Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Conduct on alt.usage.english (was Re: American English is improving)
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Brock Coles
Apr 26, 2014, 9:27:20 AM4/26/14
to
[Followup to alt.usage.english.neologism]
"CDB" wrote in message news:ljg9o8$jgq$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>On 26/04/2014 4:48 AM, Dr Nick wrote:
>
>[dispute]
>
>> And of course, as we'd expect, in the last two weeks since this PTD
>> has had plenty of opportunity to word a graceful acceptance of his
>> crass mistake.
>
>> I wonder why I can't find it?
>
>You are a member in good standing here. Can we not try to avoid that
>kind of police-nanny criticism of others' habits*, probably now
>increasing by contagion from SLers? That was one of the disagreeable
>features of that group that helped me choose not to read it.
Well, maybe you should set an example then. You were the one who decided to
initiate this chain reaction with your extended criticism of my posting
habits a couple of weeks ago.
My views on this have not changed; the appropriate places for such comments
is in email and not on the group. When I first took part in Usenet in the
late 1980s, this appeared to be the general convention, and it was quite
usual for such disputes to be taken to email where they didn't interfere
with the general tenor of the discussion. Somewhere along the line, this
all changed. I can almost pinpoint it in my experience to a time in the
late 90s when someone posted a comment critical of me on another group, and
I replied in email so as not to disrupt the discussion. I received a rather
curt reply along the lines of "if it's posted on the group, reply on the
group. Please do not send me any more email."
That group, I might add, has all but disintegrated in the intervening years,
because of the number of acrimonious threads about who should post what,
what was meant by people's posts, whether people were offended by
such-and-such a remark and so on. I've seen it happen time and time again;
when comments critical of individual posters are posted on the group, others
pile in with all sorts of "me too" comments and it turns into an
inquisition, sometimes with perfectly reasonable people being hounded off
the group. I think it's a tribute to the good grace and tolerance of
posters to this group that it *hasn't* happened here.
Much of my internet discussion time in recent years has been on Web forums
where there are moderators to deal with this type of thing. Off-topic posts
are on separate boards, and discussion about how the forums should be run is
usually in a separate section as well. Discussion of the conduct of posters
to the forum is normally dealt with using the private messaging system,
either directly with the individual concerned or with the moderators if
necessary. A well-run Web forum can avoid all the pitfalls that have led to
the gradual withering away of much of Usenet.
Since we don't have a moderator here, and if people are genuinely so
reluctant to move discussions to email, I can only repeat the suggestion
that I made some time ago; we use a separate group for the purposes of
discussing what should and should not be posted here, the conduct of
individual members, and so on. Since the procedures for creating new Usenet
groups are rather complex it seems easier to use an existing group that is
effectively dead, and I proposed alt.usage.english.neologism for the
purpose, since the last post was over a year ago (and that was an isolated
off-topic post). I have thus followed my own suggestion and set followups
accordingly.
--
Brock Coles (aka Guy Barry)
"CDB" wrote in message news:ljg9o8$jgq$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>On 26/04/2014 4:48 AM, Dr Nick wrote:
>
>[dispute]
>
>> And of course, as we'd expect, in the last two weeks since this PTD
>> has had plenty of opportunity to word a graceful acceptance of his
>> crass mistake.
>
>> I wonder why I can't find it?
>
>You are a member in good standing here. Can we not try to avoid that
>kind of police-nanny criticism of others' habits*, probably now
>increasing by contagion from SLers? That was one of the disagreeable
>features of that group that helped me choose not to read it.
Well, maybe you should set an example then. You were the one who decided to
initiate this chain reaction with your extended criticism of my posting
habits a couple of weeks ago.
My views on this have not changed; the appropriate places for such comments
is in email and not on the group. When I first took part in Usenet in the
late 1980s, this appeared to be the general convention, and it was quite
usual for such disputes to be taken to email where they didn't interfere
with the general tenor of the discussion. Somewhere along the line, this
all changed. I can almost pinpoint it in my experience to a time in the
late 90s when someone posted a comment critical of me on another group, and
I replied in email so as not to disrupt the discussion. I received a rather
curt reply along the lines of "if it's posted on the group, reply on the
group. Please do not send me any more email."
That group, I might add, has all but disintegrated in the intervening years,
because of the number of acrimonious threads about who should post what,
what was meant by people's posts, whether people were offended by
such-and-such a remark and so on. I've seen it happen time and time again;
when comments critical of individual posters are posted on the group, others
pile in with all sorts of "me too" comments and it turns into an
inquisition, sometimes with perfectly reasonable people being hounded off
the group. I think it's a tribute to the good grace and tolerance of
posters to this group that it *hasn't* happened here.
Much of my internet discussion time in recent years has been on Web forums
where there are moderators to deal with this type of thing. Off-topic posts
are on separate boards, and discussion about how the forums should be run is
usually in a separate section as well. Discussion of the conduct of posters
to the forum is normally dealt with using the private messaging system,
either directly with the individual concerned or with the moderators if
necessary. A well-run Web forum can avoid all the pitfalls that have led to
the gradual withering away of much of Usenet.
Since we don't have a moderator here, and if people are genuinely so
reluctant to move discussions to email, I can only repeat the suggestion
that I made some time ago; we use a separate group for the purposes of
discussing what should and should not be posted here, the conduct of
individual members, and so on. Since the procedures for creating new Usenet
groups are rather complex it seems easier to use an existing group that is
effectively dead, and I proposed alt.usage.english.neologism for the
purpose, since the last post was over a year ago (and that was an isolated
off-topic post). I have thus followed my own suggestion and set followups
accordingly.
--
Brock Coles (aka Guy Barry)
Whiskers
Apr 26, 2014, 1:02:36 PM4/26/14
to
On 2014-04-26, Brock Coles <brock...@virginmedia.com> wrote:
[...]
> Since we don't have a moderator here, and if people are genuinely so
> reluctant to move discussions to email, I can only repeat the suggestion
> that I made some time ago; we use a separate group for the purposes of
> discussing what should and should not be posted here, the conduct of
> individual members, and so on. Since the procedures for creating new Usenet
> groups are rather complex it seems easier to use an existing group that is
> effectively dead, and I proposed alt.usage.english.neologism for the
> purpose, since the last post was over a year ago (and that was an isolated
> off-topic post). I have thus followed my own suggestion and set followups
> accordingly.
Isn't that what alt.flame is for? Seems a shame to corrupt a perfectly
innocent group.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
[...]
> Since we don't have a moderator here, and if people are genuinely so
> reluctant to move discussions to email, I can only repeat the suggestion
> that I made some time ago; we use a separate group for the purposes of
> discussing what should and should not be posted here, the conduct of
> individual members, and so on. Since the procedures for creating new Usenet
> groups are rather complex it seems easier to use an existing group that is
> effectively dead, and I proposed alt.usage.english.neologism for the
> purpose, since the last post was over a year ago (and that was an isolated
> off-topic post). I have thus followed my own suggestion and set followups
> accordingly.
innocent group.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Guy Barry
Apr 26, 2014, 1:27:18 PM4/26/14
to
"Whiskers" wrote in message
news:slrnllnplc.4...@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
It's a dead group. There have been no on-topic posts here since 2011, and
only four isolated posts since then. Think of it as
alt.usage.english.flame. I've wanted a group like this for some time, but I
don't know if it'll take off. Let's see.
--
Guy Barry
news:slrnllnplc.4...@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
only four isolated posts since then. Think of it as
alt.usage.english.flame. I've wanted a group like this for some time, but I
don't know if it'll take off. Let's see.
--
Guy Barry
Stan Brown
Apr 27, 2014, 10:14:04 AM4/27/14
to
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:27:20 +0100, Brock Coles wrote:
> My views on this have not changed; the appropriate places for such comments
> is in email and not on the group. When I first took part in Usenet in the
> late 1980s, this appeared to be the general convention, and it was quite
> usual for such disputes to be taken to email where they didn't interfere
> with the general tenor of the discussion. Somewhere along the line, this
> all changed.
>
Probably it's when the great majority of people decide to use fake
> My views on this have not changed; the appropriate places for such comments
> is in email and not on the group. When I first took part in Usenet in the
> late 1980s, this appeared to be the general convention, and it was quite
> usual for such disputes to be taken to email where they didn't interfere
> with the general tenor of the discussion. Somewhere along the line, this
> all changed.
>
addresses, so that unless you know for sure that a given poster is
using his real email address there's no point in trying to email him.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
Guy Barry
Apr 27, 2014, 12:25:52 PM4/27/14
to
"Stan Brown" wrote in message
news:MPG.2dc6dabb6...@news.individual.net...
I know that many people are wary of using actual email addresses for fear of
being targeted by spammers. (I don't think I've ever received a single spam
email as a result of my participation in Usenet, so I wonder how far this
fear is exaggerated.) To get round this, some use "munged" versions of
their addresses that can be decoded to give their actual address; others use
addresses specifically created for Usenet, which they don't use from day to
day.
Web forums normally have a private messaging facility to enable members to
take part in private forum-related discussions while not revealing their
actual email address. Unfortunately, such a facility is not available on
Usenet. I think this may be another reason why Usenet is gradually in
decline; there's no straightforward way of taking discussions off the forum
when appropriate. I've redirected posts on this topic to this forum as an
experiment, but I don't know how successful it will be.
--
Guy Barry
news:MPG.2dc6dabb6...@news.individual.net...
>
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:27:20 +0100, Brock Coles wrote:
>> My views on this have not changed; the appropriate places for such
>> comments
>> is in email and not on the group. When I first took part in Usenet in
>> the
>> late 1980s, this appeared to be the general convention, and it was quite
>> usual for such disputes to be taken to email where they didn't interfere
>> with the general tenor of the discussion. Somewhere along the line, this
>> all changed.
>>
>
>Probably it's when the great majority of people decide to use fake
>addresses, so that unless you know for sure that a given poster is
>using his real email address there's no point in trying to email him.
That's a good point. I always use my actual email address on the group, but
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:27:20 +0100, Brock Coles wrote:
>> My views on this have not changed; the appropriate places for such
>> comments
>> is in email and not on the group. When I first took part in Usenet in
>> the
>> late 1980s, this appeared to be the general convention, and it was quite
>> usual for such disputes to be taken to email where they didn't interfere
>> with the general tenor of the discussion. Somewhere along the line, this
>> all changed.
>>
>
>Probably it's when the great majority of people decide to use fake
>addresses, so that unless you know for sure that a given poster is
>using his real email address there's no point in trying to email him.
I know that many people are wary of using actual email addresses for fear of
being targeted by spammers. (I don't think I've ever received a single spam
email as a result of my participation in Usenet, so I wonder how far this
fear is exaggerated.) To get round this, some use "munged" versions of
their addresses that can be decoded to give their actual address; others use
addresses specifically created for Usenet, which they don't use from day to
day.
Web forums normally have a private messaging facility to enable members to
take part in private forum-related discussions while not revealing their
actual email address. Unfortunately, such a facility is not available on
Usenet. I think this may be another reason why Usenet is gradually in
decline; there's no straightforward way of taking discussions off the forum
when appropriate. I've redirected posts on this topic to this forum as an
experiment, but I don't know how successful it will be.
--
Guy Barry
Whiskers
Apr 27, 2014, 3:17:21 PM4/27/14
to
On 2014-04-27, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Stan Brown" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2dc6dabb6...@news.individual.net...
>>
>>On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:27:20 +0100, Brock Coles wrote:
>>> My views on this have not changed; the appropriate places for such
>>> comments is in email and not on the group. When I first took part
>>> in Usenet in the late 1980s, this appeared to be the general
>>> convention, and it was quite usual for such disputes to be taken to
>>> email where they didn't interfere with the general tenor of the
>>> discussion. Somewhere along the line, this all changed.
>>>
>>
>>Probably it's when the great majority of people decide to use fake
>>addresses, so that unless you know for sure that a given poster is
>>using his real email address there's no point in trying to email him.
>
> That's a good point. I always use my actual email address on the
> group, but I know that many people are wary of using actual email
> addresses for fear of being targeted by spammers. (I don't think I've
> ever received a single spam email as a result of my participation in
> Usenet, so I wonder how far this fear is exaggerated.) To get round
> this, some use "munged" versions of their addresses that can be
> decoded to give their actual address; others use addresses
> specifically created for Usenet, which they don't use from day to day.
That's my usual practice. I've been using the same address for years,
> "Stan Brown" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2dc6dabb6...@news.individual.net...
>>
>>On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:27:20 +0100, Brock Coles wrote:
>>> My views on this have not changed; the appropriate places for such
>>> comments is in email and not on the group. When I first took part
>>> in Usenet in the late 1980s, this appeared to be the general
>>> convention, and it was quite usual for such disputes to be taken to
>>> email where they didn't interfere with the general tenor of the
>>> discussion. Somewhere along the line, this all changed.
>>>
>>
>>Probably it's when the great majority of people decide to use fake
>>addresses, so that unless you know for sure that a given poster is
>>using his real email address there's no point in trying to email him.
>
> That's a good point. I always use my actual email address on the
> group, but I know that many people are wary of using actual email
> addresses for fear of being targeted by spammers. (I don't think I've
> ever received a single spam email as a result of my participation in
> Usenet, so I wonder how far this fear is exaggerated.) To get round
> this, some use "munged" versions of their addresses that can be
> decoded to give their actual address; others use addresses
> specifically created for Usenet, which they don't use from day to day.
and the spam has seldom been a real problem.
> Web forums normally have a private messaging facility to enable
> members to take part in private forum-related discussions while not
> revealing their actual email address. Unfortunately, such a facility
> is not available on Usenet. I think this may be another reason why
> Usenet is gradually in decline; there's no straightforward way of
> taking discussions off the forum when appropriate. I've redirected
> posts on this topic to this forum as an experiment, but I don't know
> how successful it will be.
one in the From header. The Reply-To isn't part of the 'headers only'
download from the server, which is all spammers usually bother with, so
spammers' bots never see that address. Some people put their 'real'
email address in their sig, or include a clue for de-munging the From
address.
0 new messages