more experienced
>>folk who are (or even have the ability and knowledge to do so) changing
>>their addresses, so at the moment this wouldn't impact too many Usenet
>>newbies as opposed to possible rac newbies who are experienced elsewhere
>>on Usenet. For the multiple addresses, I think that'd fall under a small
>>problem that's worth dealing with. I would hope that the bot could be
>>programmed with a cache of addresses gotten from Dejanews or somesuch
>>so that it's first act wouldn't be to send a message to all recent posters,
>>regardless of their experience level.
>
>And this would be bad because...?
>
>Let's be serious here. It's one piece of email, the posters would likely
>expect it, and some of us could use the reminder anyways. :)

Technically speaking, it's no problem to drop in a cache of addresses.
I think Tom's probably right in that sending it to a ton of existing
posters might cause more problems than it's worth, unfortunately, but
I'd like to see more opinions.

--
Bryant Durrell (sysadmin, cynic, coyote) | "well, it seems doable so we should
dur...@innocence.com / dur...@bofh.net | do it. if we can't then we should
http://www.innocence.com/~durrell | get no biscuits." -- t...@meer.net

Scott Shupe

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

The Icicle wrote in response to Carl Fink:

>
> You don't understand. Whining is what you do.

> Most of us interpret the charter (and the


> Bible) fairly loosely. Others (possibly you, if you crave personal
> attention) take it quite literally.

> Because I will not
> attack you personally,

Yeah, OK, whatever.

Scott
shu...@mitre.org

In-a-gadda-da-Elmo

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

dur...@best.com says...
> How would people feel about an automailer that sends a brief welcome
> message (something like Elmo's How To..., perhaps even that very FAQ)
> to every first-time poster on rac.dc.u?

"How to Win Friends and Influence RAC" ain't brief, for one. The shortest
FAQ I've got is "The rec.arts.comics hierarchy (short!)", which is forty
lines and covers the major bases.
--
"Human beings dated as far back as ancient times, as is shown by the biblical
quotation: `And Balzubio DID taketh Parasheeba to a restaurant and they DID
eateth potato skins.' "--Dave Barry

elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow

Peter Williams

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

Chris,
Apologies for not getting back to you sooner (real life, slow
newsfeed etc). Anyhew. I note Tom's made a reply, but anyway here =
goes...

[Many cuts follow]

>Would any of you "regulars" be surprised to know that a number of
>rac'ers have privately e-mailed me, thanking me for saying what
>they've been wanting to for months? Some of them are lurking,
>literally afraid to post anything to rac, wary of joining in the
>discussion for fear of going off-topic and getting publicly chastised
>for it.

Wouldn't surprise me - UseNet has (and has had for the majority of it's
lifespan - anecdotally, anyway) a vastly larger number of lurkers than
posters. As to the 'fear' element - UseNet is akin to a tavern brawl at
times. Be willing to defend anything you say, or have it shot down in
flames. These things happen...

>Back to Peter's comments. A large part of your message could be
>considered *extremely* condescending. I didn't take offense to it,
>because I'm sure you had good intentions, but it comes off as though
>you're talking down to me. =20

Chris, if that's the way it read to you then you have my most humble and
profuse apologies. There was never any intention to condescend or to =
talk
down to you at all. I don't work like that.

>That entire lecture about how Usenet works
>was totally unneeded. Just because I've only been on the 'net for six
>months or so does not mean that I know nothing about it.

Ah. Minor misunderstanding here. This being a public forum, with many,
many, many observers, my intent was to provide a brief explanation for =
those
watching, and, possibly, yourself. Now, up to this point the only thing
that I knew about you was that you'd been around for six months. I made =
the
standard assumption (fact of life when you're a computer engineer like me=
or
a programmer like you, as you probably know) that those watching (and,
maybe, you) may not have been aware of this info. When in doubt, explain
everything. <g>

>I have a degree in computer programming, and I've been around computers =
my
>entire life. =20

Same here.

>I am not computer illiterate, I am not internet illiterate. I've only =
been
>"online" for six months because that's about how long we've had a
>local ISP. I live in a small (think 8,000 and under) town, and we
>just got a local access number last summer. And we were the first
>ones in town to sign up. =20

=46ine. Glad you could make it. Enjoy the ride.

>For you -- and others -- to see me mention
>being here for six months and ASSume that I don't understand how
>things work is extremely presumptuous. =20

Nope. As I said above, standard practise, and you're not the only target=
of
the last message, (or this one).

>For you -- and others -- to see me questioning the charter (or the=20
>regulars, for that matter) and ASSume that I don't understand it is=20
>equally presumptuous. =20

Not "assume [you] don't understand". Assume that [having only arrived =
after
the creation of the charter and discussion prior to creating said =
charter]
you may not be aware of the *reasons* behind it. They're not at all =
obvious
in many cases, since charters are rather bland documents.

>Just
>because I disagree with you does not mean that I am a "stupid newbie"
>who needs the "old-timers" to come enlighten him. If I don't
>understand something, I'll be the first one to ask, "Hey, what's
>this?" If I say, "Hey, I don't agree", that does *not* mean I need a
>dissertation on the subject.

Of course not, and I would never believe that. My belief is that I =
should
provide all the information that seems relevant to enable informed =
debate.
Basically, you say "I don't agree", I say "Okay. But have you considered=
x?
Were you aware of y?".

>I'm also not real concerned about how many posts you keep floating
>around on your hard drive, Peter. If you *choose* to keep thirty
>thousand posts, that's your problem. If you have trouble wading
>through the new posts as a result, that again is *your* problem. =20

Ah. Minor misunderstanding. I have *no* trouble "wading" through the
backlog. I keep it for a reason. The only reason I mentioned it is to =
give
an indication of the *volume* of posts that flow through rac each day.
The point is, at 500 posts a day, if you don't keep on top of it, you =
miss
stuff. I'd like to be able to miss reading news for a few days and not =
have
thousands of unread messages waiting for me... <g> (or worse, have them
expire and miss them completely).

>And as to your whole argument that the "old fogeys" remember when
>there were only 40 or 50 posts, and everybody knew everybody . . .
>what can I say but "THINGS CHANGE".

