Peter da Silva goes KANCEL KRAZY!!!
diespa...@best.com
Peter da Silva, God of the Usenet, has decided HE doesn't like the
topics in alt.fan.furry (a newsgroup for people who have sex with
animals), so he has a little master plan:
He's simply gonna rmgrp it, and run a cancelbot to cancel any posts
posted there.
After all, he created it, he can destroy it, right?
It gets better:
He's gonna draw up a list of APPROVED posters for his NEW furry
newsgroups. Anyone not on this list who posts there gets automatically
cancelled.
It must ROCK to be Peter da Silva. Anyone else who tried this stunt
would lose their account, right? Not Peter! His ISP will totally
protect him.
Oh, and if you don't like Peter's plan, you can fuck off and die.
HE'S Peter da Silva, and YOU'RE not.
I guess ol' Hipcrime really was justified after all. Who'd-a thought?
Al Goldman
> He's simply gonna rmgrp it, and run a cancelbot to cancel any posts posted
there.
YES! WooHoo! Yea, Peter!, Peter for moderator! Peter for moderator! Peter for
moderator!
Al Goldman
I've just seen the most heroic dog on television. He pulled a toddler from
the path of a speeding car, then pushed a criminal in front of it.
Mr. Burns, The Simpsons.
diespa...@best.com
:> He's simply gonna rmgrp it, and run a cancelbot to cancel any posts posted
: there.
: YES! WooHoo! Yea, Peter!, Peter for moderator! Peter for moderator! Peter for
: moderator!
: Al Goldman
Uh, Al -- if Peter can do it, so can I.
Your articles will be first.
(*smile*)
Chuck Melville
<37ffed14$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>
>
> Peter da Silva, God of the Usenet, has decided HE doesn't like the
> topics in alt.fan.furry (a newsgroup for people who have sex with
> animals),
Please note the libel in this opening remark.
> so he has a little master plan:
>
> He's simply gonna rmgrp it, and run a cancelbot to cancel any posts
> posted there.
>
> After all, he created it, he can destroy it, right?
Yeah, like very many here won't support him if he -does- cancel certain
unwanted posts. And he's currently talking about redesigning the group,
splitting it into two, allowing you to spam one of those all you want while
everybody else shifts to a moderated conversation board. Afraid of the
loneliness, are you?
Tell you something. Not that I think it will, but if it -does- somehow
destroy the group, we lay the blame at -your- door, not Peter's. He
wouldn't need to take drastic measures if some people weren't abusing their
priveleges.
> It gets better:
>
> He's gonna draw up a list of APPROVED posters for his NEW furry
> newsgroups. Anyone not on this list who posts there gets automatically
> cancelled.
>
> It must ROCK to be Peter da Silva. Anyone else who tried this stunt
> would lose their account, right? Not Peter! His ISP will totally
> protect him.
>
> Oh, and if you don't like Peter's plan, you can fuck off and die.
> HE'S Peter da Silva, and YOU'RE not.
>
Like I said... you've only brought it upon yourselves.
--
-Chuck Melville-
"Little one, I would like to see -anyone- -- prophet, king or -god- --
persuade a thousand cats to do -anything- at the same time."
-Neil Gaiman; The Sandman: A Dream of a Thousand
Cats
-= Hawk =-
>diespa...@best.com wrote in article
><37ffed14$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>>
>>
>> Peter da Silva, God of the Usenet, has decided HE doesn't like the
>> topics in alt.fan.furry (a newsgroup for people who have sex with
>> animals),
>
> Please note the libel in this opening remark.
Please note the apathy in the audience.
>> so he has a little master plan:
>>
>> He's simply gonna rmgrp it, and run a cancelbot to cancel any posts
>> posted there.
>>
>> After all, he created it, he can destroy it, right?
>
> Yeah, like very many here won't support him if he -does- cancel certain
>unwanted posts. And he's currently talking about redesigning the group,
>splitting it into two, allowing you to spam one of those all you want while
>everybody else shifts to a moderated conversation board. Afraid of the
>loneliness, are you?
>
> Tell you something. Not that I think it will, but if it -does- somehow
>destroy the group, we lay the blame at -your- door, not Peter's. He
>wouldn't need to take drastic measures if some people weren't abusing their
>priveleges.
Why don't we blame the idiots such as yourself who are easily trolled and
incapable of learning to use filters? Hey, I know, we'll blame Erik! After
all he's the sole reason I discovered this group, it's all ERIK'S fault.
>> It gets better:
>>
>> He's gonna draw up a list of APPROVED posters for his NEW furry
>> newsgroups. Anyone not on this list who posts there gets automatically
>> cancelled.
>>
>> It must ROCK to be Peter da Silva. Anyone else who tried this stunt
>> would lose their account, right? Not Peter! His ISP will totally
>> protect him.
>>
>> Oh, and if you don't like Peter's plan, you can fuck off and die.
>> HE'S Peter da Silva, and YOU'RE not.
>>
> Like I said... you've only brought it upon yourselves.
Aww, the easily trolled scaredy cats (err, furs) are going to go hide in a
moderated newsgroups, I don't think I can stand the loneliness, the feeling
of being an outcast, I must kill myself now...
--
In my dreams the world is black
and blood clots in pools around
the corpses that litter the street
and little children with knives
lie in wait outside your door.
Peter da Silva
In article <01bf129c$6f8d69c0$2b88ddd1@kathleen>,
Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>> He's gonna draw up a list of APPROVED posters for his NEW furry
>> newsgroups. Anyone not on this list who posts there gets automatically
>> cancelled.
This is a standard mechanism for automating moderation. When you post to a
moderated group your post is mailed to the moderator. In this case, to speed
up the moderation process, posters on the "whitelist" will go through, while
all others will be spooled at the moderation site until the moderator can
eyeball them and accept or reject them.
This is a pretty common way of handling things, and hardly a case of my going
"cancel crazy".
Thanks for the support, Chuck.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications, Entropy Gradient Reversals.
M. Mitchell Marmel
> This is a standard mechanism for automating moderation. When you post to a
> moderated group your post is mailed to the moderator. In this case, to speed
> up the moderation process, posters on the "whitelist" will go through, while
> all others will be spooled at the moderation site until the moderator can
> eyeball them and accept or reject them.
>
> This is a pretty common way of handling things, and hardly a case of my going
> "cancel crazy".
And as new posters come along, the moderator can "whitelist" them or
not, as desired, right?
How soon can this go into effect?
How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?
How quickly will the new AFF groups be propagated?
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
Peter da Silva
M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:
>Peter da Silva wrote:
>> This is a standard mechanism for automating moderation. When you post to a
>> moderated group your post is mailed to the moderator. In this case, to speed
>> up the moderation process, posters on the "whitelist" will go through, while
>> all others will be spooled at the moderation site until the moderator can
>> eyeball them and accept or reject them.
>> This is a pretty common way of handling things, and hardly a case of my going
>> "cancel crazy".
>
>And as new posters come along, the moderator can "whitelist" them or
>not, as desired, right?
Absolutely.
>How soon can this go into effect?
For a moderated group I'll have to line up a server to run the moderation
bot. I could use my own, but it might be better to use one of the furrynet
servers like fur.com. Then we have to discuss the change in alt.config.
>How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?
Pretty effectively. I'll set it moderated first, so messages will stop
propogating.
>How quickly will the new AFF groups be propagated?
THAT part's easy.
Alternatively, we can simply move over to the unmoderated but troll-resistent
fur.misc or Usenet II and can the whole existing alt.fan.furry hierarchy. I
know there has been resistence to this in the past, but these psychos are
only going to get worse. The fur.* groups already exist, and there are servers
set up to handle them.
mcgruff
<cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> Yeah, like very many here won't support him if he -does- cancel
certain
> unwanted posts.
I have no faith in Mr. da Silva's abilities to fairly decide what and who
is acceptable for posting, as he's always appeared to be one of the more
arrogant jerkoffs on Usenet. He's neglected this group since he started
it, so why start now? Whose agenda is he going to push this time around?
Perhaps da Silva just needs to go and form a NEW newsgroup: alt.fan.furry.smof
-- Four legs good! Two legs baaaaaaaaad! ;)
Dwight J. Dutton
>moderated group your post is mailed to the moderator. In this case, to speed
>up the moderation process, posters on the "whitelist" will go through, while
>all others will be spooled at the moderation site until the moderator can
>eyeball them and accept or reject them.
Wouldn't the creation of a soc.culture.furry or a rec.arts.furry group
accomplish the same thing?
My understanding of Usenet is that the alt.* groups are pretty much afree for
all and the serious groups are hte other ones.
I thought the fur.* groups were supposed to fix a lot of this, but apparently
it just spread it out over more groups!
diespa...@best.com
: diespa...@best.com wrote in article
: <37ffed14$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
:>
:>
:> Peter da Silva, God of the Usenet, has decided HE doesn't like the
:> topics in alt.fan.furry (a newsgroup for people who have sex with
:> animals),
: Please note the libel in this opening remark.
Plase note you're a fucking idiot. You can't libel a newsgroup,
moron. Yet ANOTHER stupid furry cunt laboring under the delusion
he actually knows something.
:> so he has a little master plan:
:>
:> He's simply gonna rmgrp it, and run a cancelbot to cancel any posts
:> posted there.
:>
:> After all, he created it, he can destroy it, right?
: Yeah, like very many here won't support him if he -does- cancel certain
: unwanted posts. And he's currently talking about redesigning the group,
: splitting it into two, allowing you to spam one of those all you want while
: everybody else shifts to a moderated conversation board. Afraid of the
: loneliness, are you?
No, what he's talking about is Sneaky da Silva's attempt to circumvent
the rules of the Usenet to fit HIS comfort zone.
Remember, there's NOTHING to stop me from doing the exact same thing.
If Peter can do it, so can I. Peter has no more authority to pull
this stunt off than I do. He can do it, then so can I.
:
: Tell you something. Not that I think it will, but if it -does- somehow
: destroy the group, we lay the blame at -your- door, not Peter's. He
: wouldn't need to take drastic measures if some people weren't abusing their
: priveleges.
IF I do it, it's all YOUR fault. See how easy this is?
:>
: Like I said... you've only brought it upon yourselves.
diespa...@best.com
: I'm afraid that "diespa...@best.com" is a little confused.
: In article <01bf129c$6f8d69c0$2b88ddd1@kathleen>,
: Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:
:>> He's gonna draw up a list of APPROVED posters for his NEW furry
:>> newsgroups. Anyone not on this list who posts there gets automatically
:>> cancelled.
: This is a standard mechanism for automating moderation. When you post to a
: moderated group your post is mailed to the moderator. In this case, to speed
: up the moderation process, posters on the "whitelist" will go through, while
: all others will be spooled at the moderation site until the moderator can
: eyeball them and accept or reject them.
: This is a pretty common way of handling things, and hardly a case of my going
: "cancel crazy".
I noticed you pulled alt.config and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
from the newsgroup line, there Sneaky da Silva.
Oh yeah -- and the part about running the cancelbot as well.
