This Is Not Narcotics Anonymous
Mick C.
Aloha,
There have been several posts lately about the rights of people to
post here, and there seems to be some confusion as to whether the
traditions govern this Newsgroup. They do not. Netiquette applies
here.
Alt.recovery.na is not Narcotics Anonymous, nor is it a meeting of
Narcotics Anonymous. It is a newsgroup. A newsgroup available for
members of Narcotics Anonymous to communicate with other members of
Narcotics Anonymous all over the planet. Any member is welcome here
as long as they behave appropriately within the guidelines of
responsible Netiquette. I have not yet seen anyone that was not a
member get flamed for posting here, but I have no desire to address
the questions of non-members being here.
Blessings,
Mick
WARflower
In <31fa6a1a...@nuhou.aloha.net> acp...@aloha.net (Mick C.)
writes:
>Aloha,
>
>There have been several posts lately about the rights of people to
>post here, and there seems to be some confusion as to whether the
>traditions govern this Newsgroup. They do not. Netiquette applies
>here.
>
And,.. just WHO made you Grand Po-bah of Butt Crack Net Cops?
>Alt.recovery.na is not Narcotics Anonymous, nor is it a meeting of
>Narcotics Anonymous. It is a newsgroup.
Point taken- HOWEVER- this is a newsgroup that is specifically geared
for persons who wish to communicate regarding the topic or NA- and any
sub topics which may fall under same category
A newsgroup available for
>members of Narcotics Anonymous to communicate with other members of
>Narcotics Anonymous all over the planet.
OK, yeah- we've determined that.
Any member is welcome here
>as long as they behave appropriately within the guidelines of
>responsible Netiquette.
I am sorry, Mick- but it was blind faith that made me NEED NA, to begin
with. I seriously doubt I can give you the needed credibility to just
allow your opinion to sway me, now...
I take issue that you think you have the "right" to determine who "DOES
or DOES NOT" belong- how very pompous of you- How very, very self
rightous!!!!!
I have not yet seen anyone that was not a
>member get flamed for posting here, but I have no desire to address
>the questions of non-members being here.
Now- you are not making much sense, here- Who are you saying IS a
"member" of this elite club-- who are you saying is "not"?? Sorry-- I
do not buy your line of BS- go feed it to the mushrooms. Mick- you
really are a "superiority need-to-be", huh? HOW DARE you assume you
have the "right" to speak for the usenet! It is your twisted sense of
self-rightousness that causes the house to fall-- no,.. it is not JUST
you-- it is also people LIKE you... So, Mick--- am I next? Care to
write MY postmaster?
Reese MAY very well have come across as a schmuck to MANY people-- but
NOT everyone shares that opinion- and guess what-- ALL of his topics
WERE NA RELATED! You really are pathetic! What is your problem,
dude?
Oh, and Aloha to you, too.
WAR
>
>Blessings,
>
>Mick
Jamie E.
So what are the rules of Netiquette - do they supercede the
Bill of Rights? - I started posting back in March and I for one
would like to know how to avoid being banned - I work for
the Postal Service and I get enough of "Why didn't you know
what we didn't tell you" at work. I am not being a smart-ass
about this, I sincerely want to know and if someone deserves
a warning about having their service banned before they get
kicked off. I'm not talking about telling folks to cut it out - I'm
talking about warnings like "If you persist in these kinds of
posts then you may loose your service." People deserve a
warning or is a part of Netiquette to shoot first and then ask
questions? Didn't the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just rule
against the computer censors?
Very Confused,
Jamie E.
PS - I don't see how banning except for extreme conditions will
make this newsgroup better - I see it scarring folks into avoiding
posting out of fear of saying the wrong thing.
On Jul 27, 1996 19:17:43 in article <This Is Not Narcotics Anonymous>,
'acp...@aloha.net (Mick C.)' wrote:
>Aloha,
>
>There have been several posts lately about the rights of people to
>post here, and there seems to be some confusion as to whether the
>traditions govern this Newsgroup. They do not. Netiquette applies
>here.
