A new case for the proposed deletion of net.flame
j...@alice.uucp
There are two parts to this article.
1)
Last Friday, I suggested that net.flame should be removed.
To date, I've received 23 letters about the subject, and the
concensus is 22 DELETE 1 KEEP. The one letter that wanted me
to "keep" net.flame actually said <and I DO quote>
"..sick, faggot head, what gives you the f<>g right to
tell any non-pervert ..."
<> encloses the obvious.
I think that 22:1 is a good start toward a concensus.
I also think the obscenity (no profanity, I guess the writer
didn't think to demean the name of G*d, if he believes
in one) shows how much consideration is due that writer.
2)
Today, a totally ungracious individual, who doesn't have
to justify the cost of the net, suggests in net.flame that we
should all write Gene Spafford (the real verb he was suggesting
was "harass", but he was politic and said "write") because
Gene enforced a rule that is well known, and did it AFTER
consulting other people (who may or may not wish to be named)
in positions similar to his.
Aside from the obvious, i.e. Gene has to justify the money spent
on nutnews at his site, and he does not feel that he can justify
nut.bizzare, or any group that doesn't have a start discussed properly
on the net, mailing to Gene ignores the fact that he is only
one of a bunch of people who agree with one or both of
the decisions. Picking on Gene because HE is the keeper of the
lists is just plain silly, as well as using the interstate
phone system for harassment.
In any case, suggesting federal crimes on the net (or something
that is likely to be able to be made out as a federal crime)
is a good case for removing both a user and a newsgroup, so
IT'S TIME! I CALL ON NET ADMINISTRATORS WHO WANT THE NET TO
CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION!
My mail filter is still up, I will see your profanity, obscenity,
and the like, but it will be marked as such when I turn on the
mailer, and your root and news administrators will likely get a copy, if
you're good at being insulting.
--
EVEN NUT.FLAME HAS IT'S LIMITS!
"Sunset and evening star, and one clear call for netnews..."
Flames to yoursite!/dev/null
ron vaughn
In article <44...@alice.UUCP> j...@alice.UUCP writes:
>IT'S TIME! I CALL ON NET ADMINISTRATORS WHO WANT THE NET TO
>CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION!
pull your head out. if there ISN'T a flame, it will rear it's ugly head
in all the other groups. at least in net.* if people get "out of line" you
can say "move this to flame, that's what it's there for," and most of the
time they do. at least now all of us flamer types and pseudo flamers, and
even the jerks (arndt etc.) play in the sandbox here. without flame, the
rest of the USENET community will pay the price.
this is somewhat similair to the chicago bears stopping beer sales at the 1/2
of last monday night's game to keep the crowd in control. local sales
of pints of booze etc. skyrocketed, and since they knew they "had to get
their beer now" the fans set a record for beer consumption. the "solution"
was worse than the original problem.
cut out flame and everyone WILL pay. x% of garbage is input to the net
each day. y% of that garbage is in flame, x% - y% is distributed across
all the other groups. without flame, and large chunk of y% will be added
to the rest of the net. face facts, if a guy is a schmoe in net.singles,
i go into flame and flame him (or he flames me... whatever). after flame is
gone we'll just sit and flame in singles. and music....and politics...
and religion....and philosophy...and.......
your choice, be an idiot, or wake up and smell the coffee.
ron
ps: notice the sarcastic, mild flame tone in this letter? that is because
it is in flame. if there was no flame, this letter would have to be in
a "regular group," except *there* it would be sarcastic and have a mild
flame tone. and everyone "else" would be subjected to it. my, what a
neat can of worms to open up for the rest of the net. who's going to
take the blame..er...i mean, be the proud leader of this smart move????
bradford wilson
I am writing in response to a posting by someone whose
name my .editor has munged, but who comes out in favor of deleting
anything he finds offensive.
> Last Friday, I suggested that net.flame should be removed.
> To date, I've received 23 letters about the subject, and the
> concensus is 22 DELETE 1 KEEP. The one letter that wanted me
> to "keep" net.flame actually said <and I DO quote>
>
> "..sick, faggot head, what gives you the f<>g right to
> tell any non-pervert ..."