Face it, Peter, you're trying to pull a fast one because your
comfort zone got violated. You're as rogue as Hipcrime.
diespa...@best.com
:>This is a standard mechanism for automating moderation. When you post to a
:>moderated group your post is mailed to the moderator. In this case, to speed
:>up the moderation process, posters on the "whitelist" will go through, while
:>all others will be spooled at the moderation site until the moderator can
:>eyeball them and accept or reject them.
: Wouldn't the creation of a soc.culture.furry or a rec.arts.furry group
: accomplish the same thing?
Yup, and there would be discussion in the appropriat newsgroups.
What Sneaky da Silva is doing has no more legitimacy than the
Scientology sprogeries, the Hipcrime cancels or the HFW newsgroup
invasions.
By the same claim Sneaky da Silva is using, I could simply cancel
all the posts in the new newsgroup. I would have just as much "right"
to do this as Sneaky da Silva does to try to pull off his latest
stunt.
da Silva has always tried to make everyone else bow to his needs.
He thinks he's God: ask anyone who has the missfortune of knowing
him personally.
: My understanding of Usenet is that the alt.* groups are pretty much afree for
: all and the serious groups are hte other ones.
You are 100% correct. Sneaky's attempt is totally rogue.
diespa...@best.com
: In article <3800b653$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
:> If Peter can do it, so can I. Peter has no more authority to pull
:> this stunt off than I do. He can do it, then so can I.
: What exact "stunt" are you accusing me of trying to pull off? Please be
: specific.
Your attempt to rmgrp, then cancelbot, a perfectly functioning
Usenet group (alt.fan.furry), because YOU don't like the topics
being discussed there, then replace it with a moderated newsgroup
where YOU pick who gets to post there.
AFF is working perfectly fine, Peter. Why don't you go apply
your skills to alt.horror.werewolves, which has been completely
over-run?
Or is this because AFF is your pet newsgroup?
And quit trying to deflect these posts out of the newsgroups
that are most affected by your rogue behavior: alt.fan.furry
and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.
You have no authority, Sneaky -- I can issue rmgrps and cancels
just as easily as you can. And they'd be equally legitimate
by your rules.
Mark Severson
Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote in message
news:01bf129c$6f8d69c0$2b88ddd1@kathleen...
> diespa...@best.com wrote in article
> <37ffed14$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
> >
> >
> > Peter da Silva, God of the Usenet, has decided HE doesn't like the
> > topics in alt.fan.furry (a newsgroup for people who have sex with
> > animals),
>
> Please note the libel in this opening remark.
>
> >
> > He's simply gonna rmgrp it, and run a cancelbot to cancel any posts
> > posted there.
> >
> > After all, he created it, he can destroy it, right?
>
> Yeah, like very many here won't support him if he -does- cancel certain
> unwanted posts. And he's currently talking about redesigning the group,
> splitting it into two, allowing you to spam one of those all you want
while
> everybody else shifts to a moderated conversation board. Afraid of the
> loneliness, are you?
>
> destroy the group, we lay the blame at -your- door, not Peter's. He
> wouldn't need to take drastic measures if some people weren't abusing
their
> priveleges.
>
> >
> > He's gonna draw up a list of APPROVED posters for his NEW furry
> > newsgroups. Anyone not on this list who posts there gets automatically
> > cancelled.
> >
> > would lose their account, right? Not Peter! His ISP will totally
> > protect him.
> >
> > Oh, and if you don't like Peter's plan, you can fuck off and die.
> > HE'S Peter da Silva, and YOU'RE not.
> >
>
>
>
> -Chuck Melville-
> "Little one, I would like to see -anyone- -- prophet, king or -god- --
> persuade a thousand cats to do -anything- at the same time."
> -Neil Gaiman; The Sandman: A Dream of a Thousand
> Cats
Sounds good to me. Go for it. And thanks for doing it.
Mark Severson
-= Hawk =-
>In article <38008DEB...@drexel.edu>,
>M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:
>>Peter da Silva wrote:
>>> This is a standard mechanism for automating moderation. When you post to a
>>> moderated group your post is mailed to the moderator. In this case, to speed
>>> up the moderation process, posters on the "whitelist" will go through, while
>>> all others will be spooled at the moderation site until the moderator can
>>> eyeball them and accept or reject them.
>
>>> This is a pretty common way of handling things, and hardly a case of my going
>>> "cancel crazy".
>>
>>And as new posters come along, the moderator can "whitelist" them or
>>not, as desired, right?
>
>Absolutely.
>
>>How soon can this go into effect?
>
>For a moderated group I'll have to line up a server to run the moderation
>bot. I could use my own, but it might be better to use one of the furrynet
>servers like fur.com. Then we have to discuss the change in alt.config.
>
>>How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?
Nearly impossible, but he wants you to believe he can remove an alt group.
>Pretty effectively. I'll set it moderated first, so messages will stop
>propogating.
Gee, you're going to destroy a perfectly good unmoderated newsgroup because
you're having a temper tantrum? You may have at one time (as others have
claimed) been a white hat, but now you're just playing power games.
>>How quickly will the new AFF groups be propagated?
>
>THAT part's easy.
>
>Alternatively, we can simply move over to the unmoderated but troll-resistent
>fur.misc or Usenet II and can the whole existing alt.fan.furry hierarchy. I
>know there has been resistence to this in the past, but these psychos are
>only going to get worse. The fur.* groups already exist, and there are servers
>set up to handle them.
--
In my dreams the world is black
ScottZf
-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote in message
news:fc4AOGhQSE9Y6XV0z2rJGeL=uz...@4ax.com...
I don't think he has ever been a "white hat".
I have been doing a bit of research on him.
With all due respect for Jay's opinion, I think he is a grade A jackass.
Roz Gibson
>
>
>
> Peter da Silva, God of the Usenet, has decided HE doesn't like the
> topics in alt.fan.furry (a newsgroup for people who have sex with
(sigh) I really wish you'd give it a rest. Saying this is a NG specificly for
animal abusers is kind of like saying a priest NG is just for people molest
young boys. Yeah some do, most don't. I never have, and my friends who post
here don't do inappropriate things with animals either. If you feel compelled
to talk about it, please limit your attention to the people whom you know
indulge in that behavior, and leave the rest of us out of it. Your obsession
with people who abuse animals reflects as badly on you as it does on them.
RG
Chuck Melville
<3800b653$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
> Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> : diespa...@best.com wrote in article
> : <37ffed14$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
> :>
> :>
> :> Peter da Silva, God of the Usenet, has decided HE doesn't like the
> :> topics in alt.fan.furry (a newsgroup for people who have sex with
> :> animals),
>
>
>
> Plase note you're a fucking idiot. You can't libel a newsgroup,
> moron. Yet ANOTHER stupid furry cunt laboring under the delusion
> he actually knows something.
>
If you prefer, we'll simply state that your declaration that AFF is "a
newsgroup for people who have sex with animals" is an outright lie. It's
nowhere stated that it is such, nor do most of us here condone or behave in
such a matter. That you seem to think they do may be your opinion, but to
come out and say so in a public forum without proof or justification is a
slander; libel, since it is in a printed format. Doesn't matter if it's
directed against one person or a group, it is indeed libel. If you think
that somehow a group can't be libeled, then your understanding of the legal
terminology is lacking.
Chuck Melville
<7tq10h$f...@bonkers.taronga.com>...
> I'm afraid that "diespa...@best.com" is a little confused.
>
> In article <01bf129c$6f8d69c0$2b88ddd1@kathleen>,
> Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> >> newsgroups. Anyone not on this list who posts there gets
automatically
> >> cancelled.
>
a
> moderated group your post is mailed to the moderator. In this case, to
speed
> up the moderation process, posters on the "whitelist" will go through,
while
> all others will be spooled at the moderation site until the moderator can
> eyeball them and accept or reject them.
>
> This is a pretty common way of handling things, and hardly a case of my
going
> "cancel crazy".
>
>
No problem. We don't often agree on much, but we are in full and total
agreement on this matter.
The most ironic thing about the current band of trolls is that they're
probably doing more to bring this ng together as a harmonic unit, if only
to put an end to their intrusion, than most of any other discussion or
issue here. :/
-= Hawk =-
>
>-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote in message
>news:fc4AOGhQSE9Y6XV0z2rJGeL=uz...@4ax.com...
>> On 10 Oct 1999 08:38:46 -0500, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) scribbled:
>>
>> >In article <38008DEB...@drexel.edu>,
>> >M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:
>> >>Peter da Silva wrote:
>> >>> This is a standard mechanism for automating moderation. When you post to
>a
>> >>> moderated group your post is mailed to the moderator. In this case, to
>speed
>> >>> up the moderation process, posters on the "whitelist" will go through,
>while
>> >>> all others will be spooled at the moderation site until the moderator
>can
>> >>> eyeball them and accept or reject them.
>> >
>> >>> This is a pretty common way of handling things, and hardly a case of my
>going
>> >>> "cancel crazy".
>> >>
>> >>And as new posters come along, the moderator can "whitelist" them or
>> >>not, as desired, right?
>> >
>> >Absolutely.
>> >
>> >>How soon can this go into effect?
>> >
>> >For a moderated group I'll have to line up a server to run the moderation
>> >bot. I could use my own, but it might be better to use one of the furrynet
>> >servers like fur.com. Then we have to discuss the change in alt.config.
>> >
>> >>How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?
>>
>> Nearly impossible, but he wants you to believe he can remove an alt group.
>>
>> >Pretty effectively. I'll set it moderated first, so messages will stop
>> >propogating.
>>
>>
>> Gee, you're going to destroy a perfectly good unmoderated newsgroup because
>> you're having a temper tantrum? You may have at one time (as others have
>> claimed) been a white hat, but now you're just playing power games.
>
>I don't think he has ever been a "white hat".
>I have been doing a bit of research on him.
>With all due respect for Jay's opinion, I think he is a grade A jackass.
In his last few posts he sounds like he's channeling Wollman 'I sent the
control message so I decide the content' sending follow-ups to alt.dev.null.
Setting follow-ups so the the discussion OF a group doesn't take place IN
that group....
He's taking a power trip down ego lane....
--
Want to propose a newsgroup? Browse these links for help:
http://www.faqs.org/usenet/alt/
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/calame/create.html
http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html
http://nylon.net/alt/newgroup.htm
For Help with Deja keyword search:
http://www.deja.com/help/help_lang.shtml
For Deja Power search:
http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/news/deja.html
For proposing WebTV alt.discuss groups:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/OpenMind/adrules.html
Tim Thorne
> Peter da Silva, God of the Usenet, has decided HE doesn't like the
> topics in alt.fan.furry (a newsgroup for people who have sex with
> animals), so he has a little master plan:
>
> He's simply gonna rmgrp it, and run a cancelbot to cancel any posts
> posted there.
>
> After all, he created it, he can destroy it, right?
>
> It gets better:
>
> He's gonna draw up a list of APPROVED posters for his NEW furry
> newsgroups. Anyone not on this list who posts there gets automatically
> cancelled.
>
> It must ROCK to be Peter da Silva. Anyone else who tried this stunt
> would lose their account, right? Not Peter! His ISP will totally
> protect him.