Ah, yes. But, and here's the point, they don't *have* to. The "old =
fogeys"
are not clinging to the past without reason. The oft-used term of =
"signal
to noise" applies here in that they believe that it would be better to
reduce the size of the group by removing the "noise" (ie off-topic) =
posts,
and keeping the "signal" (on-topic posts). As do I. =20

To take it to an extreme, if everybody who came to rac in the last 5 =
years
agreed with and followed the same approach to the groups as those who =
were
here already, we *probably* wouldn't have a problem. It's more a case of
community standards than anything else, I guess. You may be right, we =
may
be crazy (to coin a phrase). It seemed to work back then. It doesn't
really work now. We haven't changed, so it must be something else. <g>

Again, and I can't stress this strongly enough, points made here and
elsewhere DO NOT NECESSARILY APPLY DIRECTLY TO YOU, YOUR KNOWLEDGE, OR =
YOUR
BEHAVIOUR. I have to say this like this, because you can't hear my tone =
of
voice, can't read my body language, and I can't hear or see yours, or the
audience's. I have to be careful that my statements don't get
misunderstood, as they apparently did earlier. Fact of life for informal
print conversations like these, unfortunately.

Hope this helps. For what it's worth, this sort of thing happens a lot =
(as
you've probably noticed). Discussions on specific points tend to broaden=
to
wider issues, and most respondents tend to bring a lot of baggage with =
them.

=46act of life around here. And anyway, the general population knows all=
us
adult funny book readers are either stupid or crazy... <g>

Regards,

Pete - about to spend Easter catching up on the last month or two. =
Sounds
like I've got some interesting reading ahead of me... <g>

--
Peter Williams is pet...@zip.com.au or 100400,641. Sydney, Australia.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research!"
Disclaimer: Any opinions lurking above are mine, all mine! Bwahahaha ...

sea...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

In article <5h9uce$7...@newsboy.isdn.net>,
col...@aeneas.net (Chris Coleman) flamed Tom Galloway thusly:

>
> My post was in *specific* response to a previous post by
> Peter Williams. Why did you feel the need to pre-empt Peter's
> responses? You have no involvement in this part of the discussion, so
> you should butt out and mind your own damn business.

You posted your message to a public forum. If you didn't want anyone else
to respond, perhaps you should have e-mailed it directly to your target.

Sean Medlock

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Jeremy Billones

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

In article <tygE7M...@netcom.com>, Tom Galloway <t...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <5h93dt$q...@shellx.best.com>, dur...@best.com says...

>>>How would people feel about an automailer that sends a brief welcome
>>>message (something like Elmo's How To..., perhaps even that very FAQ)
>
>Kurt Busiek also suggested this to me about a month back. I did toss out
>the idea on IRC when a fair number of experienced/responsible posters
>were about, and people there generally weren't thrilled with it, and
>worried that it might be considered spam mail. Personally, I like the
>idea (and seem to recall it used to be done on the Babylon 5 group
>pre-moderation), but I'd 1) like to see something of a group consensus
>that it's a good thing and 2) see some volunteers willing and able to
>host the bot [I won't have time to even consider doing so for several
>months].
>

I'll say yes on 1 and no on 2 :) Also, they still do it on RASTVB5M,
as part of the "registration" procedure. They also age you out of the
database, so when I went back after several months I got the "Welcome
and please confirm your address" post again.

Jeremy Billones http://www.primenet.com/~billones/
3-0, 3.67, .814 * ISTJ * Go Caps! * USSF Certifiable * Kaientai DX 4 Life
"They're cheering me now, but they booed me before... You didn't see me
getting all bent out of shape about it..." Shawn Michaels
"You are a LIAR!" Unknown Fan

Cole

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

dvoskuil@mcs._NO-ADS_.com (Denise L. Voskuil) wrote:

>Excuse me, but you're having a conversation in a _public forum_. It's
>_everyone's_ 'business' - anyone is fully justified in having
>'involvement' in it - unless you take it to E-mail. If you don't want
>other people commenting on what you write, then you should do just
>that.

Excuse me, but when *that* *particular* post was clearly a response to
Peter's posting, common courtesy alone should dictate that anyone
responding *at* *least* allow Peter to have first crack at it. And
when that someone who does respond demonstrates a total lack of
understanding about what I'm trying to say, and does it in an
insulting, condescending mode . . . I'd say (and *did*) that he should
have just minded his own damn business.

Cole


Carl Fink

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

In article <icicle-2503...@coffeemaker.execpc.com>,
ici...@execpc.com (The Icicle) wrote:

>Carl. Carl...Have I told you lately about your dosage? Up it.

Was it only yesterday that you claimed not to insult people, jackass?

> No, Actually I have never seen you netcop so you taking it personally
>is beyond me. You may take it personally if it makes you feel your spiel
>is justified but it doesn't change much.

Unlike yourself, I don't claim to read minds, Stepp. Therefore, I
couldn't possibly know that you somehow missed my many netcopping
posts, or my remarkably long and futile discussions of the subject
with Pat O'Neil and Tony Isabella.

I wear the badge. When you say "netcop" you mean me. Your not knowing
that serves beautifully to indicate your ignorance of the very subject
you've just claimed expertise in, namely the characterization of the
personality of netcops based entirely on our Usenet postings.


> You don't understand. Whining is what you do. Point out errors is what

>I do. You may direct your disdain anywhere you like. Because I will not
>attack you personally,

But you just did. Read the first sentence quoted above, idiot, or
consider whether "Whining is what you do" is an insult.

>Others (possibly you, if you crave personal
>attention) take it quite literally.

_Petitio principii_, anyone? (Mike Chary will translate that for you,
if you aren't familiar with Aristotelean logic, Stepp.)

Carl Fink

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

In article <dstepp-2503...@d558-1.phys.mcw.edu>,
dst...@post.its.mcw.edu (David W. Stepp) wrote:

> You miss several points. I don't consider it an insult to practice
>negative characterization of net-cops. I think it's an accurate depiction
>of the majority of them.

Tell me, do you use telepathy or merely bug our houses to understand
our characters so well?

> Furthermore, there is a serious double-standard among the netcops.
>Elayne clogs up Usenet with personal drivel and no one dares say a word.

Bullshit. This is, to use the harsh and accurate word, a lie. You
KNOW this is false, Stepp.

>Even the Constitution is subject to
>revision based on the will of the citizens at the time.

We have DEALT with this, nitwit. If you don't like the charter,
CHANGE IT. Stop with the whining, get off your metaphorical butt, and
propose a change. Or shut up. Nothing else.

Better yet, go away. Waste the time of collectible plate hobbyists or
something.
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

David W. Stepp (dst...@post.its.mcw.edu) wrote:

: I don't consider it an insult to practice


: negative characterization of net-cops. I think it's an accurate depiction

: of the majority of them. It's an attempt to get attention...
: Furthermore, there is a serious double-standard among the netcops.


: Elayne clogs up Usenet with personal drivel and no one dares say a word.

Geez, David, what did I do, eat your dog or something? Can we please try
to converse without gratuitous insults?

Ken Arromdee

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:
>And that's why we have charters. Personally, I might even agree with you.
>However, whether I personally like it or not, rac.other-media was created
>with a charter saying that all adaptations of characters which started
>in comics done in media other than comics are to be discussed there and
>only there. Thus, my personal opinion doesn't matter.

