New irc network [irc.zonenet.org]
David
And again here is someone thats tellings people there is a new ircnetwork..
But we made this ircnetwork for people to have fun, or for those who
need a stable place for there Help channels.
(for help channels there will be a fast (local) webchat for there sites..)
all the servers have a stable fast connection, so try it out:)
(for those who want to link contact me)
-
Bots are allowed (not for abuse)
More than 1 connection from same IP are allowed (not for abuse)
Open proxys for security reasons are allowed (not for abuse)
On request an vhost for security reasons is availeble (again not for abuse)
-
Servers:
irc.zonenet.org (random picks a server)
irc.brainlez.net (http://www.brainlez.net)
irc.lamer.nl (http://www.lamer.nl)
and much more..
Totally 5 fast stable servers are connected.
Have phun.
David [brai...@void.brainlez.net]
Viper
will SPAM us here what will they do when you are on their cable servers?
Well that is IF they are still up after the abuse guys get the emails.
Tom Laermans
@home.com says...
> Yummy more SPAM. I suggest people stay away from these SPAMMERS. If they
> will SPAM us here what will they do when you are on their cable servers?
> Well that is IF they are still up after the abuse guys get the emails.
Yummy. More Viper.
While I am not affiliated with the zonenet irc network in any way, it's
damn hard to get on one of their cable servers.
Because there are no cable servers involved.
Get your facts straight before doing another of your cut'n'paste spam
posts.
--
-Tom [http://www.powersource.cx]
David
Sorry for this.. i didnt knew that it was against pollicy for telling
it.. i thought alt.irc is the right place (becouse i saw more people
doing it..) my deepest sorry, i wont do it again
Martin Edwards
wrote:
>
>Sorry for this.. i didnt knew that it was against pollicy for telling
>it.. i thought alt.irc is the right place (becouse i saw more people
>doing it..) my deepest sorry, i wont do it again
>
>
>
No big deal. Only a few take that attitude.
******Martin Edwards.******
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway
when you can take the Red Car for a nickel.
-Eddy Valiant
Jacob News
No need to apologize. There is no such policy and you certainly would not
have transgressed it even if one were to be created some day. I can count
on one hand the number of people on this newsgroup who have publicly spoken
out against network announcements, so any such claim to be enforcing a "policy"
of this newsgroup is at best illegitimite and at worst fraudulent (ie, the
netcop would itself be network abuse).
-Jacob
jm
These so called "rules" are created by users, just like yourself, and
therefore cannot be imposed.
"David" <brai...@void.brainlez.net> wrote in message
news:3C00EE70...@void.brainlez.net...
MJ Ray
alt.irc is the right place.
It is on-topic in alt.irc.
It's even nicer if you tell us some things about your network and start a
discussion/flamewar about any particular features.
Viper is off-topic. He should be posting to alt.netcop.wannabe.
Bob Kerens
The network for all kinds of games
At the moment we got all kinds of players from games as UT and CS
1 of our sponsers even can provide users forums, lists and much more
Last mounth we had around 500 visiters and around 25 of them always come
back everyday
spread over the day and week around 50 log in every time when they are
online again
We have IRCore services which makes players of ingame chatting easyer like
ingame chatting for UT
(cs, uw, ns and sc)
Our servers are on 2 shells and can be joined by entering the following
address:
irc.worldircnet.com (6667)
But we are still looking for some nice linkers who want to link with us can
can hold themselfs some rules
you wanna know more?
ask gadget on the emailaddress below
all linkers have to contact Gadget before linking
Hope to hear from you soon or see you on the server
greetz,
Gadget
admin worldircnet
gad...@worldircnet.com
ad...@worldircnet.com
www.worldircnet.com
MJ Ray <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
slrna0319b.2...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...
MJ Ray
>The network for all kinds of games
Got any good IRC or X games supported?
Viper
listen. Guess thats why so many shell places get DoS'ed by script kiddies.
Tony Miller
Bob Kerens <bjke...@home.nl> wrote:
>irc.worldircnet.com (6667)
Are you folks a commercial venture?
-Tony
--
Reliable, "eggable" Unix shell accounts. http://www.jtan.com/proshell/
cl00bie @ IRC - /server cookie.sorcery.net 9000, http://www.sorcery.net
We welcome WebTV'ers - http://www.sorcery.net/help/index.html#WebTV
Jacob News
>This AFTER you was told by your host not to spam again. Spammers never
>listen. Guess thats why so many shell places get DoS'ed by script kiddies.
He was *specifically asked* by a regular of this newsgroup to engage in
a discussion about the topic, and did so. If this is all it takes to
qualify as "spamming" in your definition, then you truly are a rogue kook
who deserves to be ostracized by everyone else on this newsgroup.
Again, I stand by my statement -- Viper's defintion of "spamming" is
"anything Viper decides he doesn't want to see." There are no community
guidelines, there is no peer review, there is nothing other than Viper's
own absolute fiats.
You're a liar, a network abuser, a fraud, and a cheat. If I were the
kind of person to netcop, I would have overwhelming evidence to report
you to @home for extensive, deliberate, and willfull malfeasance of service
and years of malicious network abuse. You are truly lucky than I'm a bigger
man than you are.
-Jacob
Martin Edwards
>you to @home for extensive, deliberate, and willfull malfeasance of service
>and years of malicious network abuse. You are truly lucky than I'm a bigger
>man than you are.
>
>-Jacob
In a way you are, but maybe the punk should be stepped on.
Hesiod
wrote:
>
> It's even nicer if you tell us some things about your network and start a
> discussion/flamewar about any particular features.
I myself some time ago first enquired here as to which was the appropriate
group to post network announcements. This was after lurking for a long
time and watching the incessant, largely Viper-induced debates about
the topicality of network announcements. Peas suggested the *.servers
and *.networks groups, and since my ISP doesn't carry alt.irc.networks, I
posted to *.servers. My intent was chiefly to get some
comment/feedback/critique. I didn't get any on alt.irc.servers.
After waiting some time and watching the Viper sponsored dog-and-pony
show in alt.irc, and seeing a good number of people arguing convincingly
that server announcements were not strictly off-topic (leaving aside
Viper's clueless understanding of true spam), I decided to post here and
get some comment/feedback/critique. The thread that developed was
interesting and highly informative. The discussion about encryption in
IRC taught me a lot. That alone made my network announce here
rewarding.
Hesiod
--
Kua oti.
Igor2
> No need to apologize. There is no such policy and you certainly would not
> have transgressed it even if one were to be created some day. I can count
> on one hand the number of people on this newsgroup who have publicly spoken
> out against network announcements, so any such claim to be enforcing a "policy"
> of this newsgroup is at best illegitimite and at worst fraudulent (ie, the
> netcop would itself be network abuse).
And i can count on one hand who says that he wants server advs here...
> -Jacob
>
Igor2
Jacob News
>> No need to apologize. There is no such policy and you certainly would not
>> have transgressed it even if one were to be created some day. I can count
>> on one hand the number of people on this newsgroup who have publicly spoken
>> out against network announcements, so any such claim to be enforcing a
>"policy"
>> of this newsgroup is at best illegitimite and at worst fraudulent (ie, the
>> netcop would itself be network abuse).
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>And i can count on one hand who says that he wants server advs here...
The status quo is that server announcements have always been on-topic
here and should remain so. In the absence of any sort of actual movement
towards changing that, the status quo should be respected, not ignored.
What your position is, appears to be that we should ignore historical
practice and precedent because *you* find it inconvenient, without any
regard to the profound lack of support for your position.
I assert the equivalent of a lack of a quorum. You can't pass new rules
and impose new restrictions when there is a profound lack of interest in
changing the rules and when there is no input from the community -- unless
you are a deceitful fraud and you don't care about others around you, that is.
-Jacob
Igor2
> >And i can count on one hand who says that he wants server advs here...
>
> The status quo is that server announcements have always been on-topic
> here and should remain so. In the absence of any sort of actual movement
> towards changing that, the status quo should be respected, not ignored.
your opinion, mine is the reverse, but why to start arguing again?
> What your position is, appears to be that we should ignore historical
> practice and precedent because *you* find it inconvenient, without any
> regard to the profound lack of support for your position.
your position is to ignore chaning of the world (uhh, are you using a
commodore anyway?:)
> I assert the equivalent of a lack of a quorum. You can't pass new rules
> and impose new restrictions when there is a profound lack of interest in
> changing the rules and when there is no input from the community -- unless
> you are a deceitful fraud and you don't care about others around you, that is.
it seems as many ppl here don't like advs is about same as many who likes
them; no rules about this in the charter. I didn't want to start this
endless and useless argue again, but when you simply say somehting in the
name of the group about it, thats a bad thing. So when you say you can
count on one hand who agrees me, the full truth is that i can count on one
hand who disagrees me. So if you say something about the full situation,
please don't describe only your or a few person's opinion about it,
because it is missleading...
> -Jacob
>
chika
Jacob News <jn...@epicsol.org> wrote:
> The status quo is that server announcements have always been on-topic
> here and should remain so. In the absence of any sort of actual movement
> towards changing that, the status quo should be respected, not ignored.
That's not completely true. Server announcements are taken as on-topic as
there is no definitive charter to say what is and isn't on topic. Since
there is no effective way to change this without trampling on someone's
toes, and since nobody is bothered anyway apart from V|per who has decided
to take the vigilante's role in this, there is nothing to stop you from
posting a server ad here. The only (somewhat vague) rule is that the name
is alt.irc, therefore any post should at least be connected with irc in
some way.
Igor2
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, chika wrote:
> In article <u069qac...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jacob News <jn...@epicsol.org> wrote:
> > The status quo is that server announcements have always been on-topic
> > here and should remain so. In the absence of any sort of actual movement
> > towards changing that, the status quo should be respected, not ignored.
>
> That's not completely true. Server announcements are taken as on-topic as
> there is no definitive charter to say what is and isn't on topic. Since
> there is no effective way to change this without trampling on someone's
> toes, and since nobody is bothered anyway apart from V|per who has decided
> to take the vigilante's role in this, there is nothing to stop you from
And don't forget that there are others who don't like server ads (altough
they don't send mails to isps about this)...
> posting a server ad here. The only (somewhat vague) rule is that the name
> is alt.irc, therefore any post should at least be connected with irc in
> some way.
>
>
Fact: the newsgroup doesn't have a charter. Some says it means everything
is accepted that is releated to irc, but i could bring an example with the
irc-socks that is releated to irc but still they said it is off-topic. So
after all almost everyone agree in that there are still limits: there are
themes that are far away from on-topicness, but still releated to irc. The
problem is that where is this limit. I say server ads are over this limit,
some says not. But neither of the groups can say he is absolutely true,
and neither should say his opinion as it was the whole group's opinion.