>
> Oh, and if you don't like Peter's plan, you can fuck off and die.
> HE'S Peter da Silva, and YOU'RE not.
>
> I guess ol' Hipcrime really was justified after all. Who'd-a thought?
Let me know when the fuckhead starts and I'll contribute a sizable
NewsAgent count and give him more work than he bargained for.
--
--------========>>>>>>>Special Forces<<<<<<<========--------
The Dungeon now resides at http://www.madasafish.com/skippy
"Dog eat dog, every day, on our fellow men we prey" Offspring
Hangdog
> :> Peter da Silva, God of the Usenet, has decided HE doesn't like the
> :> topics in alt.fan.furry (a newsgroup for people who have sex with
> :> animals),
Uh, Stuka? alt.LIFESTYLE.furry's the newsgroup for poodle-porkers (even says so in
their Charter).
a.f.f.'s a group for anybody who wanders by. The animal abusers like to come over
here and proselytize, but we can't keep them out any more than we can you. *Shrug*
--Hangdog
LLBF/TINBF
Sergi
totally goes like:
He's getting even more like Wollmann every day. The asshole netcopped me last
night for posting in AFF. There is a grand total of three fucking posts from me
in that group. Sheesh, what a loon.
--
Sergi, KotAGoR XXX
"I do not deny that I am a moron. Do you still have the okra
up your ass?" -Manny of the Jiffy Club, 7/21/99
alt.romath: Proud Sponsor of the Miss American Achievement Awards 2000
FREE JOSHUA KRAMER! NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
Henrietta K. Thomas
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:27:41 -0400, -= Hawk =-
<ha...@lart.com> wrote:
[...]
>Want to propose a newsgroup? Browse these links for help:
>http://www.faqs.org/usenet/alt/
>http://www.angelfire.com/tx/calame/create.html
>http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html
>http://nylon.net/alt/newgroup.htm
>For Help with Deja keyword search:
>http://www.deja.com/help/help_lang.shtml
>For Deja Power search:
>http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/news/deja.html
>For proposing WebTV alt.discuss groups:
>http://www.angelfire.com/az/OpenMind/adrules.html
For the us.* hierarchy see:
http://www.cyclic.com/~kingdon/us-create.html
http://www.cyclic.com/~kingdon/usenet-us.html
For Big 8 hierarchies see the FAQs in news.announce.newgroups
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.* hierarchy coordinator
Business: usa...@wwa.com
Personal: h...@wwa.com
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>In article <7tqmqp$rqi$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Wotan <wo...@deathpenguin.com> wrote:
>>It can't be. It will never vanish from usenet.
>
>You may be right. But if so, what concern is it of yours?
Well, you made a concern of mine when you decided to netcop me over three
fucking posts last night, nipplechips.
peon...@usenet-performance-art.org
> On 10 Oct 1999 14:56:46 -0500, Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>>In article <7tqp8v$aij$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>>Cipher <cip...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>Explain why the original group has to go. Does it's existance bother or
>>>threaten you? If not, and I assume it does not, why not leave it alone?
>>
>>It's not "going", it's being renamed.
>>
>
> See what happens when you deal with newbies Peter? Sheesh.
Shut your yap, mouse fucker. Before that, though, tell us *ALL* how we can
rename groups.
Are you under the delusion that mvgroup works?
--
Peon Control, controlling Peons since 1999. /\
||
/\--/\ OFFICIAL ALT.HORROR.WEREWOLVES /\--/\ /\ I am a
< ^..^ > BELLOWERS SOCIETY < ^..^ > || wereasparagus
\~U/ MEMBER # 72 \~U/ ||
"that's what counts as far ass I'm concerned"
"I had a pair of hot pants once-- backed up too close to the wood stove"
-Romath's Anal Fixation Explained
-= Hawk =-
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:56:21 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas)
scribbled:
>[ngs trimmed; this subject is off-topic in nan-au]
One, don't mail me copies of your newsgroup replies.
Two, how is a person threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
unmoderated newsgroup NOT on topic for NANAU?
--
-= Hawk =-
crosspost]
On 10 Oct 1999 13:47:31 -0500, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) scribbled:
>In article <utoAOITBHhMmPWOm7=XrfTq...@4ax.com>,
>-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>>I don't think I've ever seen a 'SPLIT' where the group being split off of
>>was 'destroyed' and rendered useless.
>
>Your earnest attention to the ideals of anti-miscism and "true free
>speech" would ring less hollow if you weren't involved in the
>campaign to render it useless that makes the split necessary.
The group is not being flooded, no one is running cancel or sporge bots on
it, how is the group being rendered useless by people flaming in it, it was
a flame pit when I first discovered it and it's existed just fine until this
point.
>I suppose you weep over comp.lang.perl as well.
-= Hawk =-
I think he's been talking to Erik about ineffectual ways to control flames.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <7tqp8v$aij$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Cipher <cip...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>Explain why the original group has to go. Does it's existance bother or
>>threaten you? If not, and I assume it does not, why not leave it alone?
>
>It's not "going", it's being renamed.
[from previous thread]
>> >>How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?
>> >Pretty effectively. I'll set it moderated first, so messages will stop
>> >propogating.
So you intend to destroy (or attempt to) an unmoderated group, but claim
it's not going anywhere?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In article <38008DEB...@drexel.edu>,
>M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:
>>How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?
>
>Pretty effectively. I'll set it moderated first, so messages will stop
>propogating.
I think the old AFF should remain.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
mcgruff
<sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
> > Gee, you're going to destroy a perfectly good unmoderated newsgroup because
> > you're having a temper tantrum? You may have at one time (as others have
> > claimed) been a white hat, but now you're just playing power games.
>
> I don't think he has ever been a "white hat".
> I have been doing a bit of research on him.
> With all due respect for Jay's opinion, I think he is a grade A jackass.
If the "he" you are referring to is Mr. Peter da Silva, all the past
research I've done also points to him being a grade-A jackass. One of the
more unpleasant net-personalities I've come across, really -- arrogant,
rude, with delusions of self-grandeur. NOT a good person at all to
moderate a newsgroup.
diespa...@best.com
: In article <8A8BOKiAGCCfCCkJMmMaApZhfJG=@4ax.com>,
: -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
:>So you intend to destroy (or attempt to) an unmoderated group, but claim
:>it's not going anywhere?
: What part of the word "renamed" do you find so hard to understand?
The part where you destroy a functioning newsgroup because
some of the topics there upset you.
Quit trying to hide what you're trying to do by posting your
replies to a newsgroup that almost no news server carries.
No WONDER everyone calls you "Sneaky".
-= Hawk =-
>In article <8A8BOKiAGCCfCCkJMmMaApZhfJG=@4ax.com>,
>-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>>So you intend to destroy (or attempt to) an unmoderated group, but claim
>>it's not going anywhere?
>
>What part of the word "renamed" do you find so hard to understand?
The part where you say this:
>> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
>> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
>> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
What part of control freak and censor, don't you understand?
You want a moderated newsgroup, fine, go create one, but there's no reason
to destroy an existing unmoderated group by canceling all posts to it.
Forrest
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) :
> >>How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?
> >
> >Pretty effectively. I'll set it moderated first, so messages will stop
> >propogating.
>
> I think the old AFF should remain.
Theoretical alternative groups have been created before; human inertia acts
against using them. As a matter of practicality it has to go.
Joshua Kramer
> In article <8A8BOKiAGCCfCCkJMmMaApZhfJG=@4ax.com>,
> -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
> >So you intend to destroy (or attempt to) an unmoderated group, but claim
> >it's not going anywhere?
>
> What part of the word "renamed" do you find so hard to understand?
"Renamed" as it applied to the technical protocols currently accepted
by the vast majority of news servers, why?
(Oh, and don't call me a newbie, da Censor. I can't believe I let your
wife netcop me over one post to rec.food.cooking.)
Sergi
totally goes like:
>On 10 Oct 1999 14:18:09 -0500, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) scribbled:
>
>>In article <7tqmqp$rqi$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>>Wotan <wo...@deathpenguin.com> wrote:
>>>It can't be. It will never vanish from usenet.
>>
>>You may be right. But if so, what concern is it of yours?
>
>Some people are against censorship and control freaks.
And netcops.
Het Petey, care to explain why you felt the need to netcop me?
diespa...@best.com
: David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) :
I think you'd enjoy AOL, Forrest. It's more your speed.
diespa...@best.com
: (Oh, and don't call me a newbie, da Censor. I can't believe I let your
: wife netcop me over one post to rec.food.cooking.)
Josh, what was that about? Didn't Sneaky da Silva go nuts over
there and start forging cancels for posts on rec.good.cooking
because his wife got offended?
Forrest
although it has been accepted as appropriate by some participants in the
discussion:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=238412706
Sergi
>>Het Petey, care to explain why you felt the need to netcop me?
>I sent a sample message for each person involved in the thread to
>their ISP, asking them to talk to the poster in question about their
>behaviour.
No you didn't, you lying fuckstain. You just forwarded my provider a copy of my
post without giving any explanation as to why did it.
>No demands, no expectations, a polite request for polite discussion.
Liar.
>Why do you have a problem with that?
Because you're a control freak, a liar, a censor and a sneaky, underhanded sack
of emu shit. If you have a problem with something I said, you could have come
to me about it. Instead you had to bother my provider with a useless report of
non-abuse. What's worse is that when questioned about your actions you lied
about them.
In conclusion, fuck you and the horse you rode in on, kook.
PS.- Stay the fuck out of my email box, too. You dirty it with your presence.
robby rat
Sergi wrote in message <7tr80d$24s$2...@nntpd.databasix.com>...
>I was like, "Oh, my God! No WAY!" And so then -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com>
>totally goes like:
>
>>On 10 Oct 1999 14:18:09 -0500, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
scribbled:
>>
>>>In article <7tqmqp$rqi$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>>>Wotan <wo...@deathpenguin.com> wrote:
>>>>It can't be. It will never vanish from usenet.
>>>
>>>You may be right. But if so, what concern is it of yours?
>>
>>Some people are against censorship and control freaks.
>
>And netcops.
>
peteys lief wes voied
adn wethout meaning so
he took teh drastec actein
of netcoping teh sergi
so taht dueds would flokc
from all corners of teh
usenet to heap scorn on him
loev
teh robei
Ruada
Sergi <se...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:7trdk6$24s$6...@nntpd.databasix.com...
> Liar.
>
> >Why do you have a problem with that?
>
> Because you're a control freak, a liar, a censor and a sneaky,
underhanded sack
> of emu shit. If you have a problem with something I said, you could
have come
> to me about it. Instead you had to bother my provider with a
useless report of
> non-abuse. What's worse is that when questioned about your actions
you lied
> about them.
>
> In conclusion, fuck you and the horse you rode in on, kook.
>
> PS.- Stay the fuck out of my email box, too. You dirty it with your
presence.
> --
> Sergi, KotAGoR XXX
>
Way to say it Sergi---I wonder if he will netcop me too? No one has
yet--someone has to be first. I do not get this. How do manual plain
text posts in an alt newsgroup constitute abuse?