Then why do people refuse to netcop posts such as topic drift and pointers,
even when they are off-topic? People's personal opinion does matter _there_,
so it clearly _is_ possible for personal opinion to matter in deciding
whether to _do_ anything about off-topic posts.

Cole

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:

>Guess what? You just gave yourself a test and failed it. The second
>part of your message clearly shows that you don't understand how things
>work. If you want to consider that condecending, that's your problem.
>Personally, I'd suggest trying to actually learn instead of proclaiming
>that you don't need to.

And every time you say this, you just prove my point. Personally, I
just don't give a damn anymore.

Cole


Aardy R. DeVarque

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

dst...@post.its.mcw.edu (David W. Stepp) wrote:
> I don't consider it an insult to practice
>negative characterization of net-cops. I think it's an accurate depiction
>of the majority of them. It's an attempt to get attention.

Name 5 net.cops in it for the attention and/or who deserve negative
characterizations.

If you have problems with the actions of specific people, try pointing this
out to them. Oh, I'm sorry, that would make you a "net.cop." Better to
suffer & stew in silence with occasional outbursts of pique partially
resulting in threads like this one.

>RAC.marketplace
>never has much need for net-copping. We venture off topic at time by the
>strict definition of the charter but no one ever complains.

How much of a "discussion group" is racmp really? It seems the very nature
of the group will keep it "on-topic" most of the time.

>The same would work here.

You obviously weren't reading racmx about 6-8 months ago...

> Furthermore, there is a serious double-standard among the netcops.
>Elayne clogs up Usenet with personal drivel and no one dares say a word.

Not even *close.* Thank you for playing...hope you had fun. Please try
again sometime.

>I don't per se think netcops are a bad idea but the continued existence of
>this thread argues that it is a continual problem.

The continued existence of this thread proves that there are a lot of
stubborn people out there, and not much else.

The continued occurrence of threads such as this one shows that people *do*
comment when net.cops approach or step over the line.

Why are you so dead-set against redirections? Is it *wrong* to inform
someone that racmp exists when they post "comics for sale!" everywhere in
rac *except* racmp?

Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf

David Francis Smith

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

In article <icicle-2603...@galileo.execpc.com>, ici...@execpc.com
(The Icicle) wrote:

I'm on vacation. I'm bored as hell. I'm diving into the pointless
netcop thread. Wheeee...

> I am glad you feel the need to respond to my every post. I have already
> agreed to a discussion of the charter. Rather than stoop to name-calling,
> I encourage you to improve your context editing. In the previous post, I
> pointed out that Charter editing wasn't really the answer.

What is the answer, then? Yelling back and forth with Mr. Fink?

> It's a matter
> of degree. You seem to subscribe to the notion that the Charter is a
> rulebook rather than a general guide.

From whence do you derive your conclusion, that the charter is the latter
as opposed to the former?

> Like most fundamentalists, this
> leads to a narrow view and vitrolic response when someone suggests your
> head is crammed in your ass.

Hum. How would you respond, when somebody let you know that your head
was, as you say, "crammed in your ass"?

> It's not really an insult to my mind to say
> that extreme conservatives are short-sighted. I think it's quite true.

Well, true or not, it's still insulting. Random House, second edition,
definition 3: to attack, assault; definition 6: something having the effect
of an affront. This section was included to show how little I have to do
with my time.
Note, however, Mr. Icicle's definition of "insulting", for future ref-
erence.

> If you want to be a narrow minded, you can. That is your right as a citizen
> of Usenet. It is my right, which I shall exercise, to interpret the
> Charter as I see fit.

But I'll be frobbed if I can figure out why you feel the need to do so.
Furthermore, I fail to understand why you believe you possess the right
to "interpret" (read: violate) the various rac* charters. I am operating
under the assumption that Usenet is, in a somewhat crude sense, a parti-
cipatory democracy. From observation of the procedures involved in the
administration of Usenet, I also assume that this participatory democ-
racy is governed, at least in part, by the resolutions adopted by a
majority vote. At any rate, the policies which are presumably in question
(the rac* charters) were adopted by a majority vote.
Now, if the above assumptions are correct, and I believe they are, then
you do not possess the right which you complain to possess; to wit, the
right to violate/interpret/(add euphemism of your choice) the charters
of these newsgroups. When you "exercise" this so-called right, you are
acting against the duly instituted will of the majority of interested
"citizens of Usenet" (a bloody pedantic term, if I may knock over my
facade of erudition for a brief moment).

> I will continue to do so. I think you violate that
> rights of others by imposing your view of the Charter and Usenet on them.

Again, you are operating under the assumption that "others" possess
such "rights." My observation of the situation leads me to conclude
that your assumption is not so.

> You claim to speak for Usenet but you don't speak for me. I doubt you
> speak for anyone else (including those you list) who have objected to
> this.

But as an advocate of adherence to the letter of the rac* charters, Mr.
Fink is, in fact, speaking for the best approximation of the concerned
slice of Usenet that is presently available. Until one may take an instant
summation of the will of rac'ers everywhere, the current charters are the
best guide to that will which we have.

> You, as a netcop, are not an authority figure. You are not a useful
> aspect of my use of this group.

No, perhaps he is not an authority figure. No, he probably is not a
useful aspect of your use of this group. But he is a useful aspect of
this group as a whole, and the majority's use of thus newsgroup. Ignoring
off-topic posts leads to their proliferation and an eventual rendering of
the group to an unusable mess, in a worst-case scenario, anyway. Resist-
ance to polite redirection of posts leads to the spasmodic horrors which
are periodically inflicted upon rac*, which this thread is a specimen of
(yet I feed it anyway. har). Acceptance of the rules, however, and a will-
ingness to obey the occasional dose of guidance, would hopefully lead to a
calm and pleasant hierarchy. Thus I submit that Mr. Fink and his compatri-
ots are indeed a useful aspect of this group and this hierarchy.

> You may call me names but the fact of the
> matter is, you can killfile me or you can cry, but I am not going
> anywhere.

Which is a damnable shame, sir.

> Furthermore, regarding insults, it further illustrates that
> double-standard so-called netcops employ to say that I am insulting when I
> suggest netcops are psuedo-authority figure doing an non-helpful task for
> reasons that can only be considered questionable yet your ilk (since you
> want to be identified as a representative "wearer of badge" (heh))
> immediately demonizes anyone who disagrees with your or critizies the
> degree of charter enforcement as ignorant or uninformed.