>
> <> encloses the obvious.
For the record, I did not write the above letter, but I wish I
had. I take it <> encloses your brain space. The deal is that most of the
hardcore flamers aren't organized enough to speak up for their survival.
ATTENTION FELLOW FLAMERS! Let the net know that you want to keep the group!
>
> I think that 22:1 is a good start toward a concensus.
If the numbers were in my favor, I would feel that 2:1 was a
concensus. Give me a freaking break!
> 2)
>
> Today, a totally ungracious individual, who doesn't have
> to justify the cost of the net, suggests in net.flame that we
> should all write Gene Spafford (the real verb he was suggesting
> was "harass", but he was politic and said "write") because
> Gene enforced a rule that is well known, and did it AFTER
> consulting other people (who may or may not wish to be named)
> in positions similar to his.
Now, I >did< write this flame. Good idea, huh? Hey Flamers,
why not mail to this guy! Send him anything you have on file, especially
the big, space-eating files. No one has the right to censor.
>
> Aside from the obvious, i.e. Gene has to justify the money spent
> on nutnews at his site, and he does not feel that he can justify
Awwww, sob. Spaf is such a great guy, he does all this
neat stuff for free, he really like us, oh gosh I'm so ashamed :-).
Seriously, though, this does not give him the right to say what he likes,
and stamp out what he doesn't in a freaking witchhunt.
i> nut.bizzare, or any group that doesn't have a start discussed properly
> on the net, mailing to Gene ignores the fact that he is only
> one of a bunch of people who agree with one or both of
> the decisions. Picking on Gene because HE is the keeper of the
> lists is just plain silly, as well as using the interstate
> phone system for harassment.
> In any case, suggesting federal crimes on the net (or something
> that is likely to be able to be made out as a federal crime)
> is a good case for removing both a user and a newsgroup, so
What are you, ten years old? You think that's harassment?
You want to know what harassment is? Are you gonna bust me for threatening
you on the net? (Are you so scared of MY KIND that you don't print your
signature at the end of your postings?) My techniques are those of revolution,
for these are times that call for revolt. When my liberty is threatened,
I feel the way kind of the way you feel when you read a *BAD* word (oo, yuck!)
in your mail.>
> IT'S TIME! I CALL ON NET ADMINISTRATORS WHO WANT THE NET TO
> CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION!
YES IT IS! I WANT EVERY FLAMER TO RESPOND TO THIS PATHETIC CHALLENGE
IF YOU WISH THIS GROUP TO CONTINUE!!
>
> My mail filter is still up, I will see your profanity, obscenity,
> and the like, but it will be marked as such when I turn on the
> mailer, and your root and news administrators will likely get a copy, if
> you're good at being insulting.
Oh, too bad I really wasn't at my best for this one! But I'm
sure I can get one in front of the "net administrators" yet. These guys
are worse than the Inquisition, right?
I'm getting sick of being the only flamer interested in
the survival of the group. I'll bet the rest of you are like the people
who stood around while Kitty Genovese was being raped!. C'mon, prove I'm
wrong! Wake up! Don't let what happened to net.bizarre happen here! There
was no warning for the bizarreheads, but there has been plenty here. A
storm is rolling in...
The Wombat .:.
"You've decided? MY best
interests? How can you
say what MY best interest is?"
-- Suicidal Tendencies
"Y'all go to hell."
-*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Paul M. Dubuc
>in reference to deleting net.flame:
>
>In article <44...@alice.UUCP> j...@alice.UUCP writes:
>>IT'S TIME! I CALL ON NET ADMINISTRATORS WHO WANT THE NET TO
>>CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION!
>
>pull your head out. if there ISN'T a flame, it will rear it's ugly head
>in all the other groups. at least in net.* if people get "out of line" you
>can say "move this to flame, that's what it's there for," and most of the
>time they do. at least now all of us flamer types and pseudo flamers, and
>even the jerks (arndt etc.) play in the sandbox here. without flame, the
>rest of the USENET community will pay the price.
It's my impression that net.flame may have the greatest ratio of articles
cross posted to other groups. Flames rarely start in net.flame (it's more
of a repository), they start in other groups and the flamer has to post there
initially or the right people aren't going to hear it. So net.flame doesn't
do anything to prevent flames from starting up in other groups.
The existence of net.flame also serves as an encouragement to flamming. The
group is there, so it seems like an acceptable practice. If your article
is a little hot or full of ridicule, just cross post it to net.flame and
you don't have to apologize. Net.flame's existence as a ghetto to which we
may banish persistent flamers may make the n-key last longer for readers of
other groups, but the USENET community still has to pay the price for traffic
in net.flame (system and telephone costs are the main issue here, and I think
net.flame is hurting, rather than helping, us in that area). If we need a
ghetto for flamers why not encourage them to carry on their insults by mail
instead? Either that, or flammers will be forced to face the fact that
flamming generates a lot of heat and little light and people who resort to
flamming without restraint or first trying to be reasonable and understand
the other's point of veiw, will generally not be taken seriously by most
readers.
I think that if net.flame weren't around to make justifying the venting
of one's spleen all over the net, the users of other groups who don't
appreciate flamming will be faced with two choices:
1) Allow flamming to get out of hand and ruin the newsgroup.
or
2) Actively discourage flamming as an acceptable mode of communication,
while encouraging reasonable tones of discussion. This can be done in
a number of creative and reasonable ways if we are willing to work at it.
With the existence of net.flame, people are just too lazy to exercise the
second option. Net.flame is an irresponsible way to handle irresponsible
behaviour.
>cut out flame and everyone WILL pay. x% of garbage is input to the net
>each day. y% of that garbage is in flame, x% - y% is distributed across
>all the other groups. without flame, and large chunk of y% will be added
>to the rest of the net.
How large? How large was x% before net.flame was created? Without net.flame,
y% will be unjustified flammage (hypothetically leaving an acceptable amount
x%-y%). You treat these variables as constants, when their value really
depends on how comfortable we make the net for flammers. net.flame contributes
a lot to that comfort. I would rather have all the 'y%' of supposedly
unjustified flame distributed amoung other groups, because if it is unjustified
there is more impetus to get the flamers to cut it out and behave.
>face facts, if a guy is a schmoe in net.singles,
>i go into flame and flame him (or he flames me... whatever). after flame is
>gone we'll just sit and flame in singles. and music....and politics...
>and religion....and philosophy...and.......
Well, you don't go straight to net.flame do you? Each of you battles a
few rounds in net.singles first (perhaps cross posting to net.flame).
By the time others get mad enough to tell you to keep it in net.flame,
a good part of the dammage has been done, and the net still continues
to pay for the subsequent traffic you generate in net.flame.
Besides, we could more easily think of other scenarios than the one you give.
Mail the schmoe a letter instead of posting it and encourage others to take
the same route. Try ignoring him. Flamming arguments have to end somewhere.
Sometimes we need to be big enough to let the schmoe have the last word in
the interest of civility (even when the schmoe is wrong). If you really care
about setting the guy right a letter might be just as effective. If he's
not open to reason, he's not worth arguing with (or listening to). Let's
all get some practice at swallowing our pride, shall we? It might do us
some good.
> your choice, be an idiot, or wake up and smell the coffee.
>
> ron
>
>ps: notice the sarcastic, mild flame tone in this letter? that is because
>it is in flame. if there was no flame, this letter would have to be in
>a "regular group," except *there* it would be sarcastic and have a mild
>flame tone. and everyone "else" would be subjected to it. my, what a
>neat can of worms to open up for the rest of the net. who's going to
>take the blame..er...i mean, be the proud leader of this smart move????
It *is* in a "regular group" (cross posted to net.news.group).
--
Paul Dubuc cbsck!pmd
John Ruschmeyer
>Message-ID: <3...@ihdev.UUCP>
>Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
>
>In article <44...@alice.UUCP> j...@alice.UUCP writes:
>>CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION!
>
>in all the other groups. at least in net.* if people get "out of line" you
>can say "move this to flame, that's what it's there for," and most of the
>time they do. at least now all of us flamer types and pseudo flamers, and
>even the jerks (arndt etc.) play in the sandbox here. without flame, the
>rest of the USENET community will pay the price.
I disagree with that. Much of net.flame is already cross-posted to other
groups such as net.politics and net.religion. Those flames would exist with
or without net.flame. Also, flames exist independent of net.flame already-
try putting a posting in net.micro praising the 80x86 over the 680x0 or
vice versa; you will need an asbestos terminal.
Rather, net.flame seems to be more like net.bizarre, but with some sort of
permission (no, not a raison d'etre). When net.bizarre was first being
considered for "official" creation, many worried that by not creating the
group, the other net groups would become deluged with postings that should
have been in net.bizarre. Well, net.bizarre is now dead (actually, it's
most sincerely dead) and none of the deluge has come. I think that the
general sensibility of *most* netters is such that they realize that if
something is not *that* important and there is no apropriate group, then it
may not be worth posting.
To say "move this to net.flame, that's what it's there for" is a lot like
saying "post it to net.bizarre, they'll like it there".
--
Name: John Ruschmeyer
US Mail: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764
Phone: (201) 571-3451 *** NEW NUMBER ***
UUCP: ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john ...!princeton!moncol!john
...!pesnta!moncol!john
"...I don't imagine being a supernatural being is much fun since
people probably would be more reluctant to invite me to parties."
- Gene Spafford
Patrick M Juola
> Last Friday, I suggested that net.flame should be removed.
> To date, I've received 23 letters about the subject, and the
> concensus is 22 DELETE 1 KEEP.
>
keeping nut.flame -- Hopkins can't get the net.news.group, among others,
so if I want to find out about whatever DICTATARIAL HEAVY-HANDED ABITRARY
FASCIST DECISIONS you're making about the news groups, I have to wait until
someone flames about it here. (Sorry about the shouting, I just lost control
for a second. Yes, I can take pills for it :-)
Yes, I admit that there's a lot of trash on this group, (if I have
to read one more article about how English is decaying, I'll scream), but
I figured out early on what the 'n' key does. And surely it's got to be
better to hold arguments only on this group than on net.women, net.philosophy,
and net.abortion, cross posted. It only costs a third as much, right?
So change the figures -- it's now 22:2!
Pat Juola
Johns Hopkins University
Dept. of Maths
Kenneth Adam Arromdee
existence of net.flame.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'.
Kenneth Arromdee
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
CSNET: ins_...@jhunix.CSNET
ARPA: ins_akaa%jhu...@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa
der Mouse
> To date, I've received 23 letters about the subject, and the
> concensus is 22 DELETE 1 KEEP.
Sorry for not responding earlier, but I didn't think anyone would
take this person (j...@alice.uucp) seriously. Obviously, I want to keep
net.flame.
FLAMERS OF THE NET, UNITE! We lost net.bizarre through inaction
(or so they keep trying to tell us - remember all those postings about
"yes we DID cross-post the deletion discussion to net.bizarre"), don't
let it happen to net.flame!
--
der Mouse
{ihnp4,decvax,akgua,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
Hacker: One responsible for destroying /
Wizard: One responsible for recovering it afterward
Kenneth Adam Arromdee
>>From: r...@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn)
>>In article <44...@alice.UUCP> j...@alice.UUCP writes:
>>>IT'S TIME! I CALL ON NET ADMINISTRATORS WHO WANT THE NET TO
>>>CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION!
>>pull your head out. if there ISN'T a flame, it will rear it's ugly head
>>in all the other groups. at least in net.* if people get "out of line" you
>>can say "move this to flame, that's what it's there for," and most of the
>>time they do. at least now all of us flamer types and pseudo flamers, and
>>even the jerks (arndt etc.) play in the sandbox here. without flame, the
>>rest of the USENET community will pay the price.
>
>I disagree with that. Much of net.flame is already cross-posted to other
>groups such as net.politics and net.religion.
An article was posted which expressed support for the deletion
of net.politics, net.religion, and net.philosophy, on the grounds that they
are just soapboxes with no redeeming value. If this gains enough support
to delete these groups, would you then support the existence of net.flame?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Furthermore, I am not permitted to read net.news.group, which means that the
ONLY way I could read your posting about net.flame was in net.flame. This
applies also to other postings not relating to net.flame that appeared
in net.flame and net.news.group only. If net.flame is cut off, there will
be no way I can read these postings.
>Those flames would exist with
>or without net.flame. Also, flames exist independent of net.flame already-
>try putting a posting in net.micro praising the 80x86 over the 680x0 or
>vice versa; you will need an asbestos terminal.
>
>Rather, net.flame seems to be more like net.bizarre, but with some sort of
>permission (no, not a raison d'etre). When net.bizarre was first being
>considered for "official" creation, many worried that by not creating the
>group, the other net groups would become deluged with postings that should
>have been in net.bizarre. Well, net.bizarre is now dead (actually, it's
>most sincerely dead) and none of the deluge has come.
If a deluge HAD come, what would you have said? Would you have said that this
proved the arguments of the net.bizarre supporters and that net.bizarre
should now be officially created? Or would you have claimed that the deluge
of postings somehow shows that net.bizarre should still not be created?
By the way, what is the difference between "dead" and "sincerely dead"?
>I think that the
>general sensibility of *most* netters is such that they realize that if
>something is not *that* important and there is no apropriate group, then it
>may not be worth posting.
If something IS "that" important and there is no appropriate group, then
it STILL might not be posted. The lack of postings when a group doesn't
exist isn't proof that the group isn't important.
>To say "move this to net.flame, that's what it's there for" is a lot like
>saying "post it to net.bizarre, they'll like it there".
>Name: John Ruschmeyer
One of the main arguments for eliminating net.bizarre was that it was
formed using an improper procedure. Now the victim's net.flame, which was
formed properly. When net.bizarre was eliminated, the warning was given that
other groups might be next. Are net.religion, net.philosophy, and net.politics
going to be next?
It seems that the procedure for deleting the netnews entirely has been as
follows: First, find a group that, though popular, had irregularities in
its creation, and has been claimed by some to be "worthless", so you have
handy excuses for deleting it (i.e. net.bizarre). Next, find a group that
was created irregularly, but cannot be argued as worthless (net.internat).
Use the argument that after all, we deleted one irregularly-created group,
this is just an extension. Then find an allegedly worthless group, and
get it deleted (net.flame) although it was created properly, also just an
extension. Now you have set precedents for deleting properly created groups,
and deleting non-worthless groups. Next: almost all the net.
Louis Marco
I don't believe it: A two-page flame flaming net.flame!
If this is all such a pitiful waste of time, what is your
essay on why net.flame is a stupid, un-needed waste of valuable
resources doing in net.flame using up all the valuable resources?
If you really believed all that stuff about rational discussion,
you would have posted a tasteful, rational article to wherever such
things get posted. Why does someone who feels as you do even read
net.flame? If no one wanted this newsgroup, it seems to me it would
just dry up and disappear.
Lou Marco
CCIS,Rutgers,Newark
(...the usual disclaimers...)
Michael Browne
> If this is all such a pitiful waste of time, what is your
> essay on why net.flame is a stupid, un-needed waste of valuable
> resources doing in net.flame using up all the valuable resources?
It was posted to net.flame in order to give the net.flame supporters an
opportunity to respond. (Something that the bizarre people never had.)
> If you really believed all that stuff about rational discussion,
> you would have posted a tasteful, rational article to wherever such
> things get posted.
I believe that most of these articles WERE cross-posted to net.news.group
(the place for rational discussion (?)). The anti-flame people are DOING
YOU A FAVOR by posting articles here as well!
> If no one wanted this newsgroup, it seems to me it would
> just dry up and disappear.
"Want" isn't important, "need" is. (Just look at the volume that was posted
in net.bizarre and then tell me that the group wasn't wanted. It wasn't
needed, that's all.)
Net.flame is a large group with very little information content. So when
the bean counters attack, net.flame will be the first to go. (OK, OK,
so net.bizarre was the first. Net.flame is still very high on the list.)
--
UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb ARPA: m...@k.cs.cmu.edu
"It came time to move, so I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two
blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch..."