--
Ruada
Maiden bring thy flowers; Mother bring thy child;
Grandmother bring thy wisdom; Bright Lady bring thy power,
to enlighten a blighted world.
cqd
accomplish this more efectively? I't always been my observation that
the alt.* groups are pretty much a free for all and were by design
uncontrollable
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
The Raoul Xemblinosky Experience
>
> In article <7trdk6$24s$6...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
> Sergi <se...@databasix.com> posted email:
> >In article <7tr80d$24s$2...@nntpd.databasix.com> you write:
> >>>Het Petey, care to explain why you felt the need to netcop me?
>
> >>their ISP, asking them to talk to the poster in question about their
> >>behaviour.
>
> >No you didn't, you lying fuckstain. You just forwarded my provider a copy of my
> >post without giving any explanation as to why did it.
>
> mail software wasn't up to snuff.
>
> >PS.- Stay the fuck out of my email box, too. You dirty it with your presence.
>
Hey, Petey, why is netcopping the only way you can get your rocks off?
- J. Raoul Xemblinosky III ------------------- -- . --- .-- ---------
mhm 15x12 | "I have a gun in my head. I'm invisible. I CAN'T
KotAGoR 33 | FIND THE ICE. A slug. I'm TV. I hate." -KH, 1985
BELLOWER 13 | VOTE ------> http://www.freevote.com/booth/raoul
- http://extra.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq/ --------- a.f.k-m.n -----------
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>In article <7trdk6$24s$6...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Sergi <se...@databasix.com> posted email:
>>In article <7tr80d$24s$2...@nntpd.databasix.com> you write:
>>>>Het Petey, care to explain why you felt the need to netcop me?
>
>>>I sent a sample message for each person involved in the thread to
>>>their ISP, asking them to talk to the poster in question about their
>>>behaviour.
>
>>No you didn't, you lying fuckstain. You just forwarded my provider a copy of my
>>post without giving any explanation as to why did it.
>
>It was right in the subject line. Couldn't miss it. I'm sorry if your ISP's
>mail software wasn't up to snuff.
>
Hey, look at that. It was in the subject line. You consider THREE FUCKING
POSTS to your stupid little group to be a flood? Are you really that much of a
mental defective, or are you just trying to censor people who's posts you don't
like? And why did you feel the need to CC our upstream?
>>PS.- Stay the fuck out of my email box, too. You dirty it with your presence.
>
>You asked me a direct question, I answered it directly.
Here's another question. Why don't you shoot yourself? I'll lend you a gun if
you don't have one.
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>In article <7trg2q$4q$3...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>>Our software is fine. But it's odd that the subject line said flooding when
>>there were only three posts from that user. Odd indeed.
>
>The user was taking part in an ongoing flood. My script simply sent
>messages to each participant's ISPs.
>
Here's a free cloo for you, Fuckface: I didn't even realize my post was going
to AFF, and I really didn't give a flying fuck for your group of social retards
who think they're dogs or mice or whatever the fuck else until you took it upon
yourself to netcop me for three fucking posts.
>>BTW, even the lamest of newbies knows not to put your message in the subject
>>line. Very poor form.
>
>I apologize for the inconvenience, I was trying to cram the script into one
>line, which in this case seems to have been a mistake. Including the message
>on the subject line in abuse reports is one of those things that different
>ISPs apparently have different policies for. I've been requested to send
>reports both ways by different people, and I try and keep them straight.
>
>I think that in the future I will refrain from troubling databasix.com at all,
>unless you'd prefer otherwise.
Don't worry about it. We all had a good laugh at your expense.
Sergi
totally goes like:
>
>Sergi <se...@databasix.com> wrote in message
>news:7trdk6$24s$6...@nntpd.databasix.com...
>> In article <7tr80d$24s$2...@nntpd.databasix.com> you write:
>> >>Het Petey, care to explain why you felt the need to netcop me?
><snip>
>
>> Liar.
>>
>> >Why do you have a problem with that?
>>
>> Because you're a control freak, a liar, a censor and a sneaky,
>underhanded sack
>> of emu shit. If you have a problem with something I said, you could
>have come
>> to me about it. Instead you had to bother my provider with a
>useless report of
>> non-abuse. What's worse is that when questioned about your actions
>you lied
>> about them.
>>
>> In conclusion, fuck you and the horse you rode in on, kook.
>>
>> PS.- Stay the fuck out of my email box, too. You dirty it with your
>presence.
>> --
>> Sergi, KotAGoR XXX
>>
>Way to say it Sergi---I wonder if he will netcop me too? No one has
>yet--someone has to be first. I do not get this. How do manual plain
>text posts in an alt newsgroup constitute abuse?
You'll have to ask DaCensor. So far I've been able to figure out a little bit
of the system he operates under:
1) The DaSilva Index: Each post to any group from someone DaSilva doesn't like
gets one point. Once your DI > 3, you get netcopped.
2) Make sure to address issues that effect other people in a place where the
effected people aren't likely to see them. It saves you the trouble of having
to own up to your actions.
3) Go ahead and cancel whatever you want. Even if you're not going to cancel,
tell people that you can do it with impunity. People are really really
impressed when you wave your dick in their faces.
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>In article <7triud$e4t$3...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Sergi <se...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>Here's a free cloo for you, Fuckface: I didn't even realize my post was going
>>to AFF
>
>This means that either (1) you were an innocent bystander and any rational
>ISP would simply ignore my abuse report as an isolated incident, or
Or that only a complete fuckhead would send a complaint for something as petty
as that?
> (2) that
>you habitually involve yourself in these permanent floating flamewars and
Who, me?
>don't much care what groups you invade and what people you harass with your
>messages, in which case my message would give them a bit more evidence to
>apply to any investigation they might carry out.
>
Learn the difference between abuse ON the net and abuse OF the net, Fuckface.
>I must say that your subsequent behaviour does tend to suggest that case (2)
>is more correct, and you are part of the general low-level abuse that's
>trashing so many groups in Altnet.
What the fuck does Altnet have to do with this, nipplechips?
Ruada
2) Oh---like the other kooks do huh?
3)Not impressive at all. More like sexual assault or harassment.
JayDee
wrote:
>First, because 'threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
>unmoderated newsgroup' is *not* abuse OF the net. Not even abuse
>ON the net.
would it qualify as a virtual threat (assault), tho...
I know of someone who would dig-up tidbits of mentions
of cancelling stuff on a newsgroup, and try to prosecute
some of the jurors just ate it up
baaaaa...
Matthew High
stopped me before.
This group has been rendered completely useless for its original purpose. It
is time for it to die, and be reborn again.
For the record, Peter has 100% of my support, whatever he does. He's proven
himself trustworthy time and again over the years. I'd recommend creating a
moderated newsgroup outside the alt.fan.* hierarchy and leave this newsgroup to
the wolves...so to speak.
----------
"Matt! Come into the light" "No! I like the darkness!"
Distributor/Retailer Liaison Radio Comix http://www.radiocomix.com
Promotion/Sales Cold Cut Distribution http://www.coldcut.com
diespa...@best.com
: Creating a alt.fan.furry.moderated as a pair with the unmoderated group
: seems sane, though dubiously necessary. If the new alt.fan.furry didn't
: have moderated in the name, and if you tried to rmgroup the present
: alt.fan.furry, then, in my opinion, you are asking for problems.
Peter has been trying to kill alt.fan.furry since a group
opposed to the current direction of the fandom started posting
in that newsgroup last year. The main contention is the degree
to which zoophiles have taken over 'furry' for their own ends.
Peter first tried to banish all their posts to alt.fan.furry.politics,
a newsgroup he created for all the "troublemakers". When asked
what was or was not on-topic for AFF vs. AFF-P, da Silva would
give no answer other than that "everybody knew".
His next attempt was to follow-up any post he didn't like with
a re-direct to AFF-P. He got called on the carpet for this move.
He got huffy and stopped doing it.
This latest attempt is the most outrageous yet. Peter now claims
that AFF has been taken over by "trolls". A troll is anyone who
doesn't toe the da Silva party line, apparently. While loud,
often flamey, arguements were part-and-parcel for AFF, these
arguements were always on-topic. That is, to everyone but Peter.
Peter is now crying "Wolf!" (or, in this case, "Troll!") in order
to stir up support for his old attempt at banishing topics HE
doesn't like from AFF. The people voicing support claim that
AFF has been "ruined", "made unusable" or "has strayed from the
original intent of the newsgroup".
A look at Dejanews will show AFF to be a boisterous, loud and
conflict-riddled newsgroup, but that the vast majority of posts
were ON-TOPIC for the group. The most recent noise there was
generated by da Silva himself with his call for destroying AFF
as an un-moderated newsgroup. When coupled with the underhanded
way he went about trying to accomplish this goal, and a sudden
spate of apparently unwarranted nettcopping on his part, another
loud discussion has sprung up. And, again, with the exception of
THREE posters out of perhaps fifty, it's all wholly on-topic
for AFF, despite Peter's attempt to once again divert posts to
AFF-P which HE feels are off-topic.
The majority of these posts, incidentally, are direct questions
about the fate of AFF. Apparently, AFF is off-topic on AFF,
according to da Silva.
Letting Peter get away with this little coup sets an extraordinarily
dangerous standard. Using the same justification as da Silva,
Scientology could load alt.religion.scientology with pro-scientology
supporters, then say the group was a flame-pit of anti-scientology
hate, declare the group "off topic", create ARS-M and appoint their
own moderator to make sure their views were "fairly" represented.
This flies in the face of everything the alt. groups are about,
and in the face of the general intent. It's a sneaky, underhanded
move by a single individual to force a newsgroup to conform to
his view of How Things Should Be.
And the saddest thing is, it's being perpetrated by someone who
allowed newsgroup after newsgroup to be totally ruined while he
stood by his precious view that killfiles solve everything, until
he felt his own little fiefdom was in danger.
Henrietta K. Thomas
<ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>[NANAU restored]
>
>On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:56:21 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas)
>scribbled:
>
>>[ngs trimmed; this subject is off-topic in nan-au]
>
>One, don't mail me copies of your newsgroup replies.
OK. But it would be nice if you'd say something to that effect in
your headers or your .sig.
>Two, how is a person threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
>unmoderated newsgroup NOT on topic for NANAU?
First, because 'threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
unmoderated newsgroup' is *not* abuse OF the net. Not even abuse
ON the net.
And second, because I didn't see any serious threats here, just a lot
of talk about what Peter *might* do.
So until Peter actually *does* something that could be construed as
abuse OF the net according to nan-au's charter, the discussion regarding
alt.fan.furry belongs in alt.fan.furry and alt.config, and nowhere else, IMHO.
Which is why I didn't discuss it in the follow-up I posted to alt.fan.furry
and alt.config.