If George Orwell were alive, he would probably like to have a word with
you concerning the above sentence. Not in the context of "1984," but that
of "Politics and the English Language." Gotta show off my eddication some-
how :). But then again, he'd probably have a few problems with me, too.
The thing of it is, you are not just disagreeing with Mr. Fink, et al.
You are disagreeing with the rac* charters, and by extension the general
will of the majority of concerned Usenet users. Therefore, a character-
ization of you and yours as ignorant or uninformed (or simply truculent,
which is the most likely of the three), is in fact accurate, and therefore
not insulting, at least by your measure of the definition of "insulting."
Not mine, of course, but then again my opinion of the aforementioned defin-
ition is not at issue in this particular case.

> Many of us in the
> this thread have been here as long as you have Carl. You have no superior
> view.

Unfortunately, that tenure does not appear to have done you much good.
You are obviously uninterested in abiding by the rules set in place to
govern this hierarchy, unless it suits your purposes at any given time.
Thus Mr. Fink in fact does possess a "superior view", or at any rate
possesses a superior understanding of how this hierarchy ought to and
does work. Certainly there is no direct link between one's experience
here, the correctness of one's behavior here, and the rightness of one's
ideas concerning how this hierarchy ought to be run. If you have been
here as long as you imply that you have been, you are living proof of
that.

> Regarding acting for change, what do you think this is?

Petulant complaining. Acting for change, positive change at any rate,
would involve the submission of an RFD for a reorganization of the
hierarchy. What you are doing is acting for negative change, by
attempting to obstruct
the ordered flow of traffic about the hierarchy.

> I don't think
> Charter change is necessary since any set of rules will have loopholes. I
> think the way to keep things from becoming too rigid is to actively oppose
> the forces that would impose their will on the group.

For goodness' sake, Mr. Icicle, what are you then trying to do here?
You yourself are trying to impose your will on the hierarchy, a will which
is manifestly contrary to the will of those who created said hierarchy,
and which is contrary to the will of the majority which shaped that
creation.

> That is what I am
> taking my time and effort to do. The fact that you are reduced to
> name-calling and personal aspersions gives me cause for hope. For as long
> as netcops exist, I will be a thorn in their side. Get used to it.

Heeeeere's Johnny! (chainsaw mode on).
What are you really trying to get done here, Mr. Icicle? If my surmise
is correct, this thread initiated in racdcu, because somebody resisted
the redirection of a post concerning the JLA TV series to rac.o-m. It
really doesn't matter what this was originally about, though. What matt-
ers is that you and your ilk have turned a situation which could have been
easily and calmly resolved (through the movement of TV series discussion to
the appropriately designated newsgroup), into some sort of verdammte
moronic crusade. You claim, so far as I can tell, that you are
striking a blow for "rights." It is clear, however, that what you want
is the "right" to do whatever you damn well please with this hierarchy
without regard to the interests of others or the manifest will of the
majority.
Good day.

Colonel Sir David Francis Smith, BSA, UW-EEP, ALFC, DAPXF
yyr...@u.washington.edu

Addendum: I would like to extend to Mr. Carl Fink a preemptive apology.
If you, Mr. Fink, are offended by my response to a post which was directed,
at least in part, at you personally, I would like to apologize, and make
it clear that I will not do such a thing again if it does offend you. I
wanted an opportunity to make my opinions known, and this was the best
one available.

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

The Icicle (ici...@execpc.com) wrote:
: I susbscribe to the
: hypothesis that most netcops, feeling a lack of personal acheivement, glom
: onto the role here since it gives them some minor feeling of control that
: they lack in their daily lives. They should be pitied as much as reviled.

David, have you ANY notion of how insulting this sounds?

Aardy R. DeVarque

unread,
Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97
to

jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:10:59 GMT, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, gwm)
>wrote:
>>My pal jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) said:
>>>That would be fine if that was all it was, but a lot of times the
>>>"chastisement" gets CC'd to the user's postmaster, even on the first
>>>offense.
>>
>>Could you quantify this a little better? One or two examples would be
>>helpful to start with. Frankly, I'm skeptical that this happens =at all=
>>(except in cases where someone is chronically abusing the system), let alone
>>"a lot of times".

Please note phrase "chronically abusing the system" It will become
important later.

>Well, I'll give something specific that happened to me. In responding
>to a flame thread, it was crossposted to alt.flame, alt.butt.harp,
>alt.fan.karl-malden.nose...the usual. What I didn't notice is that
>racm.xbooks was added at the end, and I ended up posting there.

You meowed on a meow thread, at a time when such threads were running
rampant through racmx and the regulars were *really* sick AND tired (TM Bill
Cosby) of all the shit going through the group.

Massive crossposting, even if unintentional, is often considered grounds for
notifying a postmaster.

>Now


>I'll be the first one to admit that I screwed up on that, but it
>wasn't malicious or anything. Well, wouldn't you know it, "Kate the
>Short" and a couple others who I can't remember had their knee-jerk
>reaction, and sent complaints to my postmaster, with my address cc'd.
>Prior to that, I had never posted there, and haven't posted there
>since.
>

>Anyway, my point is that a "polite" reminder would have been just fine
>to keep me from doing it again. I'm not sure why complaining to my
>postmaster was necessary on my first "offense".

For everyone's edification, here is a post by Mr. McKeon that was
crossposted to, among other places, racmx (courtesy of DejaNews):
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Subject: Re: please read this if you like to m3ow
From: jmc...@interserf.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon)
Date: 1996/10/21
Message-Id: <326af20...@news.interserf.net>
Newsgroups:
misc.misc,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,alt.fan.rosieodonnell,alt.fan.howard-stern,rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks,no.alt.flame
[More Headers]

On 20 Oct 1996 18:37:51 GMT, cop...@usa.pipeline.com( Beth ) wrote:

>please stop cross posting meows. Not every group cares to hear what you
>have to say. Since you all are intelligent people with something to say,
>why don't you just say it.


We are saying it. You just don't understand our meows:

MEOW! - Angry

meow - calm

mEoW - been listening to too much Uriah Heep

there's more, but you get the picture.


-
John "Rear Admiral" McKeon
Secretary of the Navy, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Named "the Rainman of prog-rock and classic rock"
by Tom Deflumere

The two most common elements in the universe are
hydrogen and stupidity - Harlan Ellison

My cat's breath smells like cat food
- Ralph Wiggum

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Contributing a meow post to a massively crossposted meow thread consitutes
abuse of the system. Anyone who then checked out the poster's posting
pattern would find several other posts that quote lengthy articles to add a
single (off-topic) comment and/or a "meow"--repeat offender, even if not
always posted to racmx. Chronic problem, thus time to notify the
postmaster.

Don't try to play the victim.