Also, to say "mayority of the group says" or "most of the regulars" or "i
can count on my hand who disagrees" are all false statements as there is
not any measure, vote or whatever that exactly counts who or how many
users are agreeing/disagreeing. So i think the best is to always say both
opinions.
Who doesn't do this, is one who really wants to change the group for his
own taste...
bye
Igor2
chika
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
> it seems as many ppl here don't like advs is about same as many who likes
> them; no rules about this in the charter.
Hangonamo... What charter are you talking about?
MJ Ray
>the topicality of network announcements. Peas suggested the *.servers
>and *.networks groups, and since my ISP doesn't carry alt.irc.networks, I
>posted to *.servers. My intent was chiefly to get some
>comment/feedback/critique. I didn't get any on alt.irc.servers.
You won't. alt.irc.servers, which is a group for discussion of ircds, takes
a more mature attitude to off-topic posts like yours and just ignores them,
as far as I can tell.
>[...] I decided to post here and get some comment/feedback/critique. The
>thread that developed was interesting and highly informative. The
>discussion about encryption in IRC taught me a lot. That alone made my
>network announce here rewarding.
I'm glad this group has been of some use to someone ;-) I sometimes wonder
with all of Vipers misposts for alt.netcop.wannabe whether lots of people
are driven out. It sort of holds this group down.
MJ Ray
>[...] So when you say you can count on one hand who agrees me, the full
>truth is that i can count on one hand who disagrees me. [...]
So the status quo should prevail. Now drop it.
Igor2
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, chika wrote:
there is no charter, so you can't wriet one. If you tell somone only your
opinion as the fact or truth, you try to force your opinion on he group,
this is what i was talking about if you erally read what i write...
Tony Miller
Oh? And I can count on one hand those who don't.
Hey... There's only two hands of us here! And this is supposed to be a
great advertising opportunity for new servers.
Do you believe anyone would ever advertise here if they had any idea who
they were targeting? :))
>> -Jacob
>>
>
>Igor2
Tony Miller
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
<Snip>
>And don't forget that there are others who don't like server ads (altough
>they don't send mails to isps about this)...
So I don't like your idiot blathering. I, King Tony, declare all of
Igor's posts off topic and will report him to his ISP every time he posts.
Long live King Tony.
MJ Ray
>Long live King Tony.
The King is Dead!
I think I'll stop there.
Igor2
war whne it started. Simply there are two groups, and the points of view
will never get closer about this thing.
But I hate when someone from one of the groups says something in the name
of the whole newsgroup and what he says describes only his opinion.
So i decided not to get in any flame wars abotu server advs, unless somone
tells his opinion in the whole newsgroups name or in my name...
i think this is what tony couldn't understand :)
chika
<pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, chika wrote:
> > In article <u069qac...@corp.supernews.com>, Jacob News
> > <jn...@epicsol.org> wrote:
> > > The status quo is that server announcements have always been
> > > on-topic here and should remain so. In the absence of any sort of
> > > actual movement towards changing that, the status quo should be
> > > respected, not ignored.
> >
> > That's not completely true. Server announcements are taken as on-topic
> > as there is no definitive charter to say what is and isn't on topic.
> > Since there is no effective way to change this without trampling on
> > someone's toes, and since nobody is bothered anyway apart from V|per
> > who has decided to take the vigilante's role in this, there is nothing
> > to stop you from
> And don't forget that there are others who don't like server ads
> (altough they don't send mails to isps about this)...
I haven't. In fact I'm on record here as one of those "others". However
there are other things here that annoy me more.
> > posting a server ad here. The only (somewhat vague) rule is that the
> > name is alt.irc, therefore any post should at least be connected with
> > irc in some way.
> Fact: the newsgroup doesn't have a charter. Some says it means
> everything is accepted that is releated to irc, but i could bring an
> example with the irc-socks that is releated to irc but still they said
> it is off-topic. So after all almost everyone agree in that there are
> still limits: there are themes that are far away from on-topicness, but
> still releated to irc. The problem is that where is this limit. I say
> server ads are over this limit, some says not. But neither of the groups
> can say he is absolutely true, and neither should say his opinion as it
> was the whole group's opinion.
True, but then "somewhat vague" means exactly that.
> Also, to say "mayority of the group says" or "most of the regulars" or
> "i can count on my hand who disagrees" are all false statements as there
> is not any measure, vote or whatever that exactly counts who or how many
> users are agreeing/disagreeing. So i think the best is to always say
> both opinions.
> Who doesn't do this, is one who really wants to change the group for his
> own taste...
I'll leave that one for the folk it was probably aimed at...
Jacob News
>Also, to say "mayority of the group says" or "most of the regulars" or "i
>can count on my hand who disagrees" are all false statements as there is
>not any measure, vote or whatever that exactly counts who or how many
>users are agreeing/disagreeing. So i think the best is to always say both
>opinions.
I did *NOT* say "I can count on one hand those who disagree" with me.
What I said was I can count on one hand those who have *publicly stated*
that they oppose network announcements and support netcopping of same.
I have no idea how many people actually support that position, but if there
is a significant number, they are conspicuous by their silence.
I just don't see evidence of a large groundswell of users clamoring for
the structural annihilation of the usefulness of this group by attempting
to validate the principle of a "separate but equal" ghetto for posts that
you don't like.
What I do see is a lot of people who don't seem to mind things the way
they are, since most posters are not publicly taking sides. I intend to
never let you forget that your new speech restrictions, which are imposed
by the fiat on the rest of us, have consequences. Consequences which I
don't think you all adequately concerned yourself with before you made
yourselves Lord and Rulers of this newsgroup.
Consider my vociferous complaining one of the unintended consequences of
your stupid and destructive rules. I do not intend to let this go quietly.
If you want me to stop complaining, then all you have to do is stop
supporting the practice of posting netcops to this group.
I can't *stop* people from engaging in fraudulent netcopping, but I *can*
ask why there is a double standard whereby server announcements are somehow
forbidden as having "no content", but netcop postings (which actually have
negative content) are encouraged.
And as a parting note, you all are spoiled if you think the worst thing to
happen to this group is server announcements. I could start crossposting
all of my posts to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, which would tell them that we
exist, and you wouldn't be able to get rid of them for months.
-Jacob
chika
I wasn't even thinking of writing a charter! You brought it up! I'm not
forcing anyone to do anything... don't try to argue both ends against the
middle!
chika
> The King is Dead!
I didn't even know he was ill...
Igor2
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Jacob News wrote:
<snif>
> What I do see is a lot of people who don't seem to mind things the way
> they are, since most posters are not publicly taking sides. I intend to
> never let you forget that your new speech restrictions, which are imposed
> by the fiat on the rest of us, have consequences. Consequences which I
> don't think you all adequately concerned yourself with before you made
> yourselves Lord and Rulers of this newsgroup.
>
> Consider my vociferous complaining one of the unintended consequences of
> your stupid and destructive rules. I do not intend to let this go quietly.
> If you want me to stop complaining, then all you have to do is stop
> supporting the practice of posting netcops to this group.
>
> I can't *stop* people from engaging in fraudulent netcopping, but I *can*
> ask why there is a double standard whereby server announcements are somehow
> forbidden as having "no content", but netcop postings (which actually have
> negative content) are encouraged.
anyway you didn't get me again... If i want to talk about "is it offtopic
or not" i join at the beginning of the flame war. NO, i don't want to talk
about that, but about there are two opinions, and if you write something
in this theme, in the name of the newsgroup, you may write down BOTH
opinions, and not that way as you did: "the group accepts this, altough a
few stupid ones don't like it, but they are morons anyways" (not with this
words but with this sense). If you tell something answering to the
advertiser, write down if you tell your own opinion or if not, but the
group's "rules" or opinions, write both opinions as equals, and than say
that "i prefer this one".
Jacob News
>anyway you didn't get me again... If i want to talk about "is it offtopic
>or not" i join at the beginning of the flame war. NO, i don't want to talk
>about that, but about there are two opinions, and if you write something
>in this theme, in the name of the newsgroup, you may write down BOTH
>opinions, and not that way as you did: "the group accepts this, altough a
>few stupid ones don't like it, but they are morons anyways" (not with this
>words but with this sense). If you tell something answering to the
>advertiser, write down if you tell your own opinion or if not, but the
>group's "rules" or opinions, write both opinions as equals, and than say
>that "i prefer this one".
You're barking up the wrong tree. Netcopping someone for violating a rule
which does not, in fact, actually exist is wrong, abusive, deceitful,
wicked, destructive, and ignorant. I will not *EVER* dignify that position
by proposing it as a "viable alternative" to my "opinion" as you put it.
-Jacob
Igor2
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Jacob News wrote:
> You're barking up the wrong tree. Netcopping someone for violating a rule
> which does not, in fact, actually exist is wrong, abusive, deceitful,
> wicked, destructive, and ignorant. I will not *EVER* dignify that position
> by proposing it as a "viable alternative" to my "opinion" as you put it.
I think almost the same about legalizing any form of spam... The only one
difference is that i see that there are people with different opinion than
mine and i don't say that i'm the god here to decide whats wrong or
good...
If you can't accept that other opinions exists than yours, than you will
be the origin of many futher flame wars, and in this way your posts are as
useful as viper's posts...
> -Jacob
>
Jacob News
>I think almost the same about legalizing any form of spam...
Except:
1) Server announcements are not spam. Spam is "multiple postings with
a BI Index greater than 20". When you call server announcements "spam"
you are saying that "spam" is "anything I don't want to see" and you
abrogate the authority of the spam-fighters who need the basis upon
which to fight the real trouble makers on usenet. Do you think that
calling anything you don't want to see "spam" legimitizes the anti-spam
community, or makes them look like a bunch of vindictive censors?
2) The discussion is not about whether server announcements should be
"legalized" (they are already ``legal''), but whether they should be
"outlawed". This requires a fundamental change in status.
>The only one difference is that i see that there are people with different
>opinion than mine and i don't say that i'm the god here to decide whats
>wrong or good...
The two "viewpoints" appear to be:
One viewpoint:
--------------
* Server announcements have always been part of the group and we should
just accept people who want to trade information about irc, even if
we ourselves don't care about some of the information that gets posted.
* Trying to get people's internet connections terminated for posting server
announcements is *entirely unacceptable* behavior, because it imposes
financial and time loss, and inconveniences people who were engaging in
good faith behavior. Punishing those who are just trying to do the right
thing is the height of elitist snobbery and shouldn't be condoned.
Another viewpoint:
------------------
* Postings which contain information which I myself do not consider useful
are a fundamental impediment to my ability to use this newsgroup, and must
therefore be stopped at all costs.
* Trying to get people's internet connections terminated, costing them time,
money, and inconvenience, so that I do not have to see postings which I
do not care about, is an appropriate and entirely reasonable response.