>Want to propose a newsgroup? Browse these links for help:
>http://www.faqs.org/usenet/alt/
>http://www.angelfire.com/tx/calame/create.html
>http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html
>http://nylon.net/alt/newgroup.htm
>For Help with Deja keyword search:
>http://www.deja.com/help/help_lang.shtml
>For Deja Power search:
>http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/news/deja.html
>For proposing WebTV alt.discuss groups:
>http://www.angelfire.com/az/OpenMind/adrules.html
For information on some regional hierarchies, see:
Message-ID: <37da81e3...@news.btinternet.com>l
For information on the Big 8 hierarchies, see:
news:news.announce.newgroups
Henrietta
Tim Gadd
Gibson) wrote:
>(sigh) I really wish you'd give it a rest. Saying this is a NG specificly for
>animal abusers is kind of like saying a priest NG is just for people molest
>young boys.
Or like saying that a knitting NG is just for people who like to
watch boiled vegetables emerging from caves.
--
Tim Gadd | fluke .com
Hobart, Tasmania | @southcom
Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Coffeehouse/1161/
"I lost my ambition at 24. I don't give a toss. Life is
a matter of passing the time enjoyably."
Peter Cook
-= Hawk =-
scribbled:
>
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) :
>> >>How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?
>> >
>> >Pretty effectively. I'll set it moderated first, so messages will stop
>> >propogating.
>>
>> I think the old AFF should remain.
>
>Theoretical alternative groups have been created before; human inertia acts
>against using them. As a matter of practicality it has to go.
Other than the fact that it will be practically impossible to remove the
existing group.
--
In my dreams the world is black
and blood clots in pools around
the corpses that litter the street
and little children with knives
lie in wait outside your door.
-= Hawk =-
scribbled:
>Um, not that many people here really care what I have to say, but that's never
>stopped me before.
>
>This group has been rendered completely useless for its original purpose. It
>is time for it to die, and be reborn again.
No, it hasn't.
>For the record, Peter has 100% of my support, whatever he does. He's proven
>himself trustworthy time and again over the years. I'd recommend creating a
>moderated newsgroup outside the alt.fan.* hierarchy and leave this newsgroup to
>the wolves...so to speak.
--
Marco van Loon
-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
[munch]
>In his last few posts he sounds like he's channeling Wollman 'I sent the
>control message so I decide the content' sending follow-ups to alt.dev.null.
>Setting follow-ups so the the discussion OF a group doesn't take place IN
>that group....
Woah, 1995 rec.arts.anime dejavue... Only there it was Stephanie da Silva
trying to redirect discussion out of r.a.a and only into news.groups(?) ...
BTW, why the heck do those da Silva people seem to always want to replace the
core groups by .misc groups and thereby turn all the subgroups into
'orphan' groups, while alt.config regulars keep hammering on the fact
that orphan groups are _bad_?..
SD Maruko-kun
diespa...@best.com
: In article <2tkAOPrxLuGna6...@4ax.com>,
: -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
: [munch]
:>In his last few posts he sounds like he's channeling Wollman 'I sent the
:>control message so I decide the content' sending follow-ups to alt.dev.null.
:>Setting follow-ups so the the discussion OF a group doesn't take place IN
:>that group....
: Woah, 1995 rec.arts.anime dejavue... Only there it was Stephanie da Silva
: trying to redirect discussion out of r.a.a and only into news.groups(?) ...
The exact same thing Peter is trying to do with alt.fan.furry.
While he's plotting to destroy it, he's telling everyone the
destruction of their newsgroup is OFF-TOPIC IN THAT SAME NEWSGROUP!
Instead, they are to act like good little sheep, and go over to the
newsgroup alt.fan.furry.politics (which is poorly distributed)
and discuss the fate of alt.fan.furry over there.
Repeating: According to da Silva, alt.fan.furry is OFF TOPIC in
alt.fan.furry!
Truly fucking brilliant.
: BTW, why the heck do those da Silva people seem to always want to replace the : core groups by .misc groups and thereby turn all the subgroups into
: 'orphan' groups, while alt.config regulars keep hammering on the fact
: that orphan groups are _bad_?..
Peter believes he's Usenet God. This is his whole life. And as far
as he's concerned, the only important opinion is a da Silva opinion.
Rebecca Ore
>
> In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:09:21 -0400, -= Hawk =-
> <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>
> >[NANAU restored]
> >
> >On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:56:21 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas)
> >scribbled:
> >
> >>[ngs trimmed; this subject is off-topic in nan-au]
> >
> >One, don't mail me copies of your newsgroup replies.
>
> OK. But it would be nice if you'd say something to that effect in
> your headers or your .sig.
>
> >Two, how is a person threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
> >unmoderated newsgroup NOT on topic for NANAU?
>
> First, because 'threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
> unmoderated newsgroup' is *not* abuse OF the net. Not even abuse
> ON the net.
>
> And second, because I didn't see any serious threats here, just a lot
> of talk about what Peter *might* do.
>
> So until Peter actually *does* something that could be construed as
> abuse OF the net according to nan-au's charter, the discussion regarding
> alt.fan.furry belongs in alt.fan.furry and alt.config, and nowhere else, IMHO.
> Which is why I didn't discuss it in the follow-up I posted to alt.fan.furry
> and alt.config.
It's on topic for here since it's the sort of flame stuff that needs to
be dumped in our mud and all that, like Russ suggested. Peter's one of
those people who dick-wags even when he's not really proposing to do
anything outrageous, and going "nyah, nyah, if I want to cancel, you
can't stop me just like when I ran the dolphinbot" needs someone like
Jeff slowing things down to thinking pace.
Alt.config is a flame group that sorta advises on new group creation,
and is as much likely to torque things tighter than to be useful.
--
Rebecca Ore
-= Hawk =-
scribbled:
>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:09:21 -0400, -= Hawk =-
><ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>
>>[NANAU restored]
>>
>>On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:56:21 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas)
>>scribbled:
>>
>>>[ngs trimmed; this subject is off-topic in nan-au]
>>
>>One, don't mail me copies of your newsgroup replies.
>
>OK. But it would be nice if you'd say something to that effect in
>your headers or your .sig.
>
>>Two, how is a person threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
>>unmoderated newsgroup NOT on topic for NANAU?
>
>First, because 'threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
>unmoderated newsgroup' is *not* abuse OF the net. Not even abuse
>ON the net.
But it's brought the intention OF abuse OF the net to the attention of the
people who would need to see it when and if it occurred, call it a
preemptive strike against censorship, or the hope that some one might be
able to reason
with Mr. daSilva about his intent to destroy an existing unmoderated
newsgroup. As bad as an example as it is, I'd much rather inform the
'police' that my neighbor is building a bomb and planning on blowing
something up, than let them know about it AFTER he did the damage.
>And second, because I didn't see any serious threats here, just a lot
>of talk about what Peter *might* do.
Based on his past actions, and the underhanded way he's dealing with his
proposal, I still don't understand why he's against the discussion of the
fate of alt.fan.furry taking place in alt.fan.furry, I felt his threats most
likely would become reality.
>So until Peter actually *does* something that could be construed as
>abuse OF the net according to nan-au's charter, the discussion regarding
>alt.fan.furry belongs in alt.fan.furry and alt.config, and nowhere else, IMHO.
>Which is why I didn't discuss it in the follow-up I posted to alt.fan.furry
>and alt.config.
I felt it was necessary to bring his intentions of abuse OF the net to the
attention of NANAU.
--
Rebecca Ore
>
> In article <38016337...@op.net>, Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net> wrote:
> >If I understand the proposal correctly, you were planning to create a
> >moderated group, with or without .moderated as part of the name, and
> >then rmgroup alt.fan.furry and newgroup alt.fan.furry.misc, then cancel
> >anything posted to the moderated group even if you failed to put
> >.moderated in the name.
>
> I wasn't aware that it was necessary to have ".moderated" in the name of a
> moderated group. If there is some overarching standard in place for Usenet
> type groups I wasn't aware of it... it certainly isn't anything I've run
> into before... the majority of moderated groups I'm familiar with don't
> have names like that.
Web-tv people :) The number of people who don't have proper newsreaders
that show the groups as moderated have increased. Also, there is
presently an unmoderated group by the name alt.fan.furry. Rm'ing it to
replace it with a moderated group with the exact same name seems
unnecessarily provacative. Why play that game when you could easily
enough set up a new group that's clearly moderated?
(Snips)
>
> As far as mediation goes, who's called for it? The feedback I've recieved from
> people with an actual interest in alt.fan.furry has been almost uniformly
> constructive. I can only think of one regular poster who has been unwilling
> to become involved in the actual discussion. There's certainly nothing here
> to involve news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, unless the original cascades and
> floods are what you're thinking of.
You've reported someone as a flooder who only posted three times to the
group. I'd like to see a third party watch the group for a while before
you just jump in and do something. The comments about how you could run
a cancelbot any time you felt like it and not have any trouble with your
upstreams was provocative. I'd also like to hear from David Formosa on
this.
>
> --
> This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
> to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
>
> Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications, Entropy Gradient Reversals.
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>In article <7trrsm$a0v$8...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>>It's also idiotic to think you're going to turn an non-moderated alt
>>group into a [moderated] alt group.
>
>What's the difference between alt.fan.furry and alt.sources.amiga, which
>was converted from unmoderated to moderated and back again at a time when
>the prevalence of "B news" made it a lot harder to change the state of
>a group?
>
>I'd love to hear some rational arguments about it, but "shut the fuck up"
>isn't one.
How about "go fuck yourself?" Will that work?
Henrietta K. Thomas
k-...@cistron.nl (Marco van Loon) wrote:
>In article <2tkAOPrxLuGna6...@4ax.com>,
>-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>
>[munch]
>
>>In his last few posts he sounds like he's channeling Wollman 'I sent the
>>control message so I decide the content' sending follow-ups to alt.dev.null.
>>Setting follow-ups so the the discussion OF a group doesn't take place IN
>>that group....
>Woah, 1995 rec.arts.anime dejavue... Only there it was Stephanie da Silva
>trying to redirect discussion out of r.a.a and only into news.groups(?) ...
>
>BTW, why the heck do those da Silva people seem to always want to replace the
>core groups by .misc groups and thereby turn all the subgroups into
>'orphan' groups, while alt.config regulars keep hammering on the fact
>that orphan groups are _bad_?..
Peter and Stephanie are Usenet old-timers born and bred in what
is now the Big 8, and Peter appears to me to be trying to reorganize
the alt.fan.furry groups Big 8 style, where the original group becomes
a *.misc group. It is standard procedure in the Big 8 newsgroup
reorganizations.
I don't think Big 8 rules will work well in alt.*, and I heartily support
the regulars in alt.config. I'm not sure, though, how you can defeat
Peter if he goes through with any of his plans. There are no rules
in alt.*, and anyone can do just about anything they please. :-(
Peter, I urge you to reconsider what you are doing here.
Followups set to alt.fan.furry and alt.config.
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.* hierarchy coordinator
Business: usa...@wwa.com
Personal: h...@wwa.com
>
>
>SD Maruko-kun
Peter da Silva
What I'm doing here is trying to have a rational discussion of a first
proposal for a reorganization. The whole point of it is reconsideration.