The Icicle

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

In article <KYcOzgen...@panix.com>, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) wrote:

> In article <dstepp-2503...@d558-1.phys.mcw.edu>,


> dst...@post.its.mcw.edu (David W. Stepp) wrote:
>

> > You miss several points. I don't consider it an insult to practice


> >negative characterization of net-cops. I think it's an accurate depiction
> >of the majority of them.
>

> Tell me, do you use telepathy or merely bug our houses to understand
> our characters so well?
>

> > Furthermore, there is a serious double-standard among the netcops.
> >Elayne clogs up Usenet with personal drivel and no one dares say a word.
>

> Bullshit. This is, to use the harsh and accurate word, a lie. You
> KNOW this is false, Stepp.
>
> >Even the Constitution is subject to
> >revision based on the will of the citizens at the time.
>
> We have DEALT with this, nitwit. If you don't like the charter,
> CHANGE IT. Stop with the whining, get off your metaphorical butt, and
> propose a change. Or shut up. Nothing else.
>
> Better yet, go away. Waste the time of collectible plate hobbyists or
> something.
>

I am glad you feel the need to respond to my every post. I have already
agreed to a discussion of the charter. Rather than stoop to name-calling,
I encourage you to improve your context editing. In the previous post, I

pointed out that Charter editing wasn't really the answer. It's a matter


of degree. You seem to subscribe to the notion that the Charter is a

rulebook rather than a general guide. Like most fundamentalists, this


leads to a narrow view and vitrolic response when someone suggests your

head is crammed in your ass. It's not really an insult to my mind to say
that extreme conservatives are short-sighted. I think it's quite true. If


you want to be a narrow minded, you can. That is your right as a citizen
of Usenet. It is my right, which I shall exercise, to interpret the

Charter as I see fit. I will continue to do so. I think you violate that


rights of others by imposing your view of the Charter and Usenet on them.

You claim to speak for Usenet but you don't speak for me. I doubt you
speak for anyone else (including those you list) who have objected to

this. You, as a netcop, are not an authority figure. You are not a useful
aspect of my use of this group. You may call me names but the fact of the


matter is, you can killfile me or you can cry, but I am not going
anywhere.

Furthermore, regarding insults, it further illustrates that
double-standard so-called netcops employ to say that I am insulting when I
suggest netcops are psuedo-authority figure doing an non-helpful task for
reasons that can only be considered questionable yet your ilk (since you
want to be identified as a representative "wearer of badge" (heh))
immediately demonizes anyone who disagrees with your or critizies the

degree of charter enforcement as ignorant or uninformed. Many of us in the


this thread have been here as long as you have Carl. You have no superior
view.

Regarding acting for change, what do you think this is? I don't think


Charter change is necessary since any set of rules will have loopholes. I
think the way to keep things from becoming too rigid is to actively oppose

the forces that would impose their will on the group. That is what I am


taking my time and effort to do. The fact that you are reduced to
name-calling and personal aspersions gives me cause for hope. For as long
as netcops exist, I will be a thorn in their side. Get used to it.

Cole

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan <dmck...@weber.ucsd.edu> wrote:

>Cole, losing his grip, wrote (to someone else):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>> You have no involvement in this part of the discussion, so
>> you should butt out and mind your own damn business.

>Whatever the merits of Cole's previous remarks (I've not been
>following this thread), this particular line is ridiculous. If you
>don't want people to butt in, then take it out of the newsgroup and
>into email or somesuch.

I knew when I typed it that that particular line would get 'copped.
And, at least three times so far, it has. My point was this: Peter
wrote a long response, *specifically* commenting on my earlier post,
and I wrote an equally long response, *specifically responding to his
comments. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect Peter to have
first crack at responding to this. If someone else has a quick
comment or two, fine. For someone -- Tom -- to butt in and write a
long, and in my opinion condescending, response immediately was a bit
out of line as far as I'm concerned.

It just seems to me that everyone here is so concerned with "staying
on topic" and "following the charter", that they've forgotten about
common courtesy, and even the meaning of the word "conversation". I
mean, do y'all act like this at home? ("Mom! Guess what happened at
school today!" "I'm sure it was interesting, dear, but right now it
is time to discuss family finances, so your school comments are off
topic.") The charter should not be some stone-graven, iron-fisted,
*rule*. It *should* be a guideline, nothing more, nothing less.

And you pretty much prove my point with your own comments above.
"I've not been following this thread . . ." You don't know about the
commentary that's been going on, but you felt the need to wade into
this particular post, snip out one particular comment, and call me
ridiculous. Thanks, needed *that*. I haven't been insulted nearly
enough on rac lately.

>(And, FWIW, "damn" is a =verb=; the adjective that Cole wants is
>"damned".)

And I'm not a "damn" English major, and I'm also not the world's best
typist, and I also have extremely mild dyslexia; I make *mistakes*
from time to time.

Is that a problem?

Cole


Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
: dst...@post.its.mcw.edu (David W. Stepp) wrote:
: > Furthermore, there is a serious double-standard among the netcops.

: >Elayne clogs up Usenet with personal drivel and no one dares say a word.

: Bullshit. This is, to use the harsh and accurate word, a lie. You
: KNOW this is false, Stepp.

He should, since the "Turning in My Badge" thread was, in part, based on
my reaction to the vehemence of the many people who had publicly
criticized the natter portion of my columns. This doesn't exactly
constitute "no one dar[ing to] say a word."

Bryant Durrell

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

In article <1997Mar2...@riph7.rice.edu>,

In-a-gadda-da-Elmo <mor...@riph5.rice.edu> wrote:
>dur...@best.com says...
>> How would people feel about an automailer that sends a brief welcome
>> message (something like Elmo's How To..., perhaps even that very FAQ)
>> to every first-time poster on rac.dc.u?
>
>"How to Win Friends and Influence RAC" ain't brief, for one. The shortest
>FAQ I've got is "The rec.arts.comics hierarchy (short!)", which is forty
>lines and covers the major bases.

I've heard forty lines is about right. In any case, while I'm seeing
mild approval I'm not seeing wild enthusiasm, which probably means it's
a no go. ;)

David Goldfarb

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

In article <5hcsip$a...@newsboy.isdn.net>, Cole <kol...@aeneas.net> wrote:
)Peter
)wrote a long response, *specifically* commenting on my earlier post,
)and I wrote an equally long response, *specifically responding to his
)comments. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect Peter to have
)first crack at responding to this.

Yes, it is unreasonable. Messages posted to a public forum,
because it *is* public, invite public comment. If you want to have a private
conversation with one other person, then as people have said, use email.