I think it goes without saying that I see the second viewpoint to be wildly
reckless, irresponsible, selfish, and wholly without merit.
-Jacob
Tony Miller
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Jacob News wrote:
>
>> You're barking up the wrong tree. Netcopping someone for violating a rule
>> which does not, in fact, actually exist is wrong, abusive, deceitful,
>> wicked, destructive, and ignorant. I will not *EVER* dignify that position
>> by proposing it as a "viable alternative" to my "opinion" as you put it.
>
>I think almost the same about legalizing any form of spam... The only one
>difference is that i see that there are people with different opinion than
>mine and i don't say that i'm the god here to decide whats wrong or
>good...
You are clueless. Off topic posts are not (I repeat NOT) spam. If they
post it every day for a week it's spam, if they post it to 20 or more
unrelated newsgroups it's spam, but just because you don't like it or it's
off topic does not make it spam. Get a clue.
>If you can't accept that other opinions exists than yours, than you will
>be the origin of many futher flame wars, and in this way your posts are as
>useful as viper's posts...
Actually, his posts are more useful than v(pipe)pers. His are usually a
thinly disguised attempt to get the URL to his lame network out there
(which I find very amusing). Since he has no valid IRC knowledge, he has
to use the netcop posts to show his .sig.
I don't need to acknowledge your opinion as valid, as a matter of fact, I
think that your opinion of an IRC server announcement in an IRC newsgroup
as being off topic is stupid. Approving of V(pipe)er's netcopping is
malicious.
Kyle Hutchins
So without a charter, how can we change the rules? You're the one who wants
to change the rules by imposing a "opinion" as the "fact" or "truth." As of
now, it is NOT a "fact" nor "truth" that IRC server
announcements/advertisements are off-topic. There's simply no official
document that disallows them. Unfortunately, it is FAR from easy to create
an _official_ document for the newsgroup, and given the pretty even split
between opinions, it's unlikely to ever happen unless one side becomes
unanimous.
I don't really mind them, personally, but I don't read them. They aren't as
high-volume as everyone seems to think, and I find them easy to pick out and
skip over. While I won't insist on keeping them, since I ignore them
anyway, I won't argue to ban them, either, given this group's
circumstances -- there just isn't an easy way to go about such a process.
--Kyle
Igor2
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Jacob News wrote:
> Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
> >I think almost the same about legalizing any form of spam...
>
> Except:
> 1) Server announcements are not spam. Spam is "multiple postings with
> a BI Index greater than 20". When you call server announcements "spam"
> you are saying that "spam" is "anything I don't want to see" and you
> abrogate the authority of the spam-fighters who need the basis upon
> which to fight the real trouble makers on usenet. Do you think that
> calling anything you don't want to see "spam" legimitizes the anti-spam
> community, or makes them look like a bunch of vindictive censors?
> 2) The discussion is not about whether server announcements should be
> "legalized" (they are already ``legal''), but whether they should be
> "outlawed". This requires a fundamental change in status.
See? you are just saying what you think. No offical, writteln rules abut
the group, but you just decide something... This is what i don't want to
argue about, because you will never believe me and i will never believe
you.
> >The only one difference is that i see that there are people with different
> >opinion than mine and i don't say that i'm the god here to decide whats
> >wrong or good...
>
> The two "viewpoints" appear to be:
>
> One viewpoint:
> --------------
> * Server announcements have always been part of the group and we should
> just accept people who want to trade information about irc, even if
> we ourselves don't care about some of the information that gets posted.
> * Trying to get people's internet connections terminated for posting server
> announcements is *entirely unacceptable* behavior, because it imposes
> financial and time loss, and inconveniences people who were engaging in
> good faith behavior. Punishing those who are just trying to do the right
> thing is the height of elitist snobbery and shouldn't be condoned.
>
> Another viewpoint:
> ------------------
> * Postings which contain information which I myself do not consider useful
> are a fundamental impediment to my ability to use this newsgroup, and must
> therefore be stopped at all costs.
> * Trying to get people's internet connections terminated, costing them time,
> money, and inconvenience, so that I do not have to see postings which I
> do not care about, is an appropriate and entirely reasonable response.
This is what you think... You are writing about viper, not about me. But i
see you don't care. You feel you are the god here, and ignoring what i
write, you may invent things that you guess i think.
> I think it goes without saying that I see the second viewpoint to be wildly
> reckless, irresponsible, selfish, and wholly without merit.
>
> -Jacob
>
So, little god, if you can't accept that you are not the god here and
there are other opinions than yours, i won't reply you again, no point in
it, you won't read it, just weply from your head. But as soon as you
writre again in my name or in the group's name and you write down only
your opinion, i write again.
So if you want to force your ideas on people, don't write it replying my
posting, because it will go to /dev/null
bye
Igor2
Igor2
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Tony Miller wrote:
<sniff>
>
> I don't need to acknowledge your opinion as valid, as a matter of fact, I
> think that your opinion of an IRC server announcement in an IRC newsgroup
> as being off topic is stupid. Approving of V(pipe)er's netcopping is
> malicious.
gee, you still don't get me... I don't want you or jacob to accept my
point of view. Simply there are more opinions, that won't get closer. I
simply say: reasonable way is that, if someone writes something, he should
write donw if:
1. it is ONLY his own opinion (and somone agrees)
2. offical rule (charter - doesn't exist; faq that is accepted by all
users of the group - doesn't exist; disclaimer of the owner of the group -
doesn't exist)
3. the groups opinion (in this case if there is not one opinion that is
accepted by everyone, talking about the group's opinion means talking
about each opinions as equals, than talk about which one YOU prefer and
why)
SO what i don't like is whene a new little god posts his opinion as a fact
(point 2 above) or opinion of the group (and this way as my and your
opinion!, point 3). If he has his opinion, he can go on and post, but only
his own name.
Example: (only fiction, please dont' missunderstand it) let's say i knew a
tony who was a bad guy, and your nick is tony too. If someone posts here
asking if you are a good one or not, i can reply many things. Let's say i
will reply that you are bad, just because i knew once a tony who was bad.
Now i can write this (jacob's way):
"Ohh, we all know that tony is bad, altough that moron viper, who is an
idiot anyway will kill you if you don't say he is good"
the 3 better way:
1. "I think tony is bad."
2. "the charter says tony is bad, check at http://alt.irc.charter.com/tony.html"
3. "Some of the users here says tony is bad; viper and a few others says
tony is a good folk. I think the first is a better way to handle tony..."
Example 2: Let's say i think that irc is stupid. NOw somone asks where to
start ircing. I may answer in jacob's way:
"Don't satrt ircing at all, it's lame, we all know that ircing just waste
your time, the newsgroup is about irc releated things, not about irc
itself"
Would you like that? even if the above sentence contains that you think
irc is lame too?
bye
Igor2
Igor2
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Kyle Hutchins wrote:
> "Igor2" <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, chika wrote:
> > > In article <Pine.GSO.4.40.0111271216030.4695-100000@ural2>,
> > > Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
> > > > it seems as many ppl here don't like advs is about same as many who
> likes
> > > > them; no rules about this in the charter.
> > >
> > > Hangonamo... What charter are you talking about?
> > >
> > >
> > there is no charter, so you can't wriet one. If you tell somone only your
> > opinion as the fact or truth, you try to force your opinion on he group,
> > this is what i was talking about if you erally read what i write...
>
> So without a charter, how can we change the rules? You're the one who wants
> to change the rules by imposing a "opinion" as the "fact" or "truth." As of
> now, it is NOT a "fact" nor "truth" that IRC server
Short answer: we can't. So why should jacob do? Solution: write down each
opinion, not just your own saying it is the group's opinion.
> announcements/advertisements are off-topic. There's simply no official
> document that disallows them. Unfortunately, it is FAR from easy to create
> an _official_ document for the newsgroup, and given the pretty even split
> between opinions, it's unlikely to ever happen unless one side becomes
> unanimous.
Yes, this is what i'm talking about. But don't you agree in that neither
of the sides may tell a newbie (to the group i mean) that his opinion is
the FACT or the RUTH?
> I don't really mind them, personally, but I don't read them. They aren't as
> high-volume as everyone seems to think, and I find them easy to pick out and
> skip over. While I won't insist on keeping them, since I ignore them
> anyway, I won't argue to ban them, either, given this group's
> circumstances -- there just isn't an easy way to go about such a process.
But you wouldn't be ahppy if somone would write in the group's and in your
name that:
- they are absolutely welcome here, and bring your friends too to adv with
us
- they are very offtopic and we will go and kill you
the idea is not let one to tell his opinion in the name fo the group or in
the name of you or me...
> --Kyle
>
>
>
Igor2
Kyle Hutchins
> > So without a charter, how can we change the rules? You're the one who
wants
> > to change the rules by imposing a "opinion" as the "fact" or "truth."
As of
> > now, it is NOT a "fact" nor "truth" that IRC server
>
> Short answer: we can't. So why should jacob do? Solution: write down each
> opinion, not just your own saying it is the group's opinion.
Jacob is not trying to change anything: He's trying to keep it how it is
and always has been.
When you're trying to prove a point and persuade others to follow your
viewpoint, it's silly to "point out" all other opinions, when you feel yours
is the only valid one. Jacob *has* acknowledged that your opinion exists,
but he expressed his general disproval and disgust of it. I never saw Jacob
say that "the group" supports a particular opinion. He said that he
supports a particular opinion, and that other frequent posters in this
newsgroup agree with him.
> > announcements/advertisements are off-topic. There's simply no official
> > document that disallows them. Unfortunately, it is FAR from easy to
create
> > an _official_ document for the newsgroup, and given the pretty even
split
> > between opinions, it's unlikely to ever happen unless one side becomes
> > unanimous.
>
> Yes, this is what i'm talking about. But don't you agree in that neither
> of the sides may tell a newbie (to the group i mean) that his opinion is
> the FACT or the RUTH?
In this case, yes, he *can* state that one side is "fact." The sides in the
argument are those who want to change the newsgroup's "rules" to ban server
advertisements, and those who don't want to change the rules at all.
Currently, the only, (vague) rule is that posts should be "IRC-related,"
since the newsgroup is, after all, named alt.irc. With this in mind, server
ads (which are undisputedly IRC-related) are on-topic; therefore, *right
now*, what Jacob's stating is "fact."
> the idea is not let one to tell his opinion in the name fo the group or in
> the name of you or me...
I have yet to hear Jacob claim to be representative of me, you, or this
entire group.
--Kyle
Igor2
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Kyle Hutchins wrote:
> When you're trying to prove a point and persuade others to follow your
> viewpoint, it's silly to "point out" all other opinions, when you feel yours
> is the only valid one. Jacob *has* acknowledged that your opinion exists,
> but he expressed his general disproval and disgust of it. I never saw Jacob
> say that "the group" supports a particular opinion. He said that he
> supports a particular opinion, and that other frequent posters in this
> newsgroup agree with him.
rereading his post, i feel again that he said that his opinion ios the one
that is accepted on the newsgroup, and he mentioned the other one only to
say that is not a real opinion, only opinion of a few morons...
> > > announcements/advertisements are off-topic. There's simply no official
> > > document that disallows them. Unfortunately, it is FAR from easy to
> create
> > > an _official_ document for the newsgroup, and given the pretty even
> split
> > > between opinions, it's unlikely to ever happen unless one side becomes
> > > unanimous.
> >
> > Yes, this is what i'm talking about. But don't you agree in that neither
> > of the sides may tell a newbie (to the group i mean) that his opinion is
> > the FACT or the RUTH?
>
> In this case, yes, he *can* state that one side is "fact." The sides in the
> argument are those who want to change the newsgroup's "rules" to ban server
> advertisements, and those who don't want to change the rules at all.
no rules at all, so i think who doesn't want to change the rules is one
who doesn't post anything about this theme or he posts only his own
opinion...
> Currently, the only, (vague) rule is that posts should be "IRC-related,"
> since the newsgroup is, after all, named alt.irc. With this in mind, server
> ads (which are undisputedly IRC-related) are on-topic; therefore, *right
> now*, what Jacob's stating is "fact."
yes, but if you read back, than the irc-socks would be ontopic too. But i
don't wwant to argue about if it is ontopic or not, as i said before,
because i can't change your mind about this just as you can't change
mine... The only one thing i want is when a 3rd person asks, he should be
answered with the full truth or with a personal opinion, not with
something between the two shown as a fact...
> > the idea is not let one to tell his opinion in the name fo the group or in
> > the name of you or me...
>
> I have yet to hear Jacob claim to be representative of me, you, or this
> entire group.
so i translate his way to reversed. Some writes a server adv, and i reply
him:
----
Please don't post server advertisements here, because we don't like it. I
can count on one hand that few ones who likes it, but they are not
competitive in this theme. There is no policy that says you should post
here, and who wants to make one is an abuser.
----
It's the same way, just the reverse direction. Would you accept it? If not
why? now look back and match your reasons with mine...
> --Kyle
>
>
>
Igor2
MJ Ray
>See? you are just saying what you think.
No, his spam definition is the generally accepted one for usenet, and the
comment about the rules is because the only rule for "alt.irc" is "alt.irc".
The first part says where it is in the newsgroup tree, the second the topic.
Clear? If you want to post about your irc-socks, go ahead. If you want to
tell everyone that IRCing is lame, go ahead.
Other people (eg peas) are already posting one viewpoint as if it were fact,
so at least posting another viewpoint (eg the FYI) might hint to people that
it isn't as cut-and-dried.
As to creating a new announcements group: that's already been tried at least
twice and it hasn't worked, because propagation is so poor. Instead of
suggesting another one, you could work to improve the propagation if you
believe in it so much.
Igor2
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, MJ Ray wrote:
> Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
> >See? you are just saying what you think.
>
> No, his spam definition is the generally accepted one for usenet, and the
> comment about the rules is because the only rule for "alt.irc" is "alt.irc".
> The first part says where it is in the newsgroup tree, the second the topic.
>
> Clear? If you want to post about your irc-socks, go ahead. If you want to
> tell everyone that IRCing is lame, go ahead.
last time i posted an example about irc-socks, some still said it was
offtopic... And i guess if i post a real article about a theme like that,
some of the users who likes server advs will say my topic is not "irc
releated". But you still doesn't talk about what i started: about telling
people your opinion, but make them feel that it's the whole group's
opinion, not only yours, as jacob did.
> Other people (eg peas) are already posting one viewpoint as if it were fact,
> so at least posting another viewpoint (eg the FYI) might hint to people that
> it isn't as cut-and-dried.
And this is waht i say too: to always post all the main viewpoints not
only one and even more not as the real one...
> As to creating a new announcements group: that's already been tried at least
> twice and it hasn't worked, because propagation is so poor. Instead of
> suggesting another one, you could work to improve the propagation if you
> believe in it so much.
>
The problem is that for example i can't get that announcement group
here... At least when i last tried, neither news.bme.hu nor news.chello.hu
saw that group. Anyway the other thing is that any time when somone points
out another newsgroup to post the advs to, some of the adv-likers will say
"no, don't post there, it's offtopic there", so as the first step i think
we should find a group where it is really on-topic and we all can agree in
that... Than the ones who likes to read server advs, would go there to
read, the ones posted here would be redirected to there ("some of us don't
like server ads here, a much better group for that theme is ...")
I think this would be the one real way to stop flame wars about it.
MJ Ray
>And this is waht i say too: to always post all the main viewpoints not
>only one and even more not as the real one...
It is not possible to accurately represent the viewpoints of others, unless
you will quote them verbatim, but then why not let them post their own text?
>> As to creating a new announcements group: that's already been tried at least
>> twice and it hasn't worked, because propagation is so poor. Instead of
>> suggesting another one, you could work to improve the propagation if you
>> believe in it so much.
>The problem is that for example i can't get that announcement group
>here... At least when i last tried, neither news.bme.hu nor news.chello.hu
>saw that group. [...]
So you got them to add it, right?
>Anyway the other thing is that any time when somone points
>out another newsgroup to post the advs to, some of the adv-likers will say
>"no, don't post there, it's offtopic there" [...]
Advert-liking is nothing to do with it. alt.irc.servers is for discussion
of ircds, not for posting of server announcements, despite the attempt of
viper to redefine *yet another* group.
Bobjuh
"David" <brai...@void.brainlez.net> wrote in message
news:3BFF8C8D...@void.brainlez.net...
>
> And again here is someone thats tellings people there is a new
ircnetwork..
> But we made this ircnetwork for people to have fun, or for those who
> need a stable place for there Help channels.
> (for help channels there will be a fast (local) webchat for there sites..)
> all the servers have a stable fast connection, so try it out:)
> (for those who want to link contact me)
>
> -
> Bots are allowed (not for abuse)
> More than 1 connection from same IP are allowed (not for abuse)
> Open proxys for security reasons are allowed (not for abuse)
> On request an vhost for security reasons is availeble (again not for
abuse)
> -
> Servers:
>
> irc.zonenet.org (random picks a server)
> irc.brainlez.net (http://www.brainlez.net)
> irc.lamer.nl (http://www.lamer.nl)
> and much more..
> Totally 5 fast stable servers are connected.
>
This is getting old the discussion of its ont or offtopic to place ads for a
new network
is done over 10 times now. can we please get on with our life.
just ignore viper and its (f)lame reply's
--
BoBjUh
----
At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!'
Then there was still nothing. But you could see it.
E-mail: bob...@linux-nl.org ICQ : 93055193
Homepage: www.flikkervriendjes.net MSN : bob...@hotmail.com
Bobjuh@IRCnet AIM : BobjuhNL
chika
> <Snip>
> >And don't forget that there are others who don't like server ads
> >(altough they don't send mails to isps about this)...
> So I don't like your idiot blathering. I, King Tony, declare all of
> Igor's posts off topic and will report him to his ISP every time he
> posts. Long live King Tony.
Having gone through quite a few more of these posts made by Eyegore, I
believe that you may have something here. A fellow poster on another group
has gone to the trouble of categorising trolls, and it would seem that
this one falls into one of those groups - the technical troll or the
"gremlin" is the one that comes to mind.
It will argue the technical foibles over and over until everyone gets
totally confused and/or bored. It doesn't necessarily understand its own
posting line, just as long as it keeps repetitively re-arguing the same
points over and over until it's argument disappears up its own existance.
In other words, this troll should either explain themselves or stop
wasting our time. Otherwise I too shall consider a similar course of
action to the above.
Tony Miller
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Jacob News wrote:
<Snip>
>> I think it goes without saying that I see the second viewpoint to be wildly
>> reckless, irresponsible, selfish, and wholly without merit.
>>
>> -Jacob
>>
>
>So, little god, if you can't accept that you are not the god here and
>there are other opinions than yours, i won't reply you again, no point in
>it, you won't read it, just weply from your head. But as soon as you
>writre again in my name or in the group's name and you write down only
>your opinion, i write again.
I love listening to the clueless rant. :) Jacob has been a participant in
this group, longer than you, even longer than me. He was probably around
(I would imagine) when the first control message was beginning to
propagate around the globe.
He has written one of the best IRC clients for unix around, and he knows
personally many of the folks who wrote the original ircd which later was
codified into RFC1459
He was here when I first came onto alt.irc announcing my network. I was
flamed mercilessly, and a few of the folks there came to my network to
find out just how friendly we were by acting as lame as they possibly
could and baiting a kill or kline.
We survived the hazing, and I didn't do it again. The only time I've made
announcements was for new features like the proxy for WebTV folks, the new
java chat applet, or the new GameServ service.
>So if you want to force your ideas on people, don't write it replying my
>posting, because it will go to /dev/null
There's no need to force any ideas on anyone. You can like or dislike
whatever you want. Jacob is simply reiterating that posting a server
announcement on alt.irc is NOT a violation of the charter (since there was
no charter with the creation message), and the only place it's referenced
is in a FAQ that anyone could write or post.
And since it's not a violation of the charter, (and since the post usually
only happens once) it is not an AUP actionable offense with anyone's ISP.
I'm still not convinced that V(pipe)er sends notifications to any abuse
department of ISP's. I think he's simply *saying* he did.
>bye
Bye. Don't let hte door hit you in the ass on the way out. :)
Tony Miller
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, MJ Ray wrote:
>
>> Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>> >See? you are just saying what you think.
>>
>> No, his spam definition is the generally accepted one for usenet, and the
>> comment about the rules is because the only rule for "alt.irc" is "alt.irc".
>> The first part says where it is in the newsgroup tree, the second the topic.
>>
>> Clear? If you want to post about your irc-socks, go ahead. If you want to
>> tell everyone that IRCing is lame, go ahead.
>
>last time i posted an example about irc-socks, some still said it was
>offtopic... And i guess if i post a real article about a theme like that,
>some of the users who likes server advs will say my topic is not "irc
>releated". But you still doesn't talk about what i started: about telling
>people your opinion, but make them feel that it's the whole group's
>opinion, not only yours, as jacob did.
Ok, I've changed my mind. Talking about your IRC socks is ok. Talking
about your dog named IRC (pronounced urk) is ok too. Anything relating to
IRC is appropriate in here. ;)
>> Other people (eg peas) are already posting one viewpoint as if it were fact,
>> so at least posting another viewpoint (eg the FYI) might hint to people that
>> it isn't as cut-and-dried.
>
>And this is waht i say too: to always post all the main viewpoints not
>only one and even more not as the real one...