I guess that what generally happens in alt.config is that someone comes
up with some lame scheme and posts it as a fait accompli and has to be
forcibly flamed into reconsidering it. I'm sorry that actually calling for
discussion is so unusual that it got my ass flamed.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <38019024...@il.news.verio.net>,
>Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>>Peter, I urge you to reconsider what you are doing here.
>
>What I'm doing here is trying to have a rational discussion of a first
>proposal for a reorganization. The whole point of it is reconsideration.
>
>I guess that what generally happens in alt.config is that someone comes
>up with some lame scheme and posts it as a fait accompli and has to be
>forcibly flamed into reconsidering it. I'm sorry that actually calling for
>discussion is so unusual that it got my ass flamed.
You've received an acceptable solution from several people, including
regular users of aff, why you refuse to accept or even recognize these
options is beyond me, the solution is to create a separate moderated
group and allow the existing group to go the way it wants, this has
been done before, it's simple, gives people the choice of moderated
or unmoderated discussion and keeps the change and problems to
a
-= Hawk =-
>In article <38019024...@il.news.verio.net>,
>Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>>Peter, I urge you to reconsider what you are doing here.
>
>What I'm doing here is trying to have a rational discussion of a first
>proposal for a reorganization. The whole point of it is reconsideration.
>
>I guess that what generally happens in alt.config is that someone comes
>up with some lame scheme and posts it as a fait accompli and has to be
>forcibly flamed into reconsidering it. I'm sorry that actually calling for
>discussion is so unusual that it got my ass flamed.
You've received several suggestions of a simple solution to the discussion,
even from regular members of aff, create a separate moderated newsgroup
let the existing unmoderated group follow whatever course it does, this
gives everyone involved the choice of groups to use, and is much easier
than attempting to rmgroup and then newgroup the existing alt.fan.furry.
This solution will also cause less problems.
Peter da Silva
>regular users of aff,
I'm sorry, but people who start out messages calling me names don't get
any consideration. If they have anything useful to say, then there will
be enough other people saying the same thing who *aren't* assholes that
I'll get the message anyway. If not, then they're part of the problem.
>why you refuse to accept or even recognize these
>options is beyond me, the solution is to create a separate moderated
>group and allow the existing group to go the way it wants,
That is one solution. The problem is, as I have already noted (I wish
people would read for content), variants on this have already been
tried.
The solution of changing the moderation status of a group is harder, but
with the commitment of the readers it's possible. Even in alt.
The question then becomes, is there commitment... and there's nothing that
outsiders can say to demonstrate or refute that. It takes people actually
expressing an opinion (for example, by voting, or in his case by posting or
sending email) to do that.
And now I'm going to break an important Usenet tradition. Normally at this
point in a flame war someone always comes up and says the equivalent of
"the lurkers support me in email". There's even a filksong about it.
Well, the lurkers don't support me in email.
At least not as far as changing the moderation of the base group goes. So
that's to be cast aside. Because, well, the lurkers asked for it.
Dr. Cat
: M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:
: >How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?
: Pretty effectively. I'll set it moderated first, so messages will stop
: propogating.
: >How quickly will the new AFF groups be propagated?
: THAT part's easy.
That's not the impression I was under. Though admittedly I haven't
really been following Usenet propogation issues for the last few years.
I thought I had heard a few years ago that a lot of news admins simply
ignored all new alt.* groups, and that it was impossible to get the level
of propogation for a new alt group that was possible before that trend.
Has this changed in the last few years?
I know that the news server I use didn't start carrying
alt.lifestyle.furry for literally years after the group was created.
This in spite of me and at least one other user of this ISP emailing
their account that handles such requests & asking them to add it on
multiple occasions.
I would agree that it's easier to get people to move their discussions
over to a new forum if you wipe out the old one. But keeping the old
forum around until the new one is well established is safer, especially
in a place of dubious propogation like alt.*.
I'm not sure what the best approach is here, but I'd be concerned about
seeing a.f.f. rmgrouped before it's clear whether the replacement groups
are well enough propogated or not.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Of course we'll never get a consensus on a tough issue like
this. Maybe we should just pick whoever is the cutest and silliest and
let them decide.)
-= Hawk =-
>In article <4JkBOO5NMyYIdp...@4ax.com>,
>-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>>You've received an acceptable solution from several people, including
>>regular users of aff,
>
>I'm sorry, but people who start out messages calling me names don't get
>any consideration. If they have anything useful to say, then there will
>be enough other people saying the same thing who *aren't* assholes that
>I'll get the message anyway. If not, then they're part of the problem.
And people who start out proposing censorship get flamed.
>>why you refuse to accept or even recognize these
>>options is beyond me, the solution is to create a separate moderated
>>group and allow the existing group to go the way it wants,
>
>That is one solution. The problem is, as I have already noted (I wish
>people would read for content), variants on this have already been
>tried.
And some are successful, and others are not, that's the chance you'll have
to take.
>The solution of changing the moderation status of a group is harder, but
>with the commitment of the readers it's possible. Even in alt.
>
>The question then becomes, is there commitment... and there's nothing that
>outsiders can say to demonstrate or refute that. It takes people actually
>expressing an opinion (for example, by voting, or in his case by posting or
>sending email) to do that.
People have expressed opinions, you've just not listened to them, for the
same reason you originally proposed to destroy the existing AFF, simply
because you did not like what they had to say.
>And now I'm going to break an important Usenet tradition. Normally at this
>point in a flame war someone always comes up and says the equivalent of
>"the lurkers support me in email". There's even a filksong about it.
>
>Well, the lurkers don't support me in email.
>
>At least not as far as changing the moderation of the base group goes. So
>that's to be cast aside. Because, well, the lurkers asked for it.
Look, create a moderated group, if it flies it was meant to be, if it fails
then it fails because people don't WANT a moderated haven.
Rebecca Ore
(Snips)
>
> Using the namespace in this way is an abuse of the namespace. What happens
> when you have multiple moderated groups in the same hierarchy (such as an
> announce group and a discussion group)?
In this case, the point is moot because everyone other than yourself
appears to have agreed to leaving alt.fan.furry alone and creating
alt.fan.furry.moderated as the second group. alt.fan.furry.no-zoophilia
also works, I suppose.
Henrietta K. Thomas
<ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 05:13:05 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas)
>scribbled:
>
>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:09:21 -0400, -= Hawk =-
>><ha...@lart.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>Two, how is a person threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
>>>unmoderated newsgroup NOT on topic for NANAU?
>>
>>First, because 'threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
>>unmoderated newsgroup' is *not* abuse OF the net. Not even abuse
>>ON the net.
>
>But it's brought the intention OF abuse OF the net to the attention of the
>people who would need to see it when and if it occurred, call it a
>preemptive strike against censorship, or the hope that some one might be
>able to reason with Mr. daSilva about his intent to destroy an existing
>unmoderated newsgroup.
Did you try to reason with Mr. da Silva yourself by email?
I didn't think so.
>As bad as an example as it is, I'd much rather inform the 'police' that
>my neighbor is building a bomb and planning on blowing something up,
>than let them know about it AFTER he did the damage.
And if he was only helping his son prepare an example explosion
for a school science fair, you would be very embarrassed, and he
might be able to sue you for making a false 'police' report.
>>And second, because I didn't see any serious threats here, just a lot
>>of talk about what Peter *might* do.
>
>Based on his past actions, and the underhanded way he's dealing with his
>proposal, I still don't understand why he's against the discussion of the
>fate of alt.fan.furry taking place in alt.fan.furry, I felt his threats most
>likely would become reality.
I just downloaded 50 headers for alt.fan.furry. All but a few threads
are concerning the proposal to 'do something' about the group. Your
artcles are there, and so is one of mine. You might try subscribing
to the group yourself. If necessary, I intend to start posting from there.
>>So until Peter actually *does* something that could be construed as
>>abuse OF the net according to nan-au's charter, the discussion regarding
>>alt.fan.furry belongs in alt.fan.furry and alt.config, and nowhere else, IMHO.
>>Which is why I didn't discuss it in the follow-up I posted to alt.fan.furry
>>and alt.config.
>
>I felt it was necessary to bring his intentions of abuse OF the net to the
>attention of NANAU.
The regulars here have enough to do without worrying about an
alleged *intent* to commit net-abuse.
Followups set again.
Henrietta K. Thomas
wo...@deathpenguin.com (Wotan) wrote:
>In article <38014bcd...@il.news.verio.net>,
>Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> posted, then thought about:
>
>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:09:21 -0400, -= Hawk =-
>><ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>>
>>>[NANAU restored]
>>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:56:21 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas)
>>>scribbled:
>>>
>>>>[ngs trimmed; this subject is off-topic in nan-au]
>>>
>>>One, don't mail me copies of your newsgroup replies.
>>
>>OK. But it would be nice if you'd say something to that effect in
>>your headers or your .sig.
>
>Why? Emily Post News is the only place I've ever seen this listed as a
>*GOOD* thing to do.
Better not tell Rebecca. She puts a notice in her headers not to
email newsgroup replies, and she'd be embarrassed to know that
such notices are approved by Ms. PostNews.
>>>Two, how is a person threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
>>>unmoderated newsgroup NOT on topic for NANAU?
>>
>>First, because 'threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
>>unmoderated newsgroup' is *not* abuse OF the net. Not even abuse
>>ON the net.
>
>No, its a proposal to commit abuse, from someone who done exactly this
>same type of abuse in the past.
>
>On second thought, you are right. Why discuss abusive behavior before it
>happens?
Just because it *might* happen doesn't mean it *will*.
>>And second, because I didn't see any serious threats here, just a lot
>>of talk about what Peter *might* do.
>
>Apparently you aren't seeing Petey's posts where he declares this is a
>right and just thing to do. Probably becuase he is refusing to discuss
>this in the newgroups where such antics are best discussed.
As I just told Hawk, I downloaded 50 headers from alt.fan.furry,
and the group is loaded with posts about Peter's proposal. Go
take a look for yourself.
>>So until Peter actually *does* something that could be construed as
>>abuse OF the net according to nan-au's charter, the discussion regarding
>>alt.fan.furry belongs in alt.fan.furry and alt.config, and nowhere else, IMHO.
>
>Fortunately, your opinion and a sheet of TP will suffice to wipe ones ass.
And your opinion won't even do *that*.
Followups set.
Henrietta K. Thomas
wo...@deathpenguin.com (Wotan) wrote:
>In article <38019024...@il.news.verio.net>,
>Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> posted, then thought about:
>
>Newsgroups restored
>
>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on 11 Oct 1999 07:51:47 +0200,
>>k-...@cistron.nl (Marco van Loon) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2tkAOPrxLuGna6...@4ax.com>,
>>>-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[munch]
>>>
>>>>In his last few posts he sounds like he's channeling Wollman 'I sent the
>>>>control message so I decide the content' sending follow-ups to alt.dev.null.
>>>>Setting follow-ups so the the discussion OF a group doesn't take place IN
>>>>that group....
>>>Woah, 1995 rec.arts.anime dejavue... Only there it was Stephanie da Silva
>>>trying to redirect discussion out of r.a.a and only into news.groups(?) ...