David Goldfarb <*>| "Oh no, foolish Jed, you have let out
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | the verbal gerbils!"
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- _Sandman_ #11
aste...@slip.net |

David Goldfarb

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

In article <5hcsip$a...@newsboy.isdn.net>, Cole <kol...@aeneas.net> wrote:
)Peter
)wrote a long response, *specifically* commenting on my earlier post,
)and I wrote an equally long response, *specifically responding to his
)comments. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect Peter to have
)first crack at responding to this.

Yes, it is unreasonable. Messages posted to a public forum,
because it *is* public, invite public comment. If you want to have a private
conversation with one other person, then as people have said, use email.

This has long since lost all relevance to racdcu, so followups
to misc only.

patdo...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

> I fail to understand why you believe you possess the right
>to "interpret" (read: violate) the various rac* charters. I am operating
>under the assumption that Usenet is, in a somewhat crude sense, a parti-
>cipatory democracy. From observation of the procedures involved in the
>administration of Usenet, I also assume that this participatory democ-
>racy is governed, at least in part, by the resolutions adopted by a
>majority vote. At any rate, the policies which are presumably in question
>(the rac* charters) were adopted by a majority vote.

No, the CHARTER was approved by majority vote; interpretation, absent a
moderator, is up to each individual participant. Violation is in the eye of the
beholder. Why is YOUR view of what constitutes a violation better than
anyone else's?

There is no Supreme Court of the RAC* Heirarchy, established to interpret
the charter. Without this, interpretation is, obviously, an individual act.

Best, Pat

The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do not represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.


patdo...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

In article <KYcOzgen...@panix.com>, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:

>We have DEALT with this, nitwit. If you don't like the charter,
>CHANGE IT. Stop with the whining, get off your metaphorical butt, and
>propose a change. Or shut up. Nothing else.
>
>

Carl, there IS no way to change the charter. Let me quote the relevant info (I knew I'd be glad I saved this):

>Subject: Re: CHARTER: Trial balloon in free-fire zone
>From: David Ross <ros...@acm.org>
>Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 12:02:53 -0800

>While participants in this thread continue to argue about whether the
>charter should be changed, none of you have addressed the issue of
>whether it can be changed.

>For another newsgroup, the charter is so vague as to create problems.
>When I inquired about how to clarify the charter -- without changing
>between moderated and unmoderated and without creating a new newsgroup
>-- I was informed that such changes are not appropriate for the RFD and
>CFV process. I was advised merely to update the charter in the
>newsgroup's FAQ, presumably with some consensus from the other
>participants. If the revisions are at all controversial, however,
>general agreement (the meaning of "consensus") cannot be obtained.

>Your discussion is also about a controversial modification to a charter
>without changing moderation status and without creating a new
>newsgroup. You are wasting your time unless you can get agreement from
>the Usenet "powers that be" that charters should be changed -- even if
>only for clarification -- through the RFD and CFV process.

>Note that without such agreement, once a charter has been adopted by
>formal, official methods, either it can never be changed without a
>fundamental change in the newsgroup or else it can be very easily
>changed by loose, informal, unofficial methods. I don't think either
>consequence is acceptable.

>--
>David E. Ross

Lawrence Watt-Evans

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:24:03 -0800, yyr...@u.washington.edu (David
Francis Smith) wrote:

>In article <icicle-2603...@galileo.execpc.com>, ici...@execpc.com
>(The Icicle) wrote:
>
>> I am glad you feel the need to respond to my every post. I have already
>> agreed to a discussion of the charter. Rather than stoop to name-calling,
>> I encourage you to improve your context editing. In the previous post, I
>> pointed out that Charter editing wasn't really the answer.
>
> What is the answer, then? Yelling back and forth with Mr. Fink?

Naah. Killfiles. I just put Stepp in mine. What an asshole.

TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 2/7/97
Beyond Comics at Lakeforest Mall, Gaithersburg MD is now open!

John Rear Admiral McKeon

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

[posted and mailed]


On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:06:37 GMT, ka...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Kate
the Short) wrote:

>John "Rear Admiral" McKeon <jmc...@fls.infi.net> wrote:

>>Well, I'll give something specific that happened to me. In responding
>>to a flame thread, it was crossposted to alt.flame, alt.butt.harp,
>>alt.fan.karl-malden.nose...the usual. What I didn't notice is that

>>racm.xbooks was added at the end, and I ended up posting there. Now
>
>Polite reminders and MANY requests to stop crossposting those posts to
>racm.xbooks were crossposted into the thread, with followups set. After a
>few weeks, I chose, as an INDIVIDUAL, to ramp up that.

>>I'll be the first one to admit that I screwed up on that, but it
>>wasn't malicious or anything. Well, wouldn't you know it, "Kate the
>>Short" and a couple others who I can't remember had their knee-jerk
>>reaction, and sent complaints to my postmaster, with my address cc'd.
>>Prior to that, I had never posted there, and haven't posted there
>>since.
>

>At that time, racm.xbooks had been invaded by MANY crossposts. If you are
>unable to check your newsgroup headers and see what groups you are posting
>to, even though many individual replies, requests to stop crossposting, and
>posts to the involved newsgroups ask you *exactly* that, then yes, I *will*
>cc it to your postmaster. It isn't something I do lightly, and that isn't
>something I'll do with any single occurrence of anything.

>For me to contact a postmaster means that there's massive crossposting of
>unwanted stuff into a group it doesn't belong to, and that the persons
>involved haven't taken the time to change what they're doing. It was not
>knee-jerk; it was deliberate and thought-out.
>
>Please don't assume that the behavior exhibited by an individual or two in
>the case of massive crossposts into a newsgroup is treated the same as a
>make-money-fast post or the netcopping of MEOW cascades is the same as the
>netcopping of a forsale post or movie post. Big difference.


>
>>Anyway, my point is that a "polite" reminder would have been just fine
>>to keep me from doing it again. I'm not sure why complaining to my
>>postmaster was necessary on my first "offense".
>

>While it may have been *your* first offense, I saw *many* crossposts into
>rac.mx with your name on them. Many. The first replies got no answer. So
>I made a decision and acted on it.

Okay, I pulled up Dejanews to find out exactly what I posted to
RACM.xbooks under my old account (jmc...@interserf.net if you want to
follow along at home). Do you know how many times I posted there?
Once. One time. Not *many*, unless one time now qualifies as *many*.

Here's the post:

>Article 1 of 1

>Subject: Re: please read this if you like to m3ow
>From: jmc...@interserf.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon)
>Date: 1996/10/21
>Message-Id: <326af20...@news.interserf.net>
>Newsgroups: misc.misc,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,alt.fan.rosieodonnell,alt.fan.howard-stern,rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks,no.alt.flame

>On 20 Oct 1996 18:37:51 GMT, cop...@usa.pipeline.com( Beth ) wrote:

>>please stop cross posting meows. Not every group cares to hear what you
>>have to say. Since you all are intelligent people with something to say,
>>why don't you just say it.