>
>the questions of non-members being here.
>
>
>Mick
Brian Garrison
Aloha, Mick,
I believe that if anyone has a connection to the Inet and a desire to
subscribe (read and post) to this NG, they most certainly have a right
to do so. There are no limitations on the use of this forum.....this
is the essence of communication in a free society.
However, your point about Netiquette is well delivered and taken. It
is always to be hoped that courtesy and respect can be the parameters
that we use in our dealings with communications with each other.
Further, it is my hope that I, as a MEMBER of NA, can act in such a
way as to demonstrate the message of our fellowship,,,,,that an
addict, ANY addict, can lose the desire to use and find a new way of
life through our simple program. As many people have told me, "if you
are practicing these spiritual principles in all of your affairs, your
recovery will be demonstrated by the manner in which you conduct
yourself in all of your affairs."
I believe that I should strive to treat all people with empathy,
compassion, tolerance, acceptance, and unconditional love.....but
especially fellow members, because I owe you a debt of gratitude for
sticking with me today. I am concerned that those qualities are not
being expressed in this newsgroup enough, but this is just MY opinion.
I hope that other members will follow and post on this....
xy...@ix.netcom.com
acp...@aloha.net (Mick C.) wrote:
>Aloha,
>There have been several posts lately about the rights of people to
>post here, and there seems to be some confusion as to whether the
>traditions govern this Newsgroup. They do not. Netiquette applies
>here.
And just who are you to determine what rules apply here? What Reese
lacked in terms of gall, Mick makes up for.
>Alt.recovery.na is not Narcotics Anonymous, nor is it a meeting of
>Narcotics Anonymous. It is a newsgroup.
Thanks for telling us, Mick. Some of us are so stupid as to not be
clear about this. It's a good thing we have you around here to
enlighten us.
>A newsgroup available for
>members of Narcotics Anonymous to communicate with other members of
>Narcotics Anonymous all over the planet. Any member is welcome here
>as long as they behave appropriately within the guidelines of
>responsible Netiquette.
Mick, so we can all be clear on exactly what the rules of this
newsgroup are, would you post them? For instance, is profanity
against the rules? Should people on the newsgroup who object to
profanity--should they start complaining to the ISP's of posters who
use profanity? Instead of replying to posts we disagree with here on
the newsgroup, should we all follow your example and squeal to the
ISP's? Could you clear this up like you have cleared up that other
stuff?
>I have not yet seen anyone that was not a
>member get flamed for posting here, but I have no desire to address
>the questions of non-members being here.
And while you're at it, could you re-write this sentence and try to
make it clear what you mean?
>Blessings,
As if he were some kind of high priest, the Mick gives us his
"Blessings". Thanks, Mick.
SerenityLg
I'm not sure anyone has actually been banned from this newsgroup. That's
an assumption based on one person's rather limited investigation. From
what I know about the workings of such things, it would be difficult to
get done...especially under the circumstances of this particular
situation. No planet-wide "Rules of Netiquette" exist to which all server
domains subscribe.
Jon @ Serenity Lodge
Lake Wheeler Close, Raleigh
"Remove from God your human boundaries; watch for great and marvelous
creations."
July 27, 1996
8:14 pm
Jon @ Serenity Lodge
Lake Wheeler Close, Raleigh
"Remove from God your human boundaries; watch for great and marvelous
creations."
Chris Johnson
In article <31fa6a1a...@nuhou.aloha.net>, acp...@aloha.net (Mick C.) wrote:
> Aloha,
> There have been several posts lately about the rights of people to
> post here, and there seems to be some confusion as to whether the
> traditions govern this Newsgroup. They do not. Netiquette applies
> here.
Mick- nothing governs this newsgroup. It is Usenet, and there have been
no successful attempts to govern Usenet yet.
The traditions govern _us_, if we wish to stay clean.
Since the issue of handling a newsgroup that bears the NA name but is
not moderated is a service issue, perhaps you could look at the 12
Concepts for NA Service? I think that is more appropriate in this context,
as every post and response we make here is NA service, in a small way.
You may find Concept 8, "Our service structure depends on the integrity
and effectiveness of our communications" to suggest that 'inappropriate'
communications should be muzzled, but to my mind the most important thing
stressed is to _listen_. We are trusted servants- at no time do we stop
listening. I would be listening to this person you (apparently) have
blocked, but I cannot because he isn't posting and that saddens me. I feel
I have a right to form my own opinion...
(ack) gonna be late for my meeting. I just got back from Area, and I've
still got my usual meeting this evening.
I'll pick up the discussion later... got the 12 Concepts booklet handy
and I am very interested in talking about all this from a 'trusted
servant' viewpoint, rather than just flaming. I feel a consensus is
possible... and I gotta run *grin* be back after my meeting.
Jinx_tigr
jbl
Why is there is a big deal over anon.remailers. The reason I use one is
because you can post using anyone's identitiy, thus yours may be used
falsely. It was done to me, so now I post anonymously.
I am not sure why the guy who got banned has not figured this out.
Anyone can post falsley.Anon. posting is not near as bad as using someone
else's identity......wouldn't you say? I know I didn't appreciate it.
If I am wrong about this, please explain this to me.
CSteiner
Well, of course anyone can read and post here. And of course the NG is
governed (as well as possible) by netiquette. And, one hopes, that even
though the traditions, as such, do not apply here, those of us who have a
working knowledge of the steps AND traditions will apply them ("practice
these principles in all our affairs").
I have seen NA groups fall prey (for short periods of time) to individual
egos, but that never lasts long. The will of a higher power will generally
prevail.
Love you all,
Snoino.
SerenityLg
Mick,
I disagree with your argument. The fact that this newsgroup carries the
name NA is association enough with that organization for us to act
responsibly and within its guidelines.
We are great con artists, aren't we..... And this is a good one!
I am responsible, as a recovered addict, and a productive member of NA.
To claim that this newsgroup is not affiliated and use that as an excuse
for behavior is nothing short of irresponsibility.
If the newsgroup is something other than NA, it should drop the use of the
name. To do otherwise is, IMO, unethical and misrepresentation.
When I saw the name alt.recovery.na I expected just that. The same
expectation I had when I went to a meeting called NA.
Every other excuse is BS in my book--a farce. If we don't want to be NA,
then change the name. Otherwise, we....you and I....are responsible.
This is the spirit of the traditions and spiritual anonymity. By using
the NA name, we assume all that carries with it.
Now, I'm not a control freak. I also have complete knowledge of my
limitations..."grant me the wisdom"..... So, I know that there will be
some who disagree with me on this issue--probably quote a FAQ or
something. OK. But, as long as I stick around, I plan to continue to
act under the guidelines of NA for as long as we continue to identify
ourselves as such by using the name. Y'all may continue to act whichever
way you will. Expect to be confronted, as I expect to be confronted.
Jon @ Serenity Lodge
Lake Wheeler Close, Raleigh
"Remove from God your human boundaries; watch for great and marvelous
creations."
July 27, 1996
8:03 pm
Chris Johnson
In article <4tfh0h$7...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, xy...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Mick, so we can all be clear on exactly what the rules of this
> newsgroup are, would you post them? For instance, is profanity
> against the rules? Should people on the newsgroup who object to
> profanity--should they start complaining to the ISP's of posters who
> use profanity? Instead of replying to posts we disagree with here on
> the newsgroup, should we all follow your example and squeal to the
> ISP's? Could you clear this up like you have cleared up that other
> stuff?
Please don't stay mad at Mick :)
As for the usenet rules, I've already posted them maybe twice. They
have to do with automated posting of identical information over and over,
or with crossposting to dozens and dozens of newsgroups. That's all.
Content has nothing to do with it and content-based cancels are not
acceptable netiquette :)
Jinx_tigr
WARflower
In <31FC45...@syix.com> Mike L <mle...@syix.com> writes:
>
>At this time I would Like to nominate Mic to office of president
>It's more than obvious that he Knows It All and therefore is worthy
>of such office.
> I would also like to thank him for heading up the
> Guardians of Recovery Group
Wow-- that's pretty harsh-- although, not unwarranted- I guess it
depends on one's POV, eh?
>
> Man am I let down I thought I could be the Prez!
Not yet, Grasshopper-- but, SOON- you might achieve the true
enlightenment, and be allowed to leave the TEMPLE.. ;-)
>
>
> I guess Im next on the "hit brigade's list now"
> Get the address right
> mle...@syix.com
Awh-- no one is gonna do that-- I think, a lot of people learned from
this last experience--
If it's ok- I just feel that we don't want to make it too hard for Mick
to continue to be here- we've all made mistake- Right? ;-)
Besides-- I'm kinda hopin' that he'll post about his phone
experiences-- I kinda like that stuff! (growl, growl!!!) - but, then
again-- most people here that have read my stuff know I am ONE twisted
WARflower! ;-)
Chris Johnson
In article <4tdu4l$b...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
jami...@usa.pipeline.com(Jamie E.) wrote:
> So what are the rules of Netiquette - do they supercede the
> Bill of Rights? - I started posting back in March and I for one
> would like to know how to avoid being banned - I work for
> the Postal Service and I get enough of "Why didn't you know
> what we didn't tell you" at work. I am not being a smart-ass
> about this, I sincerely want to know and if someone deserves
> a warning about having their service banned before they get
> kicked off. I'm not talking about telling folks to cut it out - I'm
> talking about warnings like "If you persist in these kinds of
> posts then you may loose your service." People deserve a
> warning or is a part of Netiquette to shoot first and then ask
> questions? Didn't the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just rule
> against the computer censors?
> Very Confused,
> Jamie E.
Jamie-
Netiquette, or more specifically 'Usenet rules', are entirely
mechanical in nature. They are calculated using a formula called the
'Breidbart Index'.
"Spam" is not unwanted posts, it is multiple identical posts in
extremely large numbers, often posted to many, many groups. Spam can also
be the exact same message posted day after day- this is _not_ the NA
interpretation of 'message', it's '5K of boilerplate text possibly with
three words that vary written at the bottom'.
"ECP" or "Velveeta" is excessive crossposting and has to run to
approximately thirty (?) groups in the header before it is actionable.
What happens is this. If genuine spam is discovered, a cancel message
or messages is sent out, deleting the posts. It is called a 'forged
cancel' sometimes because the cancel appears to come from the original
poster.The spammer is sent an automated warning, telling him, her or it
that the spam was detected, what spam is, and why not to do it. That's
all.
If the spammer persists, as some do, their ISP is contacted and odds
are they find another ISP. interramp.com is one example of what's been
considered a 'rogue site' that will not drop spammers. Some sites 'alias
out' interramp, meaning that if you are on their server you will not see
anything that is sent through interramp or from interramp.
So Jamie, don't worry. *snug* You _cannot_ spam by accident. The talk
of netiquette going on now in alt.recovery.na is _not_ truly net rules.
The Briedbart index is net rules.
If they don't hush, why, I'll sic Steve Boursy on them *grin*
Jinx_tigr
Chris Johnson
> In article <31fa6a1a...@nuhou.aloha.net>, acp...@aloha.net (Mick
C.) wrote:
> > Aloha,
> > There have been several posts lately about the rights of people to
> > post here, and there seems to be some confusion as to whether the
> > traditions govern this Newsgroup. They do not. Netiquette applies
> > here.
*Jinx_tigr reads, half-responds, scoots off to his meeting, and resumes*
> The traditions govern _us_, if we wish to stay clean.
> Since the issue of handling a newsgroup that bears the NA name but is
> not moderated is a service issue, perhaps you could look at the 12
> Concepts for NA Service? I think that is more appropriate in this context,
> as every post and response we make here is NA service, in a small way.
I'm looking at the Ninth Concept now-
"All elements of out service structure have the responsibility to
carefully consider all viewpoints in their decision-making process."
To whoever out there that might be going "twelve whaaat?", this is NA
service-related stuff- the 12 concepts booklet is available. It is
conference-approved NA literature, and there's a lot of wisdom in it.
What's jumping out at me is this-
"In any discussion, it is tempting to ignore dissenting members,
especially if the vast majority of members think alike. Yet it is often
the lone voice, offering new information or a unique perspective on
things, that saves us from hasty or misinformed decisions. In Narcotics
Anonymous, we are encouraged to respect that voice, even to seek it out,
for without it our service decisions would undoubtedly suffer." (copyright
1989, 1990, 1991 by World Service Office, Inc)
This newsgroup is not called alt.recovery.drug-addiction. It's called
alt.recovery.na, and though there are powerful reasons to separate it from
NA proper (such as Tradition 6), to my mind the newsgroup _acts_ like a
very large, undisciplined, _open_ meeting.Tradition 6 does not apply to a
meeting, and prestige-seeking does not apply to posters using anonymous
remailers...
It is a safe place- those who might not dare leave their houses can
post and read the words of recovering addicts here (assuming they haven't
already sold their computers ;) )
If even that doesn't seem safe, struggling addicts can use anonymous
remailers to post- this is a level of anonymity that is hard to match
_anywhere_ else, and I feel it's inevitable that some people's first real
communication with Narcotics Anonymous will be on Usenet, here. How many
of the silent, wary faces at the back of meetings would be more willing to
express their fears, doubts, hopes, gripes, if it were on Usenet and not
person-to-person?
We addicts are good at isolating. I'm good at it myself- I may be
active in service, clean for some time and attending meetings
relentlessly, but I _still_ get a lot out of just being alone with my
computer- reaching out across the world and calling out, "I'm here, are
you?" and getting a response from someone continents away.
I visited this group months ago, perhaps over half a year ago. It was
interesting, rather small, and I ended up just going to regular old
meetings and not looking in here for quite a while. It seems bigger now. I
feel that whether we (as a service structure) like it or not, there _will_
be Usenet NA and there _will_ be IRC NA and we had best try to figure out
how to work with it... we do _not_ govern, and the responsibility of NA
service is to those _they_ serve, not those _who_ serve. This stuff is
happening on the addict level- no regional subcommittee dreamed it up...
and our responsibility is to the addict level above all.
I feel my responsibility is to the poster whom I almost never read, who
didn't talk a good program and who was drummed out of the newsgroup for
it. I'm told this person claimed to be an NA member. Surely his words are
the only proof needed of this? Were he not an NA member, would that be a
reason to go after his ISP- as this is an _unmoderated_ newsgroup, the
newsgroup equivalent of an open meeting?
Finally, netiquette is a separate set of rules that you can learn in
news.admin.net-abuse.misc. Content has nothing to do with it- net abuse is
spamming or excessive crossposting. Spamming is not posting a lot, it's
posting the same exact text (as in an automated process) over and over
again, and the classic example is posting a message to fifty or a hundred
newsgroups individually. Excessive crossposting is crossposting to more
than thirty newsgroups.
This is _never_ content-based. It is _strictly_ mechanical.Posting with
the same _opinion_ over and over again does _not_ count. I have not heard
anything to suggest that any 'problem' posters here are technically
spamming or ECP-ing, and for that reason actions taken against them are
_very_ bad netiquette indeed. One does _not_ organize complaints to
someone's provider without actual reason and violation of the Breidbart
ratio (a spam-threshold formula)...