>>>
>>>BTW, why the heck do those da Silva people seem to always want to replace the
>>>core groups by .misc groups and thereby turn all the subgroups into
>>>'orphan' groups, while alt.config regulars keep hammering on the fact
>>>that orphan groups are _bad_?..
>>
>>Peter and Stephanie are Usenet old-timers born and bred in what
>>is now the Big 8, and Peter appears to me to be trying to reorganize
>>the alt.fan.furry groups Big 8 style, where the original group becomes
>>a *.misc group. It is standard procedure in the Big 8 newsgroup
>>reorganizations.
>>
>>I don't think Big 8 rules will work well in alt.*, and I heartily support
>>the regulars in alt.config. I'm not sure, though, how you can defeat
>>Peter if he goes through with any of his plans. There are no rules
>>in alt.*, and anyone can do just about anything they please. :-(
>
>Well, petey can issue a newgroup changing alt.fan.furry to moderated. And
>maybe .1% of all newsservers would accept the change. Even if each and
>every news-admin was asked to do this personally by Petey.
Agreed. It is fairly difficult to change the moderation status of
a newsgroup, especially in the alt.* hierarchy.
>Which leaves only his installation of a retro-moderation bot. Which is a
>blatant act of abuse.
Not necessarily, It depends on how it is set up and whether it has
the support of the regulars in the group. But retromoderation isn't
always the best solution to a problem; robomoderation and/or full
hand moderation are generally much more effective, depending
on the situation.
Followups set.
Henrietta
-= Hawk =-
>Peter da Silva (pe...@taronga.com) wrote:
>: M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:
>: >How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?
>
>: Pretty effectively. I'll set it moderated first, so messages will stop
>: propogating.
>
>: >How quickly will the new AFF groups be propagated?
>
>: THAT part's easy.
>
>That's not the impression I was under. Though admittedly I haven't
>really been following Usenet propogation issues for the last few years.
>
>I thought I had heard a few years ago that a lot of news admins simply
>ignored all new alt.* groups, and that it was impossible to get the level
>of propogation for a new alt group that was possible before that trend.
>Has this changed in the last few years?
It hasn't, FWIW it's in a downward spiral with all the crazed newgroupers
that crop up in alt and create a dozen or a hundred, or a thousand bogus
groups, but it's still easier than getting news admins to accept a status
change from unmoderated to moderated, most ISP's will add groups at
users request.
>I know that the news server I use didn't start carrying
>alt.lifestyle.furry for literally years after the group was created.
>This in spite of me and at least one other user of this ISP emailing
>their account that handles such requests & asking them to add it on
>multiple occasions.
>
>I would agree that it's easier to get people to move their discussions
>over to a new forum if you wipe out the old one. But keeping the old
>forum around until the new one is well established is safer, especially
>in a place of dubious propogation like alt.*.
>
>I'm not sure what the best approach is here, but I'd be concerned about
>seeing a.f.f. rmgrouped before it's clear whether the replacement groups
>are well enough propogated or not.
It would be hard to get admins to even acknowledge the rmgroup, look at how
many times alt.config has been rmgrouped, with little to no effect.
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/alt/alt.config.Z
The best best is to start a whole new moderated group and see what happens.
-= Hawk =-
scribbled:
>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:33:59 -0400, -= Hawk =-
><ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 05:13:05 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas)
>>scribbled:
>>
>>>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:09:21 -0400, -= Hawk =-
>>><ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>Two, how is a person threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
>>>>unmoderated newsgroup NOT on topic for NANAU?
>>>
>>>First, because 'threatening to third party cancel and bot moderate an
>>>unmoderated newsgroup' is *not* abuse OF the net. Not even abuse
>>>ON the net.
>>
>>But it's brought the intention OF abuse OF the net to the attention of the
>>people who would need to see it when and if it occurred, call it a
>>preemptive strike against censorship, or the hope that some one might be
>>able to reason with Mr. daSilva about his intent to destroy an existing
>>unmoderated newsgroup.
>
>Did you try to reason with Mr. da Silva yourself by email?
No, for the same reason I asked you not to email me replies to newsgroup
messages, he made a public statement and it should be addressed IN public,
he wouldn't even allow the discussion of aff's fate IN aff until he got
bitched at repeatedly.
>>As bad as an example as it is, I'd much rather inform the 'police' that
>>my neighbor is building a bomb and planning on blowing something up,
>>than let them know about it AFTER he did the damage.
>
>And if he was only helping his son prepare an example explosion
>for a school science fair, you would be very embarrassed, and he
>might be able to sue you for making a false 'police' report.
Perhaps because I can tell the difference between a school experiment and
someone waving several sticks of dynamite around and making threats?
>>>And second, because I didn't see any serious threats here, just a lot
>>>of talk about what Peter *might* do.
>>
>>Based on his past actions, and the underhanded way he's dealing with his
>>proposal, I still don't understand why he's against the discussion of the
>>fate of alt.fan.furry taking place in alt.fan.furry, I felt his threats most
>>likely would become reality.
>
>I just downloaded 50 headers for alt.fan.furry. All but a few threads
>are concerning the proposal to 'do something' about the group. Your
>artcles are there, and so is one of mine. You might try subscribing
>to the group yourself. If necessary, I intend to start posting from there.
I am subscribed to there, and I removed his follow-up to
alt.fan.furry.politics and restored aff every time I replied to him.
>>>So until Peter actually *does* something that could be construed as
>>>abuse OF the net according to nan-au's charter, the discussion regarding
>>>alt.fan.furry belongs in alt.fan.furry and alt.config, and nowhere else, IMHO.
>>>Which is why I didn't discuss it in the follow-up I posted to alt.fan.furry
>>>and alt.config.
>>
>>I felt it was necessary to bring his intentions of abuse OF the net to the
>>attention of NANAU.
>
>The regulars here have enough to do without worrying about an
>alleged *intent* to commit net-abuse.
So you now speak for the entirety of NANAU?
[NANAU added so they can see they now have a spokesperson to decided content
there, damn, sounds so similar to what Peter attempted in AFF.]
Rebecca Ore
>
> In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on 11 Oct 1999 07:25:02 GMT,
> wo...@deathpenguin.com (Wotan) wrote:
> >Why? Emily Post News is the only place I've ever seen this listed as a
> >*GOOD* thing to do.
>
> Better not tell Rebecca. She puts a notice in her headers not to
> email newsgroup replies, and she'd be embarrassed to know that
> such notices are approved by Ms. PostNews.
I think you're deliberately misreading Wotan or you're really being
obtuse. I only have such headers because of earnest kookazoids like
Charles Demas who is still four months after Steve's retirement lying in
wait for him in alt.boston.unmoderated.
Since Peter lost his proposal due to sending the discussion to an
extremely poorly propagated joke group, I think we can drop it if he
simply slinks back off to alt.animals.dolphins.no-cross-posting.
Rebecca Ore
>
> Um, not that many people here really care what I have to say, but that's never
> stopped me before.
>
> This group has been rendered completely useless for its original purpose. It
> is time for it to die, and be reborn again.
>
> himself trustworthy time and again over the years. I'd recommend creating a
> moderated newsgroup outside the alt.fan.* hierarchy and leave this newsgroup to
> the wolves...so to speak.
Peter lost it around the second HFW invasion of alt.animals.dolphins and
should be gently helped into retirement.
Peter is the *only* person who disagrees with you. He wants to rmgroup
the present group, which won't work any better than the newgrouping of
the joke vanity group alt.fan.furry.politics worked, and then newgroup a
group with the identical same name, which won't propagate as a moderated
group since nobody will have rmgrouped the first iteration.
Any number of people in alt.config will be happy to help set up
alt.furry.noflames or whatever the man wants to call it since he refuses
to consider calling it alt.furry.moderated.
Rebecca Ore
finally realized the discussion wasn't moving from the group his
proposal would affect.
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net> writes:
>
> > then cancel anything posted to the moderated group even if you failed to
> > put .moderated in the name.
>
> Not puting .moderated in the name is not a "failure." Please don't
> propagate this rather ridiculous idea about newsgroup naming. The status
> flag of a newsgroup is *out of band* data; it doesn't belong in the name
> unless it's actually a defining element of the topic.
>
> Next you'll see fm.announce.no-local-posting. Sheesh.
The thing is Peter wants to rmgroup a group that he thinks got infested
with trolls and then issue a newgroup for a group with exactly the same
name that is moderated. Various people have tried to explain how
ridiculous that would be. If he wants a moderated group, he can call it
anything he wants other than the original name of the unmoderated group
seems to be the opinion.
He's also netcopped people for posting about his proposal to the group
that would be affected. While the usual house trolls aren't invading,
he's got the DataBasix group and the alt.config/alt.usenet.kooks
regulars in, plus Henrietta.
Since rmgroups are rarely honored in alt. for existing groups, this
seems to be setting up a condition where many servers would not honor
the subsequent newgrouping with moderation.
And this server carries alt.fan.furry.bleachers and alt.fan.furry.mush,
but not Peter's vanity group, alt.fan.furry.politics.
If you can think of any good reason for Peter to hide what he's
proposing in some vanity group, plus any reason to expect that the
rmgroup and newgrouping of something with the exact same name makes
sense, do let me know.
Rebecca Ore
>
> In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> writes:
>
> > But it's brought the intention OF abuse OF the net to the attention of
> > the people who would need to see it when and if it occurred, call it a
> > preemptive strike against censorship, or the hope that some one might be
> > able to reason with Mr. daSilva about his intent to destroy an existing
> > unmoderated newsgroup.
>
> opens up with rhetoric about "destroying an existing unmoderated group"
> who's worth listening to.
Peter has created this condition by trying to move the discussion of the
change to a poorly propagated group that isn't carried on some of the
major news ISPs, and by complaining about people posting to
alt.fan.furry on this topic to their ISPs and their ISPs upstreams as
though they were flooding the group. If Jeff Leader has had a chance to
look in, I think he'd be a credible witness to any "flooding" that was
going on. To me, it looks like a meta flame match about the fate of the
group that one side is trying to move to a poorly propagated group
rather than have group regulars know what's going on.
>
> Newsgroup creation is about change. You can agree with proposed changes
> or disagree with proposed changes, but claiming that change is inherently
> abusive is a bit of a stretch.
Even when one side of the discussion tries to hide what's going on and
accuses his opponents of flooding the group?
>
> > I felt it was necessary to bring his intentions of abuse OF the net to
> > the attention of NANAU.
>
> Given that my immediate gut reaction to your method of doing so, which I'm
> trying -- so far successfully -- to repress until I know the actual facts,
> was to offer him an injection point, you may want to rethink your tactics.
Peter's an old friend of yours, but this one event is more than a tad
deliberately provocative.
Peter da Silva
>Peter is the *only* person who disagrees with you. He wants to rmgroup
>the present group, which won't work any better than the newgrouping of
>the joke vanity group alt.fan.furry.politics worked, and then newgroup a
>group with the identical same name, which won't propagate as a moderated
>group since nobody will have rmgrouped the first iteration.
Why do you keep saying that? It's not what the proposal said. This two
stage deletion and recreation... I don't know where yu're getting that from.
There's plenty of people flaming before reading, but I never expected that
you'd be one of them. That's depressing.
Peter da Silva
Cipher <cip...@databasix.com> wrote:
>I believe it was the plan to have the group die due to non-propagation and
>cancel bot you proposed that caused that.
If it was a plan I would have called it a plan. And completed plan or
proposal there's nothing in it referring to a cancel bot. I had explicitly
repudiated that before the thing was even posted.
Peter da Silva
What's gotten into you? That's the second had name you've suggested. If you
think "alt.fan.furry.politics" is a poorly thought out group, than that's
worse. I don't expect that moderation will keep out zoophiles, and I'm not
interested in even trying, that'd be like trying to keep furries out of
science fiction.
Peter da Silva
>Since Peter lost his proposal due to sending the discussion to an
>extremely poorly propagated joke group, I think we can drop it if he
>simply slinks back off to alt.animals.dolphins.no-cross-posting.
The proposal isn't "lost", it's continuing on track, and if you can stop
being helpful we can move along with it.
Peter da Silva
>The thing is Peter wants to rmgroup a group that he thinks got infested
>with trolls and then issue a newgroup for a group with exactly the same
>name that is moderated.
That's not what the proposal says. There's no need to issue a rmgroup to
change the moderation status of a group.
>He's also netcopped people for posting about his proposal to the group
>that would be affected.
That's not true. The only people I sent out abuse reports about were people
involved in unrelated discussions crossposted into alt.fan.furry. Some of them
were apparently innocent bystanders, and I've apologised for causing confusion
there.
And if you insist on posting to alt.fan.furry, please at least make sure
that your messages are tagged with something that can be easily killfiled.
-= Hawk =-
>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> writes:
>
>> But it's brought the intention OF abuse OF the net to the attention of
>> the people who would need to see it when and if it occurred, call it a
>> preemptive strike against censorship, or the hope that some one might be
>> able to reason with Mr. daSilva about his intent to destroy an existing
>> unmoderated newsgroup.
>
>Y'know, I've yet to see anyone in a newsgroup creation discussion who
>opens up with rhetoric about "destroying an existing unmoderated group"
>who's worth listening to.
Then don't listen.
>Newsgroup creation is about change. You can agree with proposed changes
>or disagree with proposed changes, but claiming that change is inherently
>abusive is a bit of a stretch.
Newsgroup creation is about creating new groups, not changing the status of
a group and bot canceling all posts to the group, which was his original
intent.
>> I felt it was necessary to bring his intentions of abuse OF the net to
>> the attention of NANAU.
>
>Given that my immediate gut reaction to your method of doing so, which I'm
>trying -- so far successfully -- to repress until I know the actual facts,
>was to offer him an injection point, you may want to rethink your tactics.
Thanks for the advice.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <3801D14A...@op.net>, Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net> wrote:
>>Peter is the *only* person who disagrees with you. He wants to rmgroup
>>the present group, which won't work any better than the newgrouping of
>>the joke vanity group alt.fan.furry.politics worked, and then newgroup a
>>group with the identical same name, which won't propagate as a moderated
>>group since nobody will have rmgrouped the first iteration.
>
>Why do you keep saying that? It's not what the proposal said. This two
>stage deletion and recreation... I don't know where yu're getting that from.
>There's plenty of people flaming before reading, but I never expected that
>you'd be one of them. That's depressing.
Perhaps because that's what you said you were going to do? Or don't you read
what you type?
Oh, I'm sorry, you told me "You can go home now. You don't need to keep
flaming me. I've already reached the conclusion you want without your help."
Although I truly wonder that if your plans hadn't been brought to light and
flamed as they were if you would have reached the same conclusion.
And don't email me, if you've got something to say about a public discussion
you can say it in the newsgroups.
-= Hawk =-
>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net> writes:
>
>>> Newsgroup creation is about change. You can agree with proposed
>>> changes or disagree with proposed changes, but claiming that change is
>>> inherently abusive is a bit of a stretch.
>
>> Even when one side of the discussion tries to hide what's going on and
>> accuses his opponents of flooding the group?
>
>What does that have to do with what I said or what I was responding to?
>The phrase "destroying an existing unmoderated group" sets off all sorts
>of warning bells about people with an axe to grind and no interest in a
>real discussion. That's true regardless of what other people involved in
>the discussion are doing.
Of course, jumping into the discussion in the middle (or rather towards the
end) without researching the issue, and then immediately jumping to
conclusions doesn't help either.
>It's a level of ramped-up rhetoric that indicates that rational discussion
>isn't welcome.
>
>> Peter's an old friend of yours, but this one event is more than a tad
>> deliberately provocative.
>
>C'mon, I've never met Peter. I have about as much acquaintance with him
>as with anyone else who's been around Usenet for a long time.
>
>What's relevant here is that you and I both know that he isn't some sort
>of crazed psychotic Nazi censor. Don't you think that the reaction here
>is just a *leeetle* extreme? Don't you sort of wonder why that might be?
>
>Furthermore, the sort of presentation of the issue here ("This person is
>inherently evil! He's destroying Usenet! Aren't I a good boy for
>reporting it to you so that you can slay him!") is not exactly designed to
Feeling judgmental today, Russ?
>engender a positive reaction. It's precisely the same sort of thing that
>we've seen pulled here before. The goal is to create a deliberately
>skewed and one-sided picture of the situation so as to acquire allies in a
>flame war.
The goal was to let NANAU know that a rogue canceler who's run cancelbots
before had stated he planned on doing it again, but then again, since you
don't know the actual facts (your words) why are you bothering to comment?
>It creates as much hostility via backfiring badly than anything else.
Peter da Silva
Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>Drop the word reorganization. Use the words creation of a moderated group.
A reorganization is still on the table. There are multiple subgroups and some
of them might be better off removed, or other new groups created.
Peter da Silva
Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
Um, at least one guy wasn't even aware he'd been posting to alt.fan.furry.
He said as much. You have cause and effect completely backwards here.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <3801D97F...@op.net>, Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net> wrote:
>>The thing is Peter wants to rmgroup a group that he thinks got infested
>>with trolls and then issue a newgroup for a group with exactly the same
>>name that is moderated.
>
>That's not what the proposal says. There's no need to issue a rmgroup to
>change the moderation status of a group.
Message-ID: <7tmd6e$b...@bonkers.taronga.com>
"After I remove alt.fan.furry, and set a bot to ensure it stays gone, yes."
Message-ID: <7tq4t6$g...@bonkers.taronga.com>
">How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?"
"Pretty effectively. I'll set it moderated first, so messages will stop
propogating."
>>He's also netcopped people for posting about his proposal to the group
>>that would be affected.
>
>That's not true. The only people I sent out abuse reports about were people
>involved in unrelated discussions crossposted into alt.fan.furry. Some of them
>were apparently innocent bystanders, and I've apologised for causing confusion
>there.
>
>And if you insist on posting to alt.fan.furry, please at least make sure
>that your messages are tagged with something that can be easily killfiled.
--
In my dreams the world is black
-= Hawk =-
>In article <7tst0s$gpa$8...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>>Drop the word reorganization. Use the words creation of a moderated group.
>
>A reorganization is still on the table. There are multiple subgroups and some
>of them might be better off removed, or other new groups created.
Trying to remove an established alt group is an exercise in futility.
diespa...@best.com
: In article <4JkBOO5NMyYIdp...@4ax.com>,
: -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
:>You've received an acceptable solution from several people, including
:>regular users of aff,
: I'm sorry, but people who start out messages calling me names don't get
: any consideration. If they have anything useful to say, then there will
: be enough other people saying the same thing who *aren't* assholes that
: I'll get the message anyway. If not, then they're part of the problem.
So, in other words, you're not interested in hearing other viewpoints,
only the viewpoints you like and make you comfortable. It's also
amusing how you say "people who start out messages calling me name
don't get any consideration", then turn around and call people
"assholes".
Face it, Peter -- you're a very petty man with delusions of granduer.
Jeremy
>>> If I understand the proposal correctly, you were planning to create a
>>> moderated group, with or without .moderated as part of the name, and
>>> then rmgroup alt.fan.furry and newgroup alt.fan.furry.misc, then
>>> cancel anything posted to the moderated group even if you failed to
>>> put .moderated in the name.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that it was necessary to have ".moderated" in the name of a
>> moderated group. If there is some overarching standard in place for Usenet
>> type groups I wasn't aware of it... it certainly isn't anything I've run
>> into before... the majority of moderated groups I'm familiar with don't
>> have names like that.
>
> Web-tv people :) The number of people who don't have proper newsreaders
> that show the groups as moderated have increased. Also, there is
> presently an unmoderated group by the name alt.fan.furry. Rm'ing it to
> replace it with a moderated group with the exact same name seems
> unnecessarily provacative. Why play that game when you could easily
> enough set up a new group that's clearly moderated?
Oh, fuck, please don't let's start the stupid "should moderated groups
have .moderated in the name" discussion again. We just had it not long
ago, and the idea isn't any less stupid now than it was then.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
"Silly boy, Mexico is part of Africa." --Tim Thorne
Jeremy
> Since rmgroups are rarely honored in alt. for existing groups, this
> seems to be setting up a condition where many servers would not honor
> the subsequent newgrouping with moderation.
An rmgroup, successful or not, is in no way required to change a group
from unmoderated to moderated.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
"Alright, you got me. I lied. But it was the first time!"
--Tim Thorne
Peter da Silva
>
>>In article <3801D97F...@op.net>, Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net> wrote:
>>>The thing is Peter wants to rmgroup a group that he thinks got infested
>>>with trolls and then issue a newgroup for a group with exactly the same
>>>name that is moderated.
>>That's not what the proposal says. There's no need to issue a rmgroup to
>>change the moderation status of a group.
>Message-ID: <7tmd6e$b...@bonkers.taronga.com>
>"After I remove alt.fan.furry, and set a bot to ensure it stays gone, yes."
>Message-ID: <7tq4t6$g...@bonkers.taronga.com>
>">How effectively can the old AFF be rmgrouped?"
>"Pretty effectively. I'll set it moderated first, so messages will stop
>propogating."
If the group "alt.fan.furry" was chosen as the moderated group, it would be
moderated. If the group "alt.fan.furry.misc" was chosen as the moderated
group, it would be deleted. In no case would it be deleted and recreated
with the same name.
In any case both of those messages were part of the discussion from before the
proposal, as far as I can tell. In fact one of them is talking about moving
over to other hierarchies as an alternative.
Jeremy
> Well, petey can issue a newgroup changing alt.fan.furry to moderated. And
> maybe .1% of all newsservers would accept the change. Even if each and
> every news-admin was asked to do this personally by Petey.
>
> Which leaves only his installation of a retro-moderation bot. Which is a
> blatant act of abuse.
When did he threaten to do that? I saw him quoted as suggesting that he
could run a *moderation* bot, but I have yet to see where he said he wanted
to run a cancelbot there. Could someone provide the cite for those of us
who don't read alt.fan.furry?
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
"No mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It's all a lot of simple
tricks and nonsense." --Han Solo