>We are saying it. You just don't understand our meows:

>MEOW! - Angry

>meow - calm

>mEoW - been listening to too much Uriah Heep

>there's more, but you get the picture.
>-
>John "Rear Admiral" McKeon
>Secretary of the Navy, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
>Named "the Rainman of prog-rock and classic rock"
>by Tom Deflumere

>The two most common elements in the universe are
>hydrogen and stupidity - Harlan Ellison

>My cat's breath smells like cat food
> - Ralph Wiggum

Now if you look at the thread, your name doesn't appear to be anywhere
in it. There were no requests to stop crossposting, no followups
adjusted, just a complaint cc'd to my postmaster. I realize that I'm
an easy target because I use my real email address when I post, so
that may be why you zeroed in on me.

Did I screw up by not checking the headers? Yes. However, I'm not an
unreasonable person. As I said above, a polite reminder would have
been enough to keep me out of the group.


> IF you want to talk about what I did,
>as an individual, in that circumstance, please feel free to contact me
>through email.

Okely-dokely!


-
John "Rear Admiral" McKeon
Secretary of the Navy, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Named "the Rainman of prog-rock and classic rock"
by Tom Deflumere

My cat's breath smells like cat food - Ralph Wiggum

David W. Stepp

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

In article <5hcv3s$e...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:

> Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
> : dst...@post.its.mcw.edu (David W. Stepp) wrote:
> : > Furthermore, there is a serious double-standard among the netcops.
> : >Elayne clogs up Usenet with personal drivel and no one dares say a word.
>
> : Bullshit. This is, to use the harsh and accurate word, a lie. You
> : KNOW this is false, Stepp.
>
> He should, since the "Turning in My Badge" thread was, in part, based on
> my reaction to the vehemence of the many people who had publicly
> criticized the natter portion of my columns. This doesn't exactly
> constitute "no one dar[ing to] say a word."
>

You posted for months before it reached a crisis point. Anyone else
would be nailed on day one. You can argue that you're a valuable member of
RAC and deserve leeyway but I don't buy it. You also posted dabout non-DC
Comics and then cross-posted the whole thing. You will recall that I never
once objected to you doing it until it became an generalized issue. Even
then, you're only an example as far as I am concerned. You still can post
them if you like. There is something about your style of reviewing that
bores me to tears but I would rather tolerate it at 10 times the normal
dosage than infringe on your style of writing. Likewise, I expect you to
sit down and not bother people when they thing something in the gray zone
is worthy of our attention. Quid Pro Quo.


D.

Dan Goodman

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

In article <5hcue7$s...@panix.com>,

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>The Icicle (ici...@execpc.com) wrote:
>: I susbscribe to the
>: hypothesis that most netcops, feeling a lack of personal acheivement, glom
>: onto the role here since it gives them some minor feeling of control that
>: they lack in their daily lives. They should be pitied as much as reviled.
>
>David, have you ANY notion of how insulting this sounds?
>
What makes you think he might not?
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.

Denise L. Voskuil

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

In article <333b836a...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net says...

>On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 03:21:28 GMT, kol...@aeneas.net (Cole) wrote:
>>I knew when I typed it that that particular line would get 'copped.
>>And, at least three times so far, it has. My point was this: Peter
>>wrote a long response, *specifically* commenting on my earlier post,
>>and I wrote an equally long response, *specifically responding to his
>>comments. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect Peter to have
>>first crack at responding to this. If someone else has a quick
>>comment or two, fine. For someone -- Tom -- to butt in and write a
>>long, and in my opinion condescending, response immediately was a bit
>>out of line as far as I'm concerned.

[snip]

>You can't say Peter should have "first crack," because this is Usenet
>-- messages don't arrive in chronological order. I just today got
>some messages on my server that I saw answers posted to three days
>ago.

Exactly - I haven't yet seen the message that Lawrence is following up here,
and who knows exactly when (if) it will show up for me. Furthermore, what if
Peter never saw the original response (the one that tyg responded to), or
decided he'd prefer not to continue discussing it? What if he left on vacation
before it arrived? Should everyone have a waiting period for giving their
comments on a Usenet post not directed towards them, hoping in the meantime
that the message doesn't expire off their server?

I'm sorry, but your (referring to "Cole") opinions about how people should
respond to a "private" conversation held on Usenet do not show an understanding
of how this aspect of Usenet works, either in the technical or personal areas.
If you post something to Usenet, anyone who reads it may respond to it.
Period. Even posts that are _purposely targeted_ at _specific_ people (i.e.,
posts with headers designed to get responses from certain creators - ex.:
"PAD:", "Busiek:", etc.) are expected to receive comments from other posters.
If you conduct discussion by E-mail, you will have the privacy that you seem to
desire in this case.

- Denise

--
Denise L. Voskuil - dvoskuil@: uic.edu/mcs.com/eden.com
**Please remove the _delete_ in my address to reply via E-mail;
I'm sick of spammers grabbing my address off of Usenet.**
I'm too low in the hierarchy here to officially even
*have* an opinion.


First And Last And Always

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

In article <5hccfd$3...@newsboy.isdn.net>, Cole <kol...@aeneas.net> wrote:
>dvoskuil@mcs._NO-ADS_.com (Denise L. Voskuil) wrote:
>
>>Excuse me, but you're having a conversation in a _public forum_. It's
>>_everyone's_ 'business' - anyone is fully justified in having
>>'involvement' in it - unless you take it to E-mail. If you don't want
>>other people commenting on what you write, then you should do just
>>that.
>
>Excuse me, but when *that* *particular* post was clearly a response to
>Peter's posting, common courtesy alone should dictate that anyone
>responding *at* *least* allow Peter to have first crack at it.

Wrong. Usenet is a *public forum*. *Every* *single* *post* that
you post to it becomes fair game for everybody to respond to.
When you choose to post a message to usenet (as you did), then you
you choose to allow everybody equal right to respond to it. It
doesn't matter whether it was a response to someone else or not.
You chose to put it here, so you chose to accept a public response.

If you'd wanted Peter to have some exclusive right to respond, you
should have emailed it.

Mike
--
Mike Collins

mcol...@nyx.cs.du.edu

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

David W. Stepp (dst...@post.its.mcw.edu) wrote:

I've really had it with you, David. I think I'm temporarily *plonk*ing
you until your posts cease to aggravate. Life's too short.

: You posted for months before it reached a crisis point.

Untrue. I have only SIX WEEKS worth of review columns, consisting of a
few paragraphs of natter followed by straight reviews. Most of the natter
was comics-creator-related.

: You can argue that you're a valuable member of


: RAC and deserve leeyway but I don't buy it.