Viewpoints do not reflect what is on topic for the group.
>> As to creating a new announcements group: that's already been tried at least
>> twice and it hasn't worked, because propagation is so poor. Instead of
>> suggesting another one, you could work to improve the propagation if you
>> believe in it so much.
>>
>The problem is that for example i can't get that announcement group
>here... At least when i last tried, neither news.bme.hu nor news.chello.hu
>saw that group. Anyway the other thing is that any time when somone points
>out another newsgroup to post the advs to, some of the adv-likers will say
>"no, don't post there, it's offtopic there", so as the first step i think
>we should find a group where it is really on-topic and we all can agree in
>that... Than the ones who likes to read server advs, would go there to
>read, the ones posted here would be redirected to there ("some of us don't
>like server ads here, a much better group for that theme is ...")
There is a group. It's called alt.irc
>I think this would be the one real way to stop flame wars about it.
Bah, the flame wars are half the fun :)
Igor2
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, MJ Ray wrote:
> Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
> >And this is waht i say too: to always post all the main viewpoints not
> >only one and even more not as the real one...
>
> It is not possible to accurately represent the viewpoints of others, unless
> you will quote them verbatim, but then why not let them post their own text?
And when happens, as always ahppens, causes a flame war. I think you are
right in that you can't post always everyone's opinion, this makes here
discussion, but about server advs, after long weeks of flamewars, hundreds
of kilobytes, you may know the other opinion. If you want to both answer
somone who asks about it or posts a server adv, and don't want to cause
one of these wars, i think the best if you write both opinions and than
your preference. If it happens, the others simply wont' find anything to
reply for so the chance of another flame war is less. I guess it would be
better for the group...
> >> As to creating a new announcements group: that's already been tried at least
> >> twice and it hasn't worked, because propagation is so poor. Instead of
> >> suggesting another one, you could work to improve the propagation if you
> >> believe in it so much.
> >The problem is that for example i can't get that announcement group
> >here... At least when i last tried, neither news.bme.hu nor news.chello.hu
> >saw that group. [...]
>
> So you got them to add it, right?
or wait until someone simply says that that group has another theme and
server advertisements are offtopic there :> Anyway if you really know a
newsgroup name, where it is ontopic, and all regulars can agree on it,
than i don't care if my server brings it or not (i'm not the one who wants
to read the advertisements anyways). I just don't want to be a part of
another flame war about another newsgroup ;)
> >Anyway the other thing is that any time when somone points
> >out another newsgroup to post the advs to, some of the adv-likers will say
> >"no, don't post there, it's offtopic there" [...]
>
> Advert-liking is nothing to do with it. alt.irc.servers is for discussion
> of ircds, not for posting of server announcements, despite the attempt of
> viper to redefine *yet another* group.
Yes, some says so. If you are right, than this is the mistake
(i mean viper's mistake) that i don't want to follow by redirecting people
to a group that i don't even know: this why i say all regulars should
agree in the name of a group that really has server advs ontopic, and
before it happens, this why i don't tell anyone to post there.
Igor2
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:42:09 +0100,
> Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
> >
> >On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Jacob News wrote:
<sniff>
> He has written one of the best IRC clients for unix around, and he knows
> personally many of the folks who wrote the original ircd which later was
> codified into RFC1459
>
> He was here when I first came onto alt.irc announcing my network. I was
> flamed mercilessly, and a few of the folks there came to my network to
> find out just how friendly we were by acting as lame as they possibly
> could and baiting a kill or kline.
>
> We survived the hazing, and I didn't do it again. The only time I've made
> announcements was for new features like the proxy for WebTV folks, the new
> java chat applet, or the new GameServ service.
Hmm, so he is the god here, the big boss, and noone else can have
different opinion about anything here, because he must be absolutely
right. After all, is this group about irc, or is this group about him? I
think as long as there are different points of views ANYWHERE, you should
give reasons when attacking an opinion, and a reason like "i was here
first" means you don't have real reasons...
> >So if you want to force your ideas on people, don't write it replying my
> >posting, because it will go to /dev/null
>
> There's no need to force any ideas on anyone. You can like or dislike
> whatever you want. Jacob is simply reiterating that posting a server
> announcement on alt.irc is NOT a violation of the charter (since there was
> no charter with the creation message), and the only place it's referenced
> is in a FAQ that anyone could write or post.
I think he said more... Reading between the lines, but i won't repeat
myself. The theme is not "is it ontopic or offtopic", altough it seems you
like to drive the postings on that direction.
> And since it's not a violation of the charter, (and since the post usually
> only happens once) it is not an AUP actionable offense with anyone's ISP.
>
> I'm still not convinced that V(pipe)er sends notifications to any abuse
> department of ISP's. I think he's simply *saying* he did.
>
> >bye
>
> Bye. Don't let hte door hit you in the ass on the way out. :)
Yeah, running out of reasons, just let's say the other's opinion is bad
simply because he is an idiot, congratulations :)
Igor2
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tony Miller wrote:
>
> Ok, I've changed my mind. Talking about your IRC socks is ok. Talking
> about your dog named IRC (pronounced urk) is ok too. Anything relating to
> IRC is appropriate in here. ;)
at least one who follows his own rules ;)
> >> Other people (eg peas) are already posting one viewpoint as if it were fact,
> >> so at least posting another viewpoint (eg the FYI) might hint to people that
> >> it isn't as cut-and-dried.
> >
> >And this is waht i say too: to always post all the main viewpoints not
> >only one and even more not as the real one...
>
> Viewpoints do not reflect what is on topic for the group.
I think i haven't said that... See, i write here again: there is a very
very very known theme, the opinions about server advs. If you reply an
original posting about it, and you want to avoid another useless flame
war, you should write both well-known opinions down than define which do
you prefer. If you do so, simply noone has a reason to reply it, even if
he is on the same side of you or not. But only if you don't want to make
flamewars. If you enjoy them, i can understand your way :>
<sniff>
> >The problem is that for example i can't get that announcement group
> >here... At least when i last tried, neither news.bme.hu nor news.chello.hu
> >saw that group. Anyway the other thing is that any time when somone points
> >out another newsgroup to post the advs to, some of the adv-likers will say
> >"no, don't post there, it's offtopic there", so as the first step i think
> >we should find a group where it is really on-topic and we all can agree in
> >that... Than the ones who likes to read server advs, would go there to
> >read, the ones posted here would be redirected to there ("some of us don't
> >like server ads here, a much better group for that theme is ...")
>
> There is a group. It's called alt.irc
hmm, i thought that alt.irc is not only about server advs... (maybe i
wasn't really clear, i mean a group that is ONLY and really about server
advs)
> >I think this would be the one real way to stop flame wars about it.
>
> Bah, the flame wars are half the fun :)
now i understand you :) Hmm, and what if the others don't liek it? :)
Jacob News
>last time i posted an example about irc-socks, some still said it was
>offtopic...
That was not me. If you want to post about your irc socks, then I anxiously
look forward to reading what you have to say about them. I am adamantly
opposed to the notion that certain irc-related topics are off-topic here.
I am consistent: I think all posts by those who read this newsgroup should
be considered acceptable, and that irc-related posts by those who do not
read the newsgroup should be tolerated. If a regular poster of this newsgroup
goes on and on too much about something that is not irc related, then I will
just killfile them. I won't whine like a sissy, I won't tattle on them to
their ISP, I'll just ignore them. Or I might try to derive some entertainment
out of them as remuneration for the affliction of their presence.
-Jacob
Tony Miller
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>But you wouldn't be ahppy if somone would write in the group's and in your
>name that:
>- they are absolutely welcome here, and bring your friends too to adv with
>us
>- they are very offtopic and we will go and kill you
You know, I thought I had cut the baby in two with my paragraph that peas
was so kind to include in the FAQ.
"alt.irc is inhabited with a small group of surly people married
to their home networks. If you advertise your new network here,
you will probably be mercilessly flamed, and there's a chance
that some of them will visit your network to ridicule you in person,
allowing you to test out the /kill and /kline commands of your
brand new O:line." -- Me
This describes is quite well. Server announcements are not off topic,
they are certainly not actionable, but if you announce your 5 server 20
IRC Operator 2 luser network here, this is probably what is going to
happen to you :)
If you don't mind this happening, post away. :)
>the idea is not let one to tell his opinion in the name fo the group or in
>the name of you or me...
There are simple truths here. Server announcements have never been off
topic. They will remain on topic until we have a consensus
about their being off topic. We currently don't have that consensus, so
they remain on topic.
What part of that don't you understand?
>> --Kyle
>Igor2
Tony Miller
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Kyle Hutchins wrote:
>
>> When you're trying to prove a point and persuade others to follow your
>> viewpoint, it's silly to "point out" all other opinions, when you feel yours
>> is the only valid one. Jacob *has* acknowledged that your opinion exists,
>> but he expressed his general disproval and disgust of it. I never saw Jacob
>> say that "the group" supports a particular opinion. He said that he
>> supports a particular opinion, and that other frequent posters in this
>> newsgroup agree with him.
>
>that is accepted on the newsgroup, and he mentioned the other one only to
>say that is not a real opinion, only opinion of a few morons...
No, you are confusing opinion with fact. Opinion: You don't like server
announcements. Opinion: I don't like server announcements. Fact: Server
announcements are on topic based on the lack of a charter in the control
message and the name alt.irc.
If you'd like go to alt.config and propose
alt.irc.no.server.announcements. You can have whatever charter you'd
like, and you can even moderate it to make sure none of those nasty
announcements slip through. You and V(pipe)er and peas (and anyone else
who dispises server announcements) can go there.
>> > Yes, this is what i'm talking about. But don't you agree in that neither
>> > of the sides may tell a newbie (to the group i mean) that his opinion is
>> > the FACT or the RUTH?
>>
>> In this case, yes, he *can* state that one side is "fact." The sides in the
>> argument are those who want to change the newsgroup's "rules" to ban server
>> advertisements, and those who don't want to change the rules at all.
Read above for fact (truth) -vs- opinion.
>no rules at all, so i think who doesn't want to change the rules is one
>who doesn't post anything about this theme or he posts only his own
>opinion...
>> Currently, the only, (vague) rule is that posts should be "IRC-related,"
>> since the newsgroup is, after all, named alt.irc. With this in mind, server
>> ads (which are undisputedly IRC-related) are on-topic; therefore, *right
>> now*, what Jacob's stating is "fact."
>
>yes, but if you read back, than the irc-socks would be ontopic too. But i
>don't wwant to argue about if it is ontopic or not, as i said before,
>because i can't change your mind about this just as you can't change
>mine... The only one thing i want is when a 3rd person asks, he should be
>answered with the full truth or with a personal opinion, not with
>something between the two shown as a fact...
I now agree, IRC-socks are now on topic. Even socks with RFC1459
embroidered on them.
>> > the idea is not let one to tell his opinion in the name fo the group or in
>> > the name of you or me...
>>
>> I have yet to hear Jacob claim to be representative of me, you, or this
>> entire group.
>
>so i translate his way to reversed. Some writes a server adv, and i reply
>him:
>
>----
>Please don't post server advertisements here, because we don't like it. I
>can count on one hand that few ones who likes it, but they are not
>competitive in this theme.
Perfect!!!! Just like the one I posted. We don't like them here, but
they are NOT "illegal".
Here's where you go wrong...
There is no policy that says you should post
>here, and who wants to make one is an abuser.
>----
There is no policy here that says you CANNOT post them. They refer to IRC
(like your socks) so they are on topic.
>It's the same way, just the reverse direction. Would you accept it? If not
>why? now look back and match your reasons with mine...
You were fine in the first part. Many of us don't like them. And if
peas FAQ stated only that, I would sign my name to the bottom of it with
my digital signature :)
The only problem I have with that FAQ is the claim that server
announcements are off topic, which they are not. Two or three people
attempted to render them off topic by fiat. That doesn't wash.
Jacob News
>Hmm, so he is the god here, the big boss, and noone else can have
>different opinion about anything here, because he must be absolutely
>right. After all, is this group about irc, or is this group about him? I
>think as long as there are different points of views ANYWHERE, you should
>give reasons when attacking an opinion, and a reason like "i was here
>first" means you don't have real reasons...
It is not my duty to present other people's opinions and rationalize them
as valid. If they want to do that, they can do that. I only present
my opinions and state why everyone else is a lunatic for disagreeing with
me. My methods are harsh, but if you want to survive on a flame group
like alt.irc, you learn to play dirty.
I believe that the views opposite of mine are not only well enumerated on
this group, they are actually *over*-represented and overblown as to their
importance. I am the voice of balance. You speak of the importance of
balance, but condemn me as a partisan for speaking loudly against the
party line. Those who disagree with me do not voice my opinion and attempt
to rationalize it as valid as you insist that I do -- yet you do not
castigate them for their misdeeds.
If you think you're going to be able to snow me, you need to know that
I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
I am not here to convince those with opposite viewpoints to change their
mind. I have seen ample evidence that asking them to restrain themselves
by showing mercy and compassion to newcomers is like asking a mosquito not
to suck the blood of its victims. I have decided instead the proper
response is to shame them publicly for behaving in such a boorish, selfish,
beligerant, impudent way. I can *see* it's working, and I do not intend to
stop.
I support this group staying true to its historical practice of being open
to all things related to irc -- I do not discriminate based on the quality
of the content of some posters. My opposites believe that it is ok for
them to make up their own new rules and impose them on everybody else without
actually getting any sort of consensus on the matter. What is the next
irc related topic that will be outlawed here by them? Then what will be
next after that?
Do you really want to go down this slippery slope? I'm not going down it
without a fight.
-Jacob
Jacob News
>This is getting old. The discussion of [whether] its on or offtopic to place
>ads for a new network is done over 10 times now. Can we please get on with
>
>just ignore viper and its (f)lame reply's
Viper believes that each and every server announcement must be responded to,
to put the fear of God into everyone else who would dare to question his
authority to netcop us. He has publicly stated that to not respond to each
and every announcement would implicitly condone announcements as acceptable.
I think viper has something there. If you do not respond, then it does
apepar as if you condone it. That is why each and every netcop must be
responded to. Just as viper thinks everyone should have the fear of God
about posting server announcements, I think everyone should have the fear
of God about posting netcops.
See? It's all about balance.
-Jacob
MJ Ray
>or wait until someone simply says that that group has another theme and
>server advertisements are offtopic there :>
Yeah, because you *think* it is offtopic here, you feel justified in sending
valid messages to a group where they are definitely offtopic?
>Anyway if you really know a newsgroup name, where it is ontopic, and all
>regulars can agree on it, than i don't care if my server brings it or not
>(i'm not the one who wants to read the advertisements anyways). I just
>don't want to be a part of another flame war about another newsgroup ;)
The point is that they are on-topic here and there is no viable alternative
because of the bad propagation of the alt.irc.networks and the abandonment
of alt.irc.announce -- if you don't want to do anything about it, then you
must accept the status quo: announcements are fine in alt.irc, just as they
always have been.
Igor2
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tony Miller wrote:
<sniff>
> >rereading his post, i feel again that he said that his opinion ios the one
> >that is accepted on the newsgroup, and he mentioned the other one only to
> >say that is not a real opinion, only opinion of a few morons...
>
> No, you are confusing opinion with fact. Opinion: You don't like server
> announcements. Opinion: I don't like server announcements. Fact: Server
> announcements are on topic based on the lack of a charter in the control
> message and the name alt.irc.
Yes, and he wrote down his opinion. If you read only the words, each is
ok. If you read the whole text, it says that majority of the group
welcomes server ads, including him, who may declare it, and a very few
(anyway moron) people don't like it. Sometimes meaning of the words is not
the same as meaning of the whole sentence.
> If you'd like go to alt.config and propose
> alt.irc.no.server.announcements. You can have whatever charter you'd
> like, and you can even moderate it to make sure none of those nasty
> announcements slip through. You and V(pipe)er and peas (and anyone else
> who dispises server announcements) can go there.
You try to change the topic i gave again...
> >
> >----
> >Please don't post server advertisements here, because we don't like it. I
> >can count on one hand that few ones who likes it, but they are not
> >competitive in this theme.
>
> Perfect!!!! Just like the one I posted. We don't like them here, but
> they are NOT "illegal".
> Here's where you go wrong...
>
> There is no policy that says you should post
> >here, and who wants to make one is an abuser.
> >----
>
> There is no policy here that says you CANNOT post them. They refer to IRC
> (like your socks) so they are on topic.
Now lets see if the others accept the first part at all... Anyway it is
exactly what i'm talking about when told you to read between the lines. In
this case you did it, in jacob's case you didn't. I try to show it by
examining my sentence. Facts it contains:
1. there is no policy that says you should post
2. if one wants to make a policy rule, he is an abuser
I think both atom is true, but as soon as you plug them together, they
make you feel something that is not actually written there: if no policy
to allow you, and oone can make one, you are not allowed to. Did i say
this by words? NO! Did i say this between the lines? yes... And this is
what jacob did, and this is what i replied (and sorry for taht, but
started another flame war)...
> >It's the same way, just the reverse direction. Would you accept it? If not
> >why? now look back and match your reasons with mine...
>
> You were fine in the first part. Many of us don't like them. And if
> peas FAQ stated only that, I would sign my name to the bottom of it with
> my digital signature :)
>
> The only problem I have with that FAQ is the claim that server
> announcements are off topic, which they are not. Two or three people
> attempted to render them off topic by fiat. That doesn't wash.
About the faq: i'm sure if we ALL can agree once (in the far future,
hehe), peas would change that thing in the faq. At least he said that he
has written the faq according the opinions on the group, and i guess if
the opinions change, he will change the faq too.
Igor2
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tony Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:09:23 +0100,
> Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>
> You know, I thought I had cut the baby in two with my paragraph that peas
> was so kind to include in the FAQ.
>
> "alt.irc is inhabited with a small group of surly people married
> to their home networks. If you advertise your new network here,
> you will probably be mercilessly flamed, and there's a chance
> that some of them will visit your network to ridicule you in person,
> allowing you to test out the /kill and /kline commands of your
> brand new O:line." -- Me
Yes, i agree with this too, it doesn't have anything between the lines,
only clear text. Now let's check if others accept it or not ;)
> This describes is quite well. Server announcements are not off topic,
> they are certainly not actionable, but if you announce your 5 server 20
> IRC Operator 2 luser network here, this is probably what is going to
> happen to you :)
>
> If you don't mind this happening, post away. :)
And if we once can agree how to exactly handle a server-adv article
without modifying the truth, we also could avoid flame wars :)
> >the idea is not let one to tell his opinion in the name fo the group or in
> >the name of you or me...
>
> There are simple truths here. Server announcements have never been off
> topic. They will remain on topic until we have a consensus
> about their being off topic. We currently don't have that consensus, so
> they remain on topic.
>
> What part of that don't you understand?
Read the last positng about things between the lines... The problem again
was that jacob's wrods was clear, but said between the lines that majority
of the group likes server advertisements, and that few morons who doesn't
like should be ignored at all...
Jacob News
>Yes, and he wrote down his opinion. If you read only the words, each is
>ok. If you read the whole text, it says that majority of the group
>welcomes server ads, including him, who may declare it, and a very few
>(anyway moron) people don't like it. Sometimes meaning of the words is not
>the same as meaning of the whole sentence.
No, what I said was that the majority of the group have not come out in
opposition of server announcements. That is a far, far cry from what you
misunderstood my words to mean.
>examining my sentence. Facts it contains:
>1. there is no policy that says you should post
>2. if one wants to make a policy rule, he is an abuser
You're being intentionally obtuse. Use(less)net is an open forum. There is
only one technical restriction to impose speech restrictions, and that is
moderation. In the absence of moderation, the only restriction for speech
restrictions is peer pressure. Your insinuation that by default all groups
are forbidden to post to because there is no rule that says you can post
to them is idiotic because it plainly ignores the purpose of use(less)net.
Since the rest of your "logic" is based on this laughable premise, I dismiss
it with a wave of my hand and a hearty "bah!"
-Jacob
Jacob News
>Read the last positng about things between the lines... The problem again
>was that jacob's wrods was clear, but said between the lines that majority
>of the group likes server advertisements, and that few morons who doesn't
>like should be ignored at all...
I am putting you on notice that if you continue to "read between the lines"
of what I say, I reserve the right to ridicule you without mercy for
attempting to misappropriate your gross incompetence and ignorance as a
substitute for what you *thought* I really meant to say.
I hope we can come to an understanding about this one issue.
-Jacob
Igor2
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Jacob News wrote:
<snif>
>
> I believe that the views opposite of mine are not only well enumerated on
> this group, they are actually *over*-represented and overblown as to their
> importance. I am the voice of balance. You speak of the importance of
> balance, but condemn me as a partisan for speaking loudly against the
> party line. Those who disagree with me do not voice my opinion and attempt
> to rationalize it as valid as you insist that I do -- yet you do not
> castigate them for their misdeeds.
Balance for you means that your opinion has 99% to mention and all others
has only 1% when you describe them to a new person. You are on that side,
you and you couldn't change the other side's opinion. If you are balanced,
than you describe the situation for a new one like there are two EQUAL
opinions, and than you tell him which one you prefer and why.
> If you think you're going to be able to snow me, you need to know that
> I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
>
> I am not here to convince those with opposite viewpoints to change their
> mind. I have seen ample evidence that asking them to restrain themselves
> by showing mercy and compassion to newcomers is like asking a mosquito not
> to suck the blood of its victims. I have decided instead the proper
> response is to shame them publicly for behaving in such a boorish, selfish,
> beligerant, impudent way. I can *see* it's working, and I do not intend to
> stop.
proper response includes the full truth. If your goal is to show your own
opinion w=by starting a flame war, your postings are ok. If you want to
show the situation for a newcomer without making an unwanted falmewar, you
should - using your words - response balanced description...
> I support this group staying true to its historical practice of being open
> to all things related to irc -- I do not discriminate based on the quality
> of the content of some posters. My opposites believe that it is ok for
> them to make up their own new rules and impose them on everybody else without
> actually getting any sort of consensus on the matter. What is the next
never said that... You don't read or want to understand what i write, you
simply decided who i am and repling to your imagined enemy, not me.
> irc related topic that will be outlawed here by them? Then what will be
> next after that?
next would be your new action: please next time READ and UNDERSTAND what i
write, and reply after that...
Igor2
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, MJ Ray wrote:
> Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
> >or wait until someone simply says that that group has another theme and
> >server advertisements are offtopic there :>
>
> Yeah, because you *think* it is offtopic here, you feel justified in sending
> valid messages to a group where they are definitely offtopic?
gee, have you ever seen me sening them to another newsgroup? I was talking
about just this: i'm NOT sending them there (and generally sending them
there is not a good idea).
> >Anyway if you really know a newsgroup name, where it is ontopic, and all
> >regulars can agree on it, than i don't care if my server brings it or not
> >(i'm not the one who wants to read the advertisements anyways). I just
> >don't want to be a part of another flame war about another newsgroup ;)
>
> The point is that they are on-topic here and there is no viable alternative
> because of the bad propagation of the alt.irc.networks and the abandonment
> of alt.irc.announce -- if you don't want to do anything about it, then you
> must accept the status quo: announcements are fine in alt.irc, just as they
> always have been.
alt.irc.announce would be a fine soltuion. But as long as some says it has
been an abandonment, some says it is moderated, etc, etc, we can't send
them there...
Anyway, why can't you understand that the topic is now NOT that if the
server advs are offtopic or not. Please read the posting between me and
Tony. My original topic was that jacob said something that was pretty
missleading.
Igor2
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Jacob News wrote:
> Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
> >Yes, and he wrote down his opinion. If you read only the words, each is
> >ok. If you read the whole text, it says that majority of the group
> >welcomes server ads, including him, who may declare it, and a very few
> >(anyway moron) people don't like it. Sometimes meaning of the words is not
> >the same as meaning of the whole sentence.
>
> No, what I said was that the majority of the group have not come out in
> opposition of server announcements. That is a far, far cry from what you
> misunderstood my words to mean.
So if i'm the faster and i say to the advertiser that the majority of the
group have not say that they like server advertisements, you wouldn't ever
reply somehting that says "server advertisements are not offtopic here".
Maybe next time we will test it...
> >examining my sentence. Facts it contains:
> >1. there is no policy that says you should post
> >2. if one wants to make a policy rule, he is an abuser
>
> You're being intentionally obtuse. Use(less)net is an open forum. There is
> only one technical restriction to impose speech restrictions, and that is
> moderation. In the absence of moderation, the only restriction for speech
> restrictions is peer pressure. Your insinuation that by default all groups
> are forbidden to post to because there is no rule that says you can post
> to them is idiotic because it plainly ignores the purpose of use(less)net.
So what did i do wrong about usenet again? You wrote down your opinion, i
replied with mine. It's an open forum as you said...
> Since the rest of your "logic" is based on this laughable premise, I dismiss
> it with a wave of my hand and a hearty "bah!"
>
> -Jacob
>
Yes, blah, and everything, don't try to answer or give reasons, just say
bah. But i guess if i use your tool to hide my opinion between words that
shows only facts, you will reply too...
Tony Miller
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tony Miller wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:42:09 +0100,
>> Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>> >
>> >On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Jacob News wrote:
>
><sniff>
>
>> He has written one of the best IRC clients for unix around, and he knows
>> personally many of the folks who wrote the original ircd which later was
>> codified into RFC1459
>>
>> He was here when I first came onto alt.irc announcing my network. I was
>> flamed mercilessly, and a few of the folks there came to my network to
>> find out just how friendly we were by acting as lame as they possibly
>> could and baiting a kill or kline.
>>
>> We survived the hazing, and I didn't do it again. The only time I've made
>> announcements was for new features like the proxy for WebTV folks, the new
>> java chat applet, or the new GameServ service.
>
>Hmm, so he is the god here, the big boss, and noone else can have
>different opinion about anything here, because he must be absolutely
>right. After all, is this group about irc, or is this group about him? I
>think as long as there are different points of views ANYWHERE, you should
>give reasons when attacking an opinion, and a reason like "i was here
>first" means you don't have real reasons...
No, it means you know how the newsgroup was created, and what was on-off
topic when it was created. And yes, his opinion matters more with regards
to the history of the newsgroup than a wet-behind-the-ears newbie like
you.
You're trying to argue the historical topicality of posts with a guy who
was there when it all happened. It would be like you telling my dad that
he was wrong about what happened in the battle of Anzio in World War II.
My dad was there, you weren't.
>> >So if you want to force your ideas on people, don't write it replying my
>> >posting, because it will go to /dev/null
>>
>> There's no need to force any ideas on anyone. You can like or dislike
>> whatever you want. Jacob is simply reiterating that posting a server
>> announcement on alt.irc is NOT a violation of the charter (since there was
>> no charter with the creation message), and the only place it's referenced
>> is in a FAQ that anyone could write or post.
>
>I think he said more... Reading between the lines, but i won't repeat
>myself. The theme is not "is it ontopic or offtopic", altough it seems you
>like to drive the postings on that direction.
That is the whole argument, fool. The argument isn't about what you like
or what I like or what Jacob likes, it's about what is on topic and
possibly actionable.
>> And since it's not a violation of the charter, (and since the post usually
>> only happens once) it is not an AUP actionable offense with anyone's ISP.
>>
>> I'm still not convinced that V(pipe)er sends notifications to any abuse
>> department of ISP's. I think he's simply *saying* he did.
>>
>> >bye
>>
>> Bye. Don't let hte door hit you in the ass on the way out. :)
>
>Yeah, running out of reasons, just let's say the other's opinion is bad
>simply because he is an idiot, congratulations :)
No, being an idiot puts a real damper on the validity of your arguments.
Igor2
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tony Miller wrote:
<snif>
> >
> >Hmm, so he is the god here, the big boss, and noone else can have
> >different opinion about anything here, because he must be absolutely
> >right. After all, is this group about irc, or is this group about him? I
> >think as long as there are different points of views ANYWHERE, you should
> >give reasons when attacking an opinion, and a reason like "i was here
> >first" means you don't have real reasons...
>
> No, it means you know how the newsgroup was created, and what was on-off
> topic when it was created. And yes, his opinion matters more with regards
> to the history of the newsgroup than a wet-behind-the-ears newbie like
> you.
>
> You're trying to argue the historical topicality of posts with a guy who
> was there when it all happened. It would be like you telling my dad that
> he was wrong about what happened in the battle of Anzio in World War II.
> My dad was there, you weren't.
what's wrong with you people? i think i wrote down almost all posts that
i'm not talking about on-topic/off-topic stuff... Altough most of you try
to drive the topic there (dunno why). Topic is: i don't like if somone
(even a god) say something between the lines that is not true and try to
dress it as a fact.
> >
> >I think he said more... Reading between the lines, but i won't repeat
> >myself. The theme is not "is it ontopic or offtopic", altough it seems you
> >like to drive the postings on that direction.
>
> That is the whole argument, fool. The argument isn't about what you like
> or what I like or what Jacob likes, it's about what is on topic and
> possibly actionable.
Nope. The topic is (at least i was posting about this): noone should
misslead a newcomer about will of the majority of the group... In jacob's
wording, a newcomer will think that MOST of the group likes server advs.
I showed another wording, that also used only facts and would show the
newcomer that most of the group doesn't like server advs. I think the one
real way is a wording that says the truth: we don't really know how much
don't like and how much like server advs, but we know both kind of users
exists here.
> >Yeah, running out of reasons, just let's say the other's opinion is bad
> >simply because he is an idiot, congratulations :)
>
> No, being an idiot puts a real damper on the validity of your arguments.
so if i write here that you are a lamer i become a good guy too? ohh, man
:) I think i rahter go on using logic rather than that :)
Jacob News
>Balance for you means that your opinion has 99% to mention and all others
>has only 1% when you describe them to a new person. You are on that side,
>you and you couldn't change the other side's opinion. If you are balanced,
>than you describe the situation for a new one like there are two EQUAL
>opinions, and than you tell him which one you prefer and why.
See -- you're guilty here of exactly what you accuse me of. You put forth
your definition of "balance" and then you systematically call me on the
carpet for not holding strictly to your definition. This is *exactly*
the same misdeed you accuse me of. How am I supposed to take you seriously?
To re-phrase what you said, who made you God so you can dictate to me
what is and is not "balance"?
The other side gets their turn to speak, and I get my turn to speak.
It is not my responsibility to prop up the intellectual bankrupcy of the
opposite opinion by posting their lunatic reasonings as a viable
alternative to mine.
Since the rest of your smarmy, self-serving tripe is based on this faulty
psuedo-feel-good journalism craptrap of what is and is not "balance",
I'll dispsense with the rest of the harangue and save everyone involved
the headache of having to read it.
I think I can boil it down to one sentence: _You_ are a clueless putz.
-Jacob
Jacob News
>So if i'm the faster and i say to the advertiser that the majority of the
>group have not say that they like server advertisements, you wouldn't ever
>reply somehting that says "server advertisements are not offtopic here".
>Maybe next time we will test it...
If someone posts a server announcement, some people believe that it is ok
to publicly ridicule them as a "spammer": Peer pressure
If somenoe posts a netcop, some people believe that it is ok to publicly
ridicule them as a "abusive wanker": Peer pressure
_That_ is balance.
>Yes, blah, and everything, don't try to answer or give reasons, just say
>bah. But i guess if i use your tool to hide my opinion between words that
>shows only facts, you will reply too...
I would and have given reasons, but you appear to be impervious to reason
and logic. "Bah" means I have realized that attempting to have an
intellectually meaningful conversation with you is going to be about as
productive as teaching a pig to sing.
-Jacob
Jacob News
>Nope. The topic is (at least i was posting about this): noone should
>misslead a newcomer about will of the majority of the group... In jacob's
>wording, a newcomer will think that MOST of the group likes server advs.
You're a putz. You posted this after you replied to my other post where
I specifically and *particularly* pointed out that I have never said that
"MOST of the group like server announcements", but rather said that the
majority of the group DO NOT OPPOSE THEM.
Are you really this mentally defective, or are you just playing one on tv?
The only thing that I want newcomers to understand is that there are *maybe*
only 2 or 3 people who have ever publicly supported the position that posting
a server announcement on this newsgroup is an actionable offense, and if
newcomers want to tell those 2 or 3 people where they can stick their asinine
rules, they should feel perfectly free to do so.
-Jacob
Igor2
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Jacob News wrote:
> Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
> >Balance for you means that your opinion has 99% to mention and all others
> >has only 1% when you describe them to a new person. You are on that side,
> >you and you couldn't change the other side's opinion. If you are balanced,
> >than you describe the situation for a new one like there are two EQUAL
> >opinions, and than you tell him which one you prefer and why.
>
> See -- you're guilty here of exactly what you accuse me of. You put forth
> your definition of "balance" and then you systematically call me on the
> carpet for not holding strictly to your definition. This is *exactly*
> the same misdeed you accuse me of. How am I supposed to take you seriously?
> To re-phrase what you said, who made you God so you can dictate to me
> what is and is not "balance"?
I though it was in the dictionary. Somewhere i read that if something is
balanced, it means the two sides are equal. May i find your post or can
you remember where you wrote down that your opinion is more important than
the other side's? An example:
''I will not *EVER* dignify that position by proposing it as a "viable
alternative" to my "opinion" as you put it.''
So it seems if you can't defeat an opinion using your logic, you can't
live with it, you have to say that it is simply a bad or
unimportant, opinion, and everyone that has a matching opinion must be a
moron.
> The other side gets their turn to speak, and I get my turn to speak.
> It is not my responsibility to prop up the intellectual bankrupcy of the
> opposite opinion by posting their lunatic reasonings as a viable
> alternative to mine.
Is this balance? And the same thing again: not trying to use your logic,
just simply say everything else than your opinion is JUST bad.
> Since the rest of your smarmy, self-serving tripe is based on this faulty
> psuedo-feel-good journalism craptrap of what is and is not "balance",
> I'll dispsense with the rest of the harangue and save everyone involved
> the headache of having to read it.
>
> I think I can boil it down to one sentence: _You_ are a clueless putz.
And the nice ending: let's say the other is stupid, so i win! So you are
really the balanced one who use logic to describe his opinion,
congratulations!
> -Jacob
>
Igor2
this topic). Next time when somone asks if he can advertise here i will
use jacob's wording and will write ONLY facts as he did, and i will see if
he will accept his own way or not. Before that, we should pause unless
somone writes something really new...
bye
Igor2
Tony Miller
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
<Snip>
>> >I think this would be the one real way to stop flame wars about it.
>>
>> Bah, the flame wars are half the fun :)
>
>now i understand you :) Hmm, and what if the others don't liek it? :)
Then like server announcements, you can.
o Ignore it.
o Killfile the subject.
o Killfile me.
Tony Miller
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tony Miller wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:09:23 +0100,
>> Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>>
>> You know, I thought I had cut the baby in two with my paragraph that peas
>> was so kind to include in the FAQ.
>>
>> "alt.irc is inhabited with a small group of surly people married
>> to their home networks. If you advertise your new network here,
>> you will probably be mercilessly flamed, and there's a chance
>> that some of them will visit your network to ridicule you in person,
>> allowing you to test out the /kill and /kline commands of your
>> brand new O:line." -- Me
>
>only clear text. Now let's check if others accept it or not ;)
Heck, Igor, it's the law. It's already included in peas' FAQ. The
"regulars" have validated it. You are a regular, you must have validated
the paragraph :))
>> This describes is quite well. Server announcements are not off topic,
>> they are certainly not actionable, but if you announce your 5 server 20
>> IRC Operator 2 luser network here, this is probably what is going to
>> happen to you :)
>>
>> If you don't mind this happening, post away. :)
>
>And if we once can agree how to exactly handle a server-adv article
>without modifying the truth, we also could avoid flame wars :)
We do it the same way we do now. We say "I don't like server ads", or
"server ads are lame", or "most of us don't like server ads". All of
those, I believe, are correct statements. What you don't do is say:
"server ads are off topic in alt.irc and I'm turning you into your ISP for
spamming", or "stop spamming", or anything else that implies
off-topicality or spamming.
>> >the idea is not let one to tell his opinion in the name fo the group or in
>> >the name of you or me...
>>
>> There are simple truths here. Server announcements have never been off
>> topic. They will remain on topic until we have a consensus
>> about their being off topic. We currently don't have that consensus, so
>> they remain on topic.
>>
>> What part of that don't you understand?
>
>Read the last positng about things between the lines... The problem again
>was that jacob's wrods was clear, but said between the lines that majority
>of the group likes server advertisements, and that few morons who doesn't
>like should be ignored at all...
I don't know about you, but I read the lines themselves. I don't try and
imply what someone else meant by twisting individual words or groups of
words.
Jacob News
>I though it was in the dictionary. Somewhere i read that if something is
>balanced, it means the two sides are equal. May i find your post or can
>you remember where you wrote down that your opinion is more important than
>the other side's? An example:
You're truly a dope. Nobody ever said the *opinions* have to be balanced
(ie, equally valid), only that both opinions have to have balanced coverage.
Well, maybe *you* said the opinions have to be balanced, but you're clearly
under the influence of some kind of hallucinagenic substance.
If you think that both sides of this discussion could ever be balanced,
or in any "discussion" for that matter, you're living in some kind of
fantasy world where nobody's opinions are never wrong.
I know! Let's use your philosophy on another "discussion!"
Viewpoint 1: "The Holocaust was a terrible tragedy of history"
Viewpoint 2: "The Holocaust never happened."
How do you propose to "balance" those two viewpoints? Allegedly, if
someone holds the first opinion but doesn't try to prop up the second
opinion, then they are somehow running afoul of your "balance".
Viewpoint 1: "All irc topics have always been permitted in alt.irc.
Let's keep it that way."
Viewpoint 2: "Server announcements are off topic because I say so."
If this is how you would define "balance" then count me out. That's
a fool's errand you're more than welcome to enjoy it to yourself. I
will let the others have their say and I will have my say, but at
the end of the discussion, they're still wrong.
-Jacob
[1] I intentionally invoked the nazis [Godwin's law], so this does not
mean this is the end of the thread.
Kyle Hutchins
> rereading his post, i feel again that he said that his opinion ios the one
> that is accepted on the newsgroup, and he mentioned the other one only to
> say that is not a real opinion, only opinion of a few morons...
When a user posts, speaks, writes, etc., with the purpose of persuading,
it's naturally assumed that the information they are giving is biased in his
favor. This rarely comes with any sort of "disclaimer" specifically saying
it's biased. It's unreasonable to expect one on Usenet when they are not
used anywhere else in the world.
Let's use an example. Let's say you are having car trouble, and you go to a
car shop to get it fixed. The mechanic says, "Well, it looks like it'll
cost ya $150 to fix 'er up." This is the mechanic's personal offer, not a
"fact," but he certainly isn't going to make that obvious. What if he had
said, "Well, I can fix your car for $150, but if you go to the next shop
about a mile down the road, you can get it fixed for just $100"? Of course,
the mechanic has lost his own battle because he just fought for the other
side. Sure, it would be _ideal_ for the customer that mechanics behaved
this way, but it is definitely not _realistic_.
> > In this case, yes, he *can* state that one side is "fact." The sides in
the
> > argument are those who want to change the newsgroup's "rules" to ban
server
> > advertisements, and those who don't want to change the rules at all.
>
> no rules at all, so i think who doesn't want to change the rules is one
> who doesn't post anything about this theme or he posts only his own
> opinion...
That's your opinion. How come you didn't point out that other opinions also
exist?
> > Currently, the only, (vague) rule is that posts should be "IRC-related,"
> > since the newsgroup is, after all, named alt.irc. With this in mind,
server
> > ads (which are undisputedly IRC-related) are on-topic; therefore, *right
> > now*, what Jacob's stating is "fact."
>
> yes, but if you read back, than the irc-socks would be ontopic too. But i
> don't wwant to argue about if it is ontopic or not, as i said before,
> because i can't change your mind about this just as you can't change
> mine... The only one thing i want is when a 3rd person asks, he should be
> answered with the full truth or with a personal opinion, not with
> something between the two shown as a fact...
I don't see why you fight so hard in this particular case, when this is
human nature and happens all over the world constantly. Again, you're
trying to create an ideal world where one cannot exist.
> > > the idea is not let one to tell his opinion in the name fo the group
or in
> > > the name of you or me...
> >
> > I have yet to hear Jacob claim to be representative of me, you, or this
> > entire group.
>
> so i translate his way to reversed. Some writes a server adv, and i reply
> him:
>
> ----
> Please don't post server advertisements here, because we don't like it. I
> can count on one hand that few ones who likes it, but they are not
> competitive in this theme. There is no policy that says you should post
> here, and who wants to make one is an abuser.
> ----
>
> It's the same way, just the reverse direction. Would you accept it? If not
> why? now look back and match your reasons with mine...
While I _disagree_ with your opinion, I do realize that this is your
personal opinion and that you are not representative of the entire group.
Sure, it's presented as if it was fact, but I keep reiterating that this is
human nature you're battling against. Because of this, one should always be
very skeptical about the validity of a post, of a speech, of a newspaper or
magazine article, etc.
--Kyle
MJ Ray
Igor2 <pt...@hszk.bme.hu> wrote:
>gee, have you ever seen me sening them to another newsgroup? I was talking
>about just this: i'm NOT sending them there (and generally sending them
>there is not a good idea).
...you cannot understand what I mean by "sending them to another newsgroup",
yet here:
>alt.irc.announce would be a fine soltuion. But as long as some says it has
>been an abandonment, some says it is moderated, etc, etc, we can't send
>them there...
...you have understood it perfectly. I mean, of course, directing posters
of on-topic posts to another group, which is unnecessary and rude.
>Anyway, why can't you understand that the topic is now NOT that if the
>server advs are offtopic or not. Please read the posting between me and
>Tony. My original topic was that jacob said something that was pretty
>missleading.
I care not what your agenda is. My agenda is that this persistent
netcopping is offtopic and unhelpful. I dislike your bickering, but I'll
let it go.
chika
Nothing. What's wrong with you?
This is why I always advise newbies to lurk first. This idiot insists on
propagating this argument despite the fact that (a) his arguments
contradict themselves and (b) nobody is interested anymore.
If it wasn't for the fact that irksome already exists in the English
vocabulary, I could be encouraged to invent the word! In other words, let
it go. You have made no real point other than ones we already know, and
have only succeeded in making yourself look like a berk.
Your father was a hamster and your mother smelt of elderberries. Now go
away, or I shall taunt you some more. :)