Note to some who saw replay.net disappear- it is always possible that
your own providers 'aliased out' this site for unrelated reasons. In any
case, one does not _have_ to use anonymous remailers- particularly posting
to _this_ newsgroup ;)
("Hey, sarge, better send a car over- make sure they go armed! There's
a bunch of addicts over here _not_ using drugs! We got it all logged!")
Jinx_tigr
David Peck
jami...@usa.pipeline.com(Jamie E.) wrote:
> So what are the rules of Netiquette - do they supercede the
> Bill of Rights? - I started posting back in March and I for one
> would like to know how to avoid being banned - I work for
> the Postal Service and I get enough of "Why didn't you know
> what we didn't tell you" at work. I am not being a smart-ass
> about this, I sincerely want to know and if someone deserves
> a warning about having their service banned before they get
> kicked off. I'm not talking about telling folks to cut it out - I'm
> talking about warnings like "If you persist in these kinds of
> posts then you may loose your service." People deserve a
> warning or is a part of Netiquette to shoot first and then ask
> questions? Didn't the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just rule
> against the computer censors?
>
> Very Confused,
> Jamie E.
> PS - I don't see how banning except for extreme conditions will
> make this newsgroup better - I see it scarring folks into avoiding
> posting out of fear of saying the wrong thing.
>
Hi, Jamie.
The recent "banning" of a participant in this NG by the participants'
provider has given us all a few things to think about. Here's my $.02:
You ask if people deserve a warning before having their service
terminated for offensive behavior. I feel they should. I also feel
that Reese had ample warning that he was doing nothing BUT offend
people in post after post after post. He attacked people with personal
insults, he intentionally spread misinformation about the fellowship
and it's membership "requirements", he wrote mean and hurtful replies
to posts from newcomers in pain, etc. And, in many cases, people
replied to his posts in ways that made it clear he was hurting people
and that his anti-social behavior was completely out of line. He was
more than just "warned"; there is no way he can claim ignorance of the
effects of his actions. It was obvious.
Now, in light of all that, should he have been "banned"? I personally
don't think so, and I wasn't one of the people who complained. As
others have stated, it seemed to me that he was starting to mellow, at
least in a few of the later posts. I think with some time and examples
and - most important- effort on his part, he could continue to
improve his attitude & actions and stop hurting people so much.
HOWEVER - He knew what he was doing. He knew the risks. He is
responsible for his actions, and the results that arise from them are
his own fault. It is not the fault of the (apparently) significant
number of people who complained, nor is it the fault of his provider.
It's true that some of the replies Reese received were nothing more
than stooping to his level. Like Reese, we should all be learning to
take responsibility for our actions and reactions. I think I'll go
back and re-read some of my replies to him now, to see how I can
improve my own behavior in the future.
Dave P. southern California
da...@alr.com
Brian Garrison
While it is not as easy as slamming an addict who has taken an action
that had an unforseen negative result ( I certainly have never done
anything like that....of course, I have never learned anything
either), wouldn't a more effective solution to this current problem be
to direct our energies and inquiries to the ISP for the anonymous
remailer replay.com and ask to have the ability to post to this NG
restored?
Or is that not possible?
Anyone who knows how to do this, or has another suggestion, please
share.....
Mike L <mle...@syix.com> wrote:
>At this time I would Like to nominate Mic to office of president
>It's more than obvious that he Knows It All and therefore is worthy
>of such office.
> I would also like to thank him for heading up the
> Guardians of Recovery Group
>
> Man am I let down I thought I could be the Prez!
>
>
ebo...@email.unc.edu
>
>
> [1]Reply to: Mick C.
>
> THIS IS NOT NARCOTICS ANONYMOUS
>
>
> Sat, 27 Jul 1996 19:17:43 GMT
> Alan Cohen Publications
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.recovery.na
> [3]Reply to newsgroup(s)
>Aloha,
>
>There have been several posts lately about the rights of people to
>post here, and there seems to be some confusion as to whether the
>traditions govern this Newsgroup. They do not. Netiquette applies
>here.
>
>members of Narcotics Anonymous to communicate with other members of
>Narcotics Anonymous all over the planet. Any member is welcome here
>as long as they behave appropriately within the guidelines of
>member get flamed for posting here, but I have no desire to address
>the questions of non-members being here.
>
>
>Mick
I am addict called Darin,
I tend towards agreement with what i read here. This newsgroup is not
Narcotics Anonymous and is not in ANY way affiliated with the fellowship
of NA. The rules that govern this newsgroup are set by whoever runs it.
However, as a member, by choice and participation, of NA I feel it is
important for me to "try to practice these principles in all of my
affairs". By "these principles" I mean the principles in the steps and
traditions of Narcotics Anonymous. By "all of my affairs" I mean ALL,
yes even the posting of letters to newsgroups on the net.
As for me, my experience shows me that I cannot enforce upon you, or
choose for you to adhere to the spiritual principles which give me a life
and which govern my life. Nor can I police your life. The people or
person running this newsgroup however, can police it, run it, or shut it
down as they see fit.
My personal solution to "trollers", "flamers" and other dissagreeable
posters is to simply move on to the next. I come here seeking experience
strength and hope of recovery based on a message of Narcotics Anonymous,
and connection with people seeking the same.
Those who come here and share ES&H, I salute and appreciate. Others I
tend to ignore to the best of my ability.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank whoever it is that makes
this newsgroup possible. And also to thank those of you who willingly
share your ES&H in any format. To all others, I simply say- Keep coming
back, maybe it'll work for you too.
Thanks,
and Peace
Darin B.
WARflower
In <4trur6$2...@news.dca.net> bri...@dca.net (Brian Garrison) writes:
>
>While it is not as easy as slamming an addict who has taken an action
>that had an unforseen negative result ( I certainly have never done
>anything like that....of course, I have never learned anything
>either), wouldn't a more effective solution to this current problem be
>to direct our energies and inquiries to the ISP for the anonymous
>remailer replay.com and ask to have the ability to post to this NG
>restored?
As a matter of fact- Since it was a human that read the email
contributing to the shut down to this NG for replay- it will also be a
human reading the email requesting the reinstatement of replay's
ability to read/post- Maybe appeal to the human side of the reader,..
I mean- the ppl that wrote did what they thought was correct at the
time- and,.. that is not unhonorable!
You may write to ab...@replay.com OR postm...@replay.com
And- this is not a personal thing-- this is a anonymous thing! ;-)
LOVE to all recovering addicts-
WARflower
og...@thecia.net
Hi Jamie,
My understanding of "netiquette"; a ridiculous term that's often
overused by the same people who still attach the prefix "cyber-" to
words in an effort to show the world their computer literacy.
My experience has been that it's usually a good idea to lurk in a
newsgroup for a bit before posting in order to get a "flavor" of the
group. Every group is different. There are always the dominant
personalities that feel it's up to them to dictate what's acceptable or
not. Human nature. Think of it like walking into an ongoing
conversation. It's usually a good idea to get an idea of what's being
discussed before throwing your two cents into the ring. Common
sense/courtesy.
You cannot be banned from a newsgroup. You can be ignored. You can be
flamed. Unless you've posted something that could be considered
"obscene" (pornography) or direct personal threats/attacks, your ISP
(internet service provider) WILL NOT revoke your account. They could
care less whether you've made an "off-topic" post to a newsgroup (I know
this as I work for a very large one).
I don't know if this has helped, I hope so. If you'd care to respond or
discuss this further, please do so privately through email. I wouldn't
want to be accused with starting a flurry of "off-topic" posts.....
-Ted