Not my argument. My argument is that the columns were primarily on-topic
and should be given leeway because of that.

: You also posted dabout non-DC


: Comics and then cross-posted the whole thing.

I explained why I did that. I didn't have time to post only DC titles in
only the DC newsgroup, and only Marvel titles in only the Marvel
newsgroup. It was a choice to cross-post the entire column, then set
followups to one group. Other people do that with their columns; why
should I not do so with mine?

: There is something about your style of reviewing that
: bores me to tears...

Gee, so VERY sorry I don't amuse you enough, David.

: I expect you to


: sit down and not bother people when they thing something in the gray zone
: is worthy of our attention. Quid Pro Quo.

You *expect* me? How condescending of you.

I guess you chose to ignore my entire post about ceasing my public
redirections. In addition, I have, to my knowledge, never redirected
anything in a "gray zone," only initial posts that were clearly off-topic
in their entirety according to rac* charters.

Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

>>> You have no involvement in this part of the discussion, so
>>> you should butt out and mind your own damn business.
>>
>> Whatever the merits of Cole's previous remarks (I've not been
>> following this thread), this particular line is ridiculous. If you
>> don't want people to butt in, then take it out of the newsgroup and
>> into email or somesuch.
>
> I knew when I typed it that that particular line would get 'copped.
> And, at least three times so far, it has. My point was this: Peter
> wrote a long response, *specifically* commenting on my earlier post,
> and I wrote an equally long response, *specifically responding to his
> comments. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect Peter to have
> first crack at responding to this. If someone else has a quick
> comment or two, fine. For someone -- Tom -- to butt in and write a
> long, and in my opinion condescending, response immediately was a bit
> out of line as far as I'm concerned.

If you wanted to say that Peter should have been given first crack,
then you could have said so in as many words. However, you
=weren't= attempting to express that thought. You were reacting
thoughtlessly, and therefore absurdly, and no amount of =ex post=
blatting is going to erase that. Save your blah blah blah for your
fantasy debates with the mirror.

> It just seems to me that everyone here is so concerned with "staying
> on topic" and "following the charter", that they've forgotten about
> common courtesy, and even the meaning of the word "conversation". I
> mean, do y'all act like this at home? ("Mom! Guess what happened at
> school today!" "I'm sure it was interesting, dear, but right now it
> is time to discuss family finances, so your school comments are off
> topic.") The charter should not be some stone-graven, iron-fisted,
> *rule*. It *should* be a guideline, nothing more, nothing less.

The subject of courtesy is almost always raised by people who
haven't a clue about what courtesy is, why it exists, and (from the
nature of its causes) what its content must be. This conference is
not your dinner table, and it is not your prerogative to behave as
if it is.

> And you pretty much prove my point with your own comments above.

Your "point" -- a boorish claim that we should be polite enough to
indulge your rude outbursts -- is not subject to proof.

> "I've not been following this thread . . ." You don't know about the
> commentary that's been going on, but you felt the need to wade into
> this particular post, snip out one particular comment, and call me
> ridiculous.

The context about whose discarding you now whine has no ability
whatsoever to validate your ridiculous remark, period.

> Thanks, needed *that*. I haven't been insulted nearly
> enough on rac lately.

The winds of truth can be painfully cold.

>> (And, FWIW, "damn" is a =verb=; the adjective that Cole wants is
>> "damned".)
>
> And I'm not a "damn" English major,

I'm not either. Are only English majors supposed to be literate?!?

> and I'm also not the world's best
> typist, and I also have extremely mild dyslexia; I make *mistakes*
> from time to time.
>
> Is that a problem?

Yes. Look up the word "mistake"; look up the word "problem".
Ponder the relationships.

It's always Dark. Light only hides the Darkness.

Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan (619) 535 - 0546
atha...@UCSD.edu 132.239.147.2 <75013,676>
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dmckiern
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Mc_Kiernan


David W. Stepp

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

In article <5heb8o$q...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:

Plonk me at your leisure. It makes no difference to me.

Whatever the frequency it was a lot. It consumed many lines of text. I
never cared that you did it because it was not interesting. I have been
here since the first one you posted and the first few times you took it
upon yourself to netcop. You have a history of re-directing egregious
off-topic things you don't do, but not egregiously off-topic things you
do. You do this because you have decided at some point which part of the
charters are obviously off-topic as far as you were concerned and which
parts were fuzzy. Like it or not, we all like to do that and we don't all
come up with the same answer. You were right to turn in the badge you
never deserevd in the first place. I said at the time it was the right
thing to do. Not because you were off-topic in your posts. That's not
important as far as I am concerned. If you think, within your
interpretations of the charter that you can talk about your friends at DC,
you phone calls to DC, your fantasies about working at DC, or why DC
should go into the peanut butter business, that is perfectly OK by me. I
will neither read it or follow up on it. If others do, that indicates to
me that a measureable number of people agree with that interpretation of
the charter enough to follow up. They should be allowed to enjoy
themselves and interact in a way that is non-detrimental to others. If
another decides it might be interesting to let everyone know that news
that Pauly Shore is playing Ra's A Ghul in the next Batman movie, I would
appreciate knowing that. It will save me some money at the show. I will
also not follow up because I have nothing really to add to such a comment.
If anyone else does, they should be allowed. They will do it whether you
want them to or not. Threads die all the time because people lose interest
in them. That is the natural death of a thread. All threads should be
allowed to die naturally. We don't need gardeners. Again, the main point
is that if you think the signal to noise in this group is bad, increase
the signal. You can't change the noise.
For the record, I have nothing against Elayne, despite my criticism of
her columns. She has the same rights (and lack of same) as anyone else.
She tries in her own way to raise awareness about things she things are
interesting or important and as long as she does so, earns no marks from
me. She may likewise find my web site to be terribly uninteresting. She
may do so without prejudice from me. It's never anything personal.

D.

Lawrence Watt-Evans

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 03:21:28 GMT, kol...@aeneas.net (Cole) wrote:

>I knew when I typed it that that particular line would get 'copped.
>And, at least three times so far, it has. My point was this: Peter
>wrote a long response, *specifically* commenting on my earlier post,
>and I wrote an equally long response, *specifically responding to his
>comments. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect Peter to have
>first crack at responding to this. If someone else has a quick
>comment or two, fine. For someone -- Tom -- to butt in and write a
>long, and in my opinion condescending, response immediately was a bit
>out of line as far as I'm concerned.

You're wrong. If you didn't want others to feel free to butt in, you
should have kept it to e-mail. It's that simple. Private debates go
in e-mail.

You can't say Peter should have "first crack," because this is Usenet
-- messages don't arrive in chronological order. I just today got
some messages on my server that I saw answers posted to three days
ago.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages