Sonic's Non Response
MalloryX
DUHane Jasper <da...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback - we're one of the few independantly owned
large
> ISPs left, and we work hard to deliver quality customer care and
reliable
> service.
(chortle) So that's why I could never connect any faster than 28.8 with
a brand new 800mhz athalon box with v.90 56k modem? Must be
that "reliable" service. ;-D
>We're small enough so that you can email the CEO (me) or CTO
> (Scott) and have your issues heard, but big enough that we can build
a large
> and reliable network.
Let's cut through the SHIT and the CRAP Dane.
1. Alt.Support.Childfree.Moderated was created for the sole purpose of
providing a totally parent/childfree discussion for childfree people;
not for the purposes of popularity contests.
2. Many emails supporting this fact (see #1) have been sent to
sonic.net. Persons who are not banned and are *frequent* participants
on the group, ***well respected participants***, have sent email or
their posts in protest of the moderation of the group have been
forwarded to sonic.net. Sonic.net has chosen to COMPLETELY IGNORE all
such mail and verifiable postings to the extent that they do not
acknowledge them whatsoever in the public reports they have made
regarding this situation.
3. Sonic.net has claimed the loss of 2 news peers over this incident.
(People, please use your brains on this one.) News peers, providers,
etc are not likely to take away service from a large customer like
sonic.net over *one user* who has approved their own posts in a
moderated group. Money talks, bullshit walks. And if it did happen it
was most certainly due to a vocal minority (the ASCM moderators)
operating in stealth mode so as to evade criticism for their own
actions.
4. I'm not 100% innocent in this, never claimed to be. Looking back,
rather than acting out of anger those of us who did protest by
approving our own headers in the group, we probably should have taken
the issue with a petition to news.admin and alt.config. Chances are,
with the number of people, long time participants, on both ASC and ASCM
that are not pleased with the blatent disregard for the original
purpose the group was founded on and charter of ASCM by the moderators
we would have been able to win our case. But we all know how USENET is,
and how these things can get out of hand, and of course they did.
I'm not going to give up hope, and I don't believe that those who
support a truly childfree group as was intended upon creation of the
group and in the charter, rather than a lunchtable popularity contest,
are going to give up hope either. There are very few individuals who
support the moderation as it is on ASCM from either group. The
supporters of the current moderation team are a small, vocal group
mostly made up of only the moderators themselves.
5. Aside from the moderation team's disregard for the original purpose
of the group and the charter, the issue of the way the group is
moderated has another problem; disregard for acceptable and suggested
moderation standards for Usenet.
++++++++
I would like to direct you to :
http://www.landfield.com/usenet/moderators/handbook/mod02.html
and the following:
"Moderation should not be used to censor unpopular viewpoints, or those
that the moderator simply disagrees with. It is best to have a very
clear charter and moderation policy for the newsgroup, so that
newsgroup readers and posters can tell which topics are, or are not,
appropriate for discussion on the newsgroup."
"Groups on the net are moderated for a variety of reasons. All
moderation serves the same basic purpose, to filter out inappropriate
postings and to deliver timely, on-topic articles."
++++++++
The moderators have gone way beyond this, censoring people even when
the posts are on topic and the user abides by acceptable netiquette.
++++++++
http://www.landfield.com/usenet/moderators/handbook/mod17.html#17.1
"However, for most discussion newsgroups, you'll probably want to let
almost everything through; otherwise you can get a reputation as a
tyrant or censor. Most moderators try to help the author say what they
really meant; if the original submission isn't clear you can suggest
changes, or suggest a different place where it might belong. If you get
duplicates, pick the best one and post it, perhaps along with an
editorial note thanking A, B and C for their similar answer."
"There are times when you may not know the best way to handle an issue
or policy. You cannot always be sure what the newsgroup's readership
actually wants to see happen. When a significant question or
controversy arises, you should consider running a survey of the readers
to determine the appropriate course of action. Surveys can be extremely
useful, not only for determining what people want to happen on a
specific issue, but for the other benefits they can provide:
Once it is documented what the readers want, it is much easier to
explain to the malcontents why you need to reject their submissions.
Readers feel the moderator is listening, and allowing them to help
improve the group.
Often you receive other comments that are not a part of the issue on
the table that you find useful to incorporate into your group's
moderation."
++++++++
And for information on acceptable conflict resolution:
http://www.landfield.com/usenet/moderators/handbook/mod10.html#10.4
"10.4. Multiple moderator conflict resolution
Sometimes conflicts between moderators can get out of hand and spill
over into the group. Then everyone suffers.
In extreme cases, with a polarized readership, it's generally better to
have all moderators resign and stand for re-election, or choose some
other way of letting the readership have its say, rather than relying
on, for example, confidence motions among the moderators.
In some cases, it makes sense to use a corporate board of directors
model for moderatorship, and document it officially.
This is something that needs to be decided early and not something to
be decided when the problem arises. It should be documented in the
group's policy posting at a minimum and really should be addressed in
the group's charter if possible.
Methods of handling inter-moderator conflicts need to be decided before
conflicts arise, especially in groups which handle a controversial or
emotional topic. Once a problem gets out of control, it can be
difficult to get people to agree on a method for resolving it. These
methods should be documented in the group's policy posting or available
from the official FTP site."
+++++++++
I challenge sonic.net and its news peers and news.admin to walk their
talk and fully support these guidelines for acceptable moderation
method.
> Sonic.net currently serves about 20,000 members, and cover PacBell
LATA 1
> (aka 722) completely. We've got a new national dialup product
outsourced to
> Megapops covering 35 states, which is nice if you're travelling, and
we're
> wrapping up statewide coverage for California on our own network now.
>
> Enough horn tooting - thanks again for the vote of confidence.
Just had to get a little spam in there, didn't ya, DUHane?
Pathetic.
Ms. Mallory O'Brien
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
John R Pierce
>a brand new 800mhz athalon box with v.90 56k modem? Must be
>that "reliable" service. ;-D
CPU speed has little or nothing to do with how fast you actually
connect.
The specific telco circuit between your modem and the ISP's digital
modem has almost everything to do with the connect speed. This
includes the sum of the wiring in your premises, the local loop from
your demarc to your telco central office, and the presumably digital
circuit between your CO and the POP's CO. Then, a mediochre modem at
your end can aggrevate problems.
Unless you are using one of those nasty software based modems, the CPU
speed has *nothing* to do with your connect speed... If your modem
*is* software based, then as long as your CPU is somewhat faster than
the minimum required, it still should connect at the max available
line speed, again determined by the telco far more than the ISP.
-jrp
John Navas
In <94bf6b$1oj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, MalloryX <mall...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <mC4a6.283$OH....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> DUHane Jasper <da...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback - we're one of the few independantly owned large
>> ISPs left, and we work hard to deliver quality customer care and reliable
>> service.
>
>(chortle) So that's why I could never connect any faster than 28.8 with
>a brand new 800mhz athalon box with v.90 56k modem? Must be
>that "reliable" service. ;-D
That's almost certainly due to your own phone line and/or modem. See
http://ModemFAQ.home.att.net/faq_a.htm#Connect28800>.
>>We're small enough so that you can email the CEO (me) or CTO
>> (Scott) and have your issues heard, but big enough that we can build a large
>> and reliable network.
>
>Let's cut through the SHIT and the CRAP Dane.
>
>[SNIP]
>4. I'm not 100% innocent in this, never claimed to be. Looking back,
>rather than acting out of anger those of us who did protest by
>approving our own headers in the group, we probably should have [SNIP]
The issue here is forging permission to post, and doing so because the
poster in question had been banned from the particular newsgroup by the
moderator for prior misconduct. The poster in question then bragged
about the forging and taunted the moderator. It's hard for me to see
much room for extenuating circumstances.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
Mallory Hamburger Hill O'Brien
No cpu speed has nothing to do with an internet connection, you are
right. The point here, in case you missed it johnny, is that i have a
brand new computer and a new modem and con't connect any faster than
28.8 to sonic, EVER.
My connection to mindspring/earthlink is always above 33k and usually
around 40.
So, before you blab like an asshole, don't assume that just because I
am a woman I wouldn't possibly know what I'm talking about when it
comes to technical issues.
Mallory
Mallory Hamburger Hill O'Brien
<spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>>>We're small enough so that you can email the CEO (me) or CTO
>>> (Scott) and have your issues heard, but big enough that we can build a large
>>> and reliable network.
>>
>>Let's cut through the SHIT and the CRAP Dane.
>>
>>[SNIP]
>>4. I'm not 100% innocent in this, never claimed to be. Looking back,
>>rather than acting out of anger those of us who did protest by
>>approving our own headers in the group, we probably should have [SNIP]
>
>The issue here is forging permission to post, and doing so because the
>poster in question had been banned from the particular newsgroup by the
>moderator for prior misconduct. The poster in question then bragged
>about the forging and taunted the moderator. It's hard for me to see
>much room for extenuating circumstances.
>
Boy you really are out of touch.
The people (and there is a whole long laundry list of us) who are
banned are banned due to our opposition of the way the group is
moderated.
Please, next time, don't completely cut out and ignore the guidelines
posted for acceptable moderation standards just to keep spewing what
you have been told, like a robot.
Mallory
Dane Jasper
: (chortle) So that's why I could never connect any faster than 28.8 with
: a brand new 800mhz athalon box with v.90 56k modem? Must be
: that "reliable" service. ;-D
Assuming that you and I come to a resolution on the abuse issue, technical
support has a great package for modem analysis that they'll be happy to
review your connection with. In many cases we find very high signal to
noise ratios and a lot of resultant retrains and errors, a symptom of poor
quality phone lines. I also note that you're more than 17,500 ft from the
telco central office, which points in the direction of phone line issues at
your end as well.
: 1. Alt.Support.Childfree.Moderated was created for the sole purpose of
: providing a totally parent/childfree discussion for childfree people;
: not for the purposes of popularity contests.
Per the charter, it was created as a mutually supportive venue - your
insults and posting of profanity never seemed very supportive, and I can see
why the moderators are not interested in your participation.
: 2. Many emails supporting this fact (see #1) have been sent to
: sonic.net. Persons who are not banned and are *frequent* participants
: on the group, ***well respected participants***, have sent email or
: their posts in protest of the moderation of the group have been
: forwarded to sonic.net. Sonic.net has chosen to COMPLETELY IGNORE all
: such mail and verifiable postings to the extent that they do not
: acknowledge them whatsoever in the public reports they have made
: regarding this situation.
I'm personally unaware of any support for your position from the
participants of the group - in fact, we've gotten quite the opposite.
: 3. Sonic.net has claimed the loss of 2 news peers over this incident.
: (People, please use your brains on this one.) News peers, providers,
: etc are not likely to take away service from a large customer like
: sonic.net over *one user* who has approved their own posts in a
: moderated group. Money talks, bullshit walks. And if it did happen it
: was most certainly due to a vocal minority (the ASCM moderators)
: operating in stealth mode so as to evade criticism for their own
: actions.
Two peers did shut down their feeds to us. Both were relativly new peers,
and they were not a part of our major upstream feed base, nor were they paid
peers. Larger paid peers (Cidera, UUNet, C&W) would not be as quick to take
this step. Regardless, your ill-considered actions had the potential to
cause some negative impact.
: 4. I'm not 100% innocent in this, never claimed to be. Looking back,
: rather than acting out of anger those of us who did protest by
: approving our own headers in the group, we probably should have taken
: the issue with a petition to news.admin and alt.config. Chances are,
: with the number of people, long time participants, on both ASC and ASCM
: that are not pleased with the blatent disregard for the original
: purpose the group was founded on and charter of ASCM by the moderators
: we would have been able to win our case. But we all know how USENET is,
: and how these things can get out of hand, and of course they did.
No, you're not even a little bit innocent - by saying that you're not 100%,
you imply that you're partially innocent. You forged moderation approval in
violation of the policies of Sonic.net and the newsgroup itself. It's a
pretty clear-cut case of abuse, made more complicated by the fact that you
claimed to be a participant in a battle for fair control of the group who
was being censored by an unreasonable minority.
Add to that the fact that you then cited the fact that your spouse knows our
CTO as grounds for some sort of untouchability. That's defamation of Scott
Doty's character, and that of our company. We've spent seven years in the
Internet business, and we've been very good with our anti-abuse efforts and
our efforts to protect civil liberties, freedom of speech and the privacy of
our customers.
: I'm not going to give up hope, and I don't believe that those who
: support a truly childfree group as was intended upon creation of the
: group and in the charter, rather than a lunchtable popularity contest,
: are going to give up hope either. There are very few individuals who
: support the moderation as it is on ASCM from either group. The
: supporters of the current moderation team are a small, vocal group
: mostly made up of only the moderators themselves.
In that case, I hope that you'll lobby for a new vote for the moderation
team.
: 5. Aside from the moderation team's disregard for the original purpose
: of the group and the charter, the issue of the way the group is
: moderated has another problem; disregard for acceptable and suggested
: moderation standards for Usenet.
: ++++++++
: I would like to direct you to :
[SNIP] (as John would say)
...
: I challenge sonic.net and its news peers and news.admin to walk their
: talk and fully support these guidelines for acceptable moderation
: method.
I'm in support of these guidelines, and I'm glad to see that you're on the
same page. It's interesting to note that nowhere in these guidelines does
it say that forging approvals is an acceptable course of action if you have
a feud with the moderation team.
I'd encourage you to work within the bounds of the guidelines yourself, I
think that in the long run, this is the only way you'll achieve meaningful
resolution. However, my understanding is that it's your intention to use
other ISPs to forge approvals; witness:
"Pete and I are militantly cf, and belong in this newsgroup, and will
continue posting here until hell freezes over."
I'm told that you're using altopia.com to post your forged approvals now,
and perhaps you're blissfully unaware that altopia.com doesn't propogate
them. I imagine it's a bit like throwing a tantrum in a soundproof room
with padded walls and a locked door.
For those who just came in, "cf" is "childfree", that is, electing not to
have children. Personally, I don't understand how someone can be "militant"
about the simple and personal decision not to bear children, but perhaps
every cause, no matter how small, needs a martyr.
Per the newsgroup charter, alt.support.childfree.moderated is designed to be
a mutually supportive venue for those who chose not to have children. It
doesn't sound to me like militance is what they're looking for in that
group. Perhaps the creation of alt.militant.childfree is warranted, and
might be a better place to direct your energies, as I suspect butting heads
with these "supportive" folks won't get you where you want to be.
--
Dane Jasper Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000
mailto:da...@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net/
Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53
Mallory Hamburger Hill O'Brien
wrote:
>: 1. Alt.Support.Childfree.Moderated was created for the sole purpose of
>: providing a totally parent/childfree discussion for childfree people;
>: not for the purposes of popularity contests.
>
>Per the charter, it was created as a mutually supportive venue - your
>insults and posting of profanity never seemed very supportive, and I can see
>why the moderators are not interested in your participation.
I would like to direct you to :
http://www.landfield.com/usenet/moderators/handbook/mod02.html
and the following:
"Moderation should not be used to censor unpopular viewpoints, or
those
that the moderator simply disagrees with. It is best to have a very
clear charter and moderation policy for the newsgroup, so that
newsgroup readers and posters can tell which topics are, or are not,
appropriate for discussion on the newsgroup."
"Groups on the net are moderated for a variety of reasons. All
moderation serves the same basic purpose, to filter out inappropriate
postings and to deliver timely, on-topic articles."
++++++++
The moderators have gone way beyond this, censoring people even when
the posts are on topic and the user abides by acceptable netiquette.
>: 2. Many emails supporting this fact (see #1) have been sent to
>: sonic.net. Persons who are not banned and are *frequent* participants
>: on the group, ***well respected participants***, have sent email or
>: their posts in protest of the moderation of the group have been
>: forwarded to sonic.net. Sonic.net has chosen to COMPLETELY IGNORE all
>: such mail and verifiable postings to the extent that they do not
>: acknowledge them whatsoever in the public reports they have made
>: regarding this situation.
>
>I'm personally unaware of any support for your position from the
>participants of the group - in fact, we've gotten quite the opposite.
They have all been going to scott. Apparently he hasn't been passing
them along or you are just a liar to save face. If I have to go as far
to publish email, old posts etc, here to prove that you are lying I
will do it.
I'll forward along what I have here, posts etc supporting, and ask
those who have been emailing scott to resend the mail to you.
>: 3. Sonic.net has claimed the loss of 2 news peers over this incident.
>: (People, please use your brains on this one.) News peers, providers,
>: etc are not likely to take away service from a large customer like
>: sonic.net over *one user* who has approved their own posts in a
>: moderated group. Money talks, bullshit walks. And if it did happen it
>: was most certainly due to a vocal minority (the ASCM moderators)
>: operating in stealth mode so as to evade criticism for their own
>: actions.
>
>Two peers did shut down their feeds to us. Both were relativly new peers,
>and they were not a part of our major upstream feed base, nor were they paid
>peers. Larger paid peers (Cidera, UUNet, C&W) would not be as quick to take
>this step. Regardless, your ill-considered actions had the potential to
>cause some negative impact.
Oh, so now that you see the "woman" isn't a dumb as you thought she
was you backstep your tune a bit. lol. you corporate types never cease
to amaze me.
>: 4. I'm not 100% innocent in this, never claimed to be. Looking back,
>: rather than acting out of anger those of us who did protest by
>: approving our own headers in the group, we probably should have taken
>: the issue with a petition to news.admin and alt.config. Chances are,
>: with the number of people, long time participants, on both ASC and ASCM
>: that are not pleased with the blatent disregard for the original
>: purpose the group was founded on and charter of ASCM by the moderators
>: we would have been able to win our case. But we all know how USENET is,
>: and how these things can get out of hand, and of course they did.
>
>No, you're not even a little bit innocent - by saying that you're not 100%,
>you imply that you're partially innocent.
I did the wrong things for the right reasons.
>You forged moderation approval in
>violation of the policies of Sonic.net and the newsgroup itself. It's a
>pretty clear-cut case of abuse, made more complicated by the fact that you
>claimed to be a participant in a battle for fair control of the group who
>was being censored by an unreasonable minority.
It is being censored by an unreasonable minority.
The moderators censor people based on their personal feelings about
someone even when the posts are on topic and the user abides by
acceptable netiquette.
>: I'm not going to give up hope, and I don't believe that those who
>: support a truly childfree group as was intended upon creation of the
>: group and in the charter, rather than a lunchtable popularity contest,
>: are going to give up hope either. There are very few individuals who
>: support the moderation as it is on ASCM from either group. The
>: supporters of the current moderation team are a small, vocal group
>: mostly made up of only the moderators themselves.
>
>In that case, I hope that you'll lobby for a new vote for the moderation
>team.
That's the plan.
>: 5. Aside from the moderation team's disregard for the original purpose
>: of the group and the charter, the issue of the way the group is
>: moderated has another problem; disregard for acceptable and suggested
>: moderation standards for Usenet.
>
>: ++++++++
>: I would like to direct you to :
>[SNIP] (as John would say)
>...
>: I challenge sonic.net and its news peers and news.admin to walk their
>: talk and fully support these guidelines for acceptable moderation
>: method.
>
>I'm in support of these guidelines, and I'm glad to see that you're on the
>same page. It's interesting to note that nowhere in these guidelines does
>it say that forging approvals is an acceptable course of action if you have
>a feud with the moderation team.
Oh, I totally agree. I have admitted 3 or 4 times now that I am wrong
for doing the wrong things for the right reasons.
>For those who just came in, "cf" is "childfree", that is, electing not to
>have children. Personally, I don't understand how someone can be "militant"
>about the simple and personal decision not to bear children, but perhaps
>every cause, no matter how small, needs a martyr.
>Per the newsgroup charter, alt.support.childfree.moderated is designed to be
>a mutually supportive venue for those who chose not to have children. It
>doesn't sound to me like militance is what they're looking for in that
>group. Perhaps the creation of alt.militant.childfree is warranted, and
>might be a better place to direct your energies, as I suspect butting heads
>with these "supportive" folks won't get you where you want to be.
Boy are you in the wrong page. Lol.
It's all too apparent that you have done absolutely as little research
as possible (enough to blab some corpo spam) on the purposes of these
newsgroups, who the main players are and what the cf movement is
about.
And I might add, according to the charter of alt.support.childfree,
"ya-butting" as in "oh golly why are you guys so militant?" is grounds
for anyone to flame you crispy especially if you are a BREEDER.
So fess up, are you a breeder? And if you are, what the hell are you
doing here?
Mallory
Dane Jasper
Dane Jasper wrote:
:>Two peers did shut down their feeds to us. Both were relatively new peers,
:>and they were not a part of our major upstream feed base, nor were they paid
:>peers. Larger paid peers (Cidera, UUNet, C&W) would not be as quick to take
:>this step. Regardless, your ill-considered actions had the potential to
:>cause some negative impact.
: Oh, so now that you see the "woman" isn't a dumb as you thought she
: was you backstep your tune a bit. lol. you corporate types never cease
: to amaze me.
I'm not back-stepping, nor did I refer to your gender, nor am I a "corporate
type" in the negative stereotypification you're trying to cast.
Dane Jasper wrote:
:>For those who just came in, "cf" is "childfree", that is, electing not to
:>have children. Personally, I don't understand how someone can be "militant"
:>about the simple and personal decision not to bear children, but perhaps
:>every cause, no matter how small, needs a martyr.
:>Per the newsgroup charter, alt.support.childfree.moderated is designed to be
:>a mutually supportive venue for those who chose not to have children. It
:>doesn't sound to me like militance is what they're looking for in that
:>group. Perhaps the creation of alt.militant.childfree is warranted, and
:>might be a better place to direct your energies, as I suspect butting heads
:>with these "supportive" folks won't get you where you want to be.
: Boy are you in the wrong page. Lol.
: It's all too apparent that you have done absolutely as little research
: as possible (enough to blab some corpo spam) on the purposes of these
: newsgroups, who the main players are and what the cf movement is
: about.
I've read the charter, and it seems as if the group is a support group, not
a base for a "movement". But I'd guess that's the point of contention
between you and the moderators.
: And I might add, according to the charter of alt.support.childfree,
: "ya-butting" as in "oh golly why are you guys so militant?" is grounds
: for anyone to flame you crispy especially if you are a BREEDER.
: So fess up, are you a breeder? And if you are, what the hell are you
: doing here?
What am I doing here? Responding to your unfounded allegations.
'fess up, am I a breeder?' Uh.. Is that relevant to my qualifications to
participate in this discussion about your Usenet abuse? I suppose you're
prefer that I simply not respond.
A belief system (eg, your militance), when applied in the extreme, is likely
to result in sociopathical behavior, as exhibited here.
belief: a mental attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition
without the full intellectual knowledge required to guarantee its truth.
(EB)
I think it's becoming apparent that we're drifting beyond the true topical
areas of the groups included in this thread, and I'd encourage anyone
interested in further debate regarding the Usenet and abuse to take this
over to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet or another more appropriate venue.
Followups set.
John Navas
In <3a69e9ad...@west.usenetserver.com>, mall...@my-deja.com
(Mallory "Hamburger Hill" O'Brien) wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:44:04 -0800, John R Pierce
><spam...@hogranch.com> wrote:
>
>>>(chortle) So that's why I could never connect any faster than 28.8 with
>>>a brand new 800mhz athalon box with v.90 56k modem? Must be
>>>that "reliable" service. ;-D
>>
>>CPU speed has little or nothing to do with how fast you actually
>>connect.
>>
>>The specific telco circuit between your modem and the ISP's digital
>>modem has almost everything to do with the connect speed. ...
>No cpu speed has nothing to do with an internet connection, you are
>right. The point here, in case you missed it johnny, is that i have a
>brand new computer and a new modem
Irrelevant.
>and con't connect any faster than
>28.8 to sonic, EVER.
As he wrote, you probably have a telco line problem and/or poor modem.
>My connection to mindspring/earthlink is always above 33k and usually
>around 40.
That's pretty crappy. You probably have a telco line problem and/or
poor modem.
>So, before you blab like an asshole, don't assume that just because I
>am a woman I wouldn't possibly know what I'm talking about when it
>comes to technical issues.
You apparently don't. Sonic has nothing to do with your inability to
get V.90 connections.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope, 1688-1744]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain, 1835-1910]
John Navas
In <Mama6.358$OH....@typhoon.sonic.net>, Dane Jasper
<da...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>In ba.internet MalloryX <mall...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>: (chortle) So that's why I could never connect any faster than 28.8 with
>: a brand new 800mhz athalon box with v.90 56k modem? Must be
>: that "reliable" service. ;-D
>
>... I also note that you're more than 17,500 ft from the
>telco central office, which points in the direction of phone line issues at
>your end as well.
I agree -- that distance is the ragged edge of V.90 range.
>[SNIP]
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
28800-56K Modem FAQ: <http://ModemFAQ.home.att.net/>
ab...@mix.com
> The moderators have gone way beyond this, censoring people even when
> the posts are on topic and the user abides by acceptable netiquette.
Well - the moderator(s) pretty well own the group, and there just
isn't a whole hell of a lot one can do about that beyond starting
another group. comp.dcom.telecom is a good example of what's going
on here now. Lots of us readers have a profound dislike for its
moderator - he scribbles all over other people's articles, for
example (what I personally don't care for), instead of posting his
own.
So, we created comp.dcom.telecom.tech - unmoderated. That was a
bit of work, we even caught the moderator stuffing the ballot box
and had to have a revote, but eventually we won. It was as far
as I know one of the most heavily participated Usenet votes of
all time...
But -- you're in the alt hierarchy. Creating a new group there
could not be easier - and everything you need to know is here -
http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb//ncreate.html"
Just scroll down to the 'alt' section of the page...
Billy Y..
John Navas
In <3a69effb...@west.usenetserver.com>, mall...@my-deja.com
(Mallory "Hamburger Hill" O'Brien) wrote:
>I did the wrong things for the right reasons.
You did the wrong things, period. "Two wrongs do not make a right."
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
Mallory Hamburger Hill O'Brien
Thanks Billy.
I could see a very good reason to create another moderated cf group
based on the original principles of the first.
Mallory Hamburger Hill O'Brien
<spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>[POSTED TO ba.internet; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>
>In <3a69effb...@west.usenetserver.com>, mall...@my-deja.com
>(Mallory "Hamburger Hill" O'Brien) wrote:
>
>>I did the wrong things for the right reasons.
>
>You did the wrong things, period. "Two wrongs do not make a right."
>
And your ignorance of the history and purpose of either group as well
as your willingness to ignore any and all established acceptable
guidelines for Usenet moderation make you look like an even bigger
ass.
Mallory Hamburger Hill O'Brien
<spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>>and con't connect any faster than
>>28.8 to sonic, EVER.
>
>As he wrote, you probably have a telco line problem and/or poor modem.
>>My connection to mindspring/earthlink is always above 33k and usually
>>around 40.
>
>That's pretty crappy. You probably have a telco line problem and/or
>poor modem.
Never said it was perfect. What I did say is that I can never connect
above 28.8 from sonic and that I do connect at higher speeds from
other isps. In case you can't reason that out Johnny, it means that I
connect at higher speeds with other isps. Guess what? I connect at
higher speeds with isps other than sonic. Did you get that?
>>So, before you blab like an asshole, don't assume that just because I
>>am a woman I wouldn't possibly know what I'm talking about when it
>>comes to technical issues.
>
>You apparently don't. Sonic has nothing to do with your inability to
>get V.90 connections.
I know I can't get v.90 connections where I'm at. But let me repeat it
again so you little sexist brain can comprehend: I connect at higher
speeds with isps than I do with sonic.
Mallory Hamburger Hill O'Brien
wrote:
>In ba.internet Mallory "Hamburger Hill" O'Brien <mall...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Dane Jasper wrote:
>:>Two peers did shut down their feeds to us. Both were relatively new peers,
>:>and they were not a part of our major upstream feed base, nor were they paid
>:>peers. Larger paid peers (Cidera, UUNet, C&W) would not be as quick to take
>:>this step. Regardless, your ill-considered actions had the potential to
>:>cause some negative impact.
>
>: Oh, so now that you see the "woman" isn't a dumb as you thought she
>: was you backstep your tune a bit. lol. you corporate types never cease
>: to amaze me.
>
>I'm not back-stepping, nor did I refer to your gender, nor am I a "corporate
>type" in the negative stereotypification you're trying to cast.
You are backstepping. Anyone reading your report on this whole
situation will remember the big fuss about "how mallory significantly
disrupted your ability to serve news" and thats just a load of
horseshit.
What false allegations would those be? That I can't connect at above
28.8 on sonic while always connecting at about an average of 40 with
every other isp I have used?
Or would it be the one about how you have failed to publically
acknowledge the email you have received in my support while continuing
to goose step along with anything you are told by the moderators of
ASCM?
>'fess up, am I a breeder?' Uh.. Is that relevant to my qualifications to
>participate in this discussion about your Usenet abuse? I suppose you're
>prefer that I simply not respond.
It is quite relevant to the your comments about "militant childfrees."
I would strongly suggest that you stick to the relevant topic of your
AUP/TOS and what sonic believes are acceptable moderation standards
for Usenet. Because let me warn you, you don't want to go down that
other road here. Breeders are not well liked in these parts.
>A belief system (eg, your militance), when applied in the extreme, is likely
>to result in sociopathical behavior, as exhibited here.
Sounds like breeder spew to me. Why don't you go check on little Dylan
Hunter and make sure he's breastfeeding properly and then come back
and pretend to be an internet professional.
> belief: a mental attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition
> without the full intellectual knowledge required to guarantee its truth.
> (EB)
>
>I think it's becoming apparent that we're drifting beyond the true topical
>areas of the groups included in this thread,
We? YOU. YOU have drifted beyond the true topical information to get
out your own little commentary about childfree people, our movement
and you are looking more and more like and angry breeder who despises
any cf person who asserts their rights over your perceived
entitlements.
>and I'd encourage anyone
>interested in further debate regarding the Usenet and abuse to take this
>over to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet or another more appropriate venue.
>Followups set.
Followups changed.
Mallory
John Navas
In <3a6a0ae6...@west.usenetserver.com>, mall...@my-deja.com
(Mallory "Hamburger Hill" O'Brien) wrote:
>[SNIP]
At least I now appreciate more fully why you got banned from a.s.c.m.
;-)
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
Sam Habash
: <spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
--
John Navas
In <3a6a105b...@west.usenetserver.com>, mall...@my-deja.com
(Mallory "Hamburger Hill" O'Brien) wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:03:26 GMT, Dane Jasper <da...@bolt.sonic.net>
>wrote:
>>I'm not back-stepping, nor did I refer to your gender, nor am I a "corporate
>>type" in the negative stereotypification you're trying to cast.
>
>You are backstepping. Anyone reading your report on this whole
>situation will remember the big fuss about "how mallory significantly
>disrupted your ability to serve news" ...
There was no such fuss. The actual report:
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, she chose to post material that
was not only insulting to people who were trying to help her, but
even defamatory. (Indeed, it was so defamatory that two news peers
dropped their feeds with us. [*])
[*]p.s. It's important to note that the loss of those two news peers
had unmeasurable impact on our ability to deliver Usenet news. Had
the situation been otherwise, we would have reacted much differently.
/sd
The key word there is "unmeasurable". ;-)
>[SNIP]
>>and I'd encourage anyone
>>interested in further debate regarding the Usenet and abuse to take this
>>over to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet or another more appropriate venue.
>>Followups set.
>
>Followups changed.
Follow-up restored.
You seem to have a serious anger/hostility problem. I encourage you to
seek professional help.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
John Navas
In <3a6a0987...@west.usenetserver.com>, mall...@my-deja.com
(Mallory "Hamburger Hill" O'Brien) wrote:
>Thanks Billy.
>
>I could see a very good reason to create another moderated cf group
>based on the original principles of the first.
Don't let the door whack you on the way out. <g>
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
John Navas
In <3a6a0a48...@west.usenetserver.com>, mall...@my-deja.com
(Mallory "Hamburger Hill" O'Brien) wrote:
>And your ignorance of the history and purpose of either group as well
>as your willingness to ignore any and all established acceptable
>guidelines for Usenet moderation make you look like an even bigger
>ass.
How do you think your behavior makes you look? ;-)
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
Mallory Hamburger Hill O'Brien
<spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>[POSTED TO ba.internet; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>
>In <3a6a0ae6...@west.usenetserver.com>, mall...@my-deja.com
>(Mallory "Hamburger Hill" O'Brien) wrote:
>
>>[SNIP]
>
>At least I now appreciate more fully why you got banned from a.s.c.m.
>;-)
And why was that Johnny?
Mallory Hamburger Hill O'Brien
<spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>Followups changed.
>
>Follow-up restored.
Follow-up changed again.
>You seem to have a serious anger/hostility problem. I encourage you to
>seek professional help.
ooooo, was that supposed to piss me off?
;-D ::cackle::
Mallory Hamburger Hill O'Brien
<spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>[POSTED TO ba.internet; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>
>In <3a6a0a48...@west.usenetserver.com>, mall...@my-deja.com
>(Mallory "Hamburger Hill" O'Brien) wrote:
>
>>And your ignorance of the history and purpose of either group as well
>>as your willingness to ignore any and all established acceptable
>>guidelines for Usenet moderation make you look like an even bigger
>>ass.
>
>How do you think your behavior makes you look? ;-)
>
Oh I know how it makes me look, and I really don't care. ;-D
Johnny, please refrain from personal attacks and ad homeniem it only
makes you look illogical.
John R Pierce
>>seek professional help.
>
>ooooo, was that supposed to piss me off?
you seem to do that yourself quite nicely, without any help.
Jeff Liebermann
>(chortle) So that's why I could never connect any faster than 28.8 with
>a brand new 800mhz athalon box with v.90 56k modem? Must be
>that "reliable" service. ;-D
If you happen to have a USR modem, see:
http://www.cruzio.com/~jeffl/aty11/aty11.htm
There is some controvery surround my tests and results, so please do not
assume that everything is absolute face. One item is certain. If you
are stuck on an DAML or SLC, 28.8 will probably be your best speed.
>Let's cut through the SHIT and the CRAP Dane.
Agreed. I'll simplify reality for you. The moderator is always right.
When you get to be moderator, you too can be always right. End of
discussion.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)426-1240 fax (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com WB6SSY
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
snevel...@sonic.net
> 1. Alt.Support.Childfree.Moderated was created for the sole purpose of
> providing a totally parent/childfree discussion for childfree people;
> not for the purposes of popularity contests.
> 2. Many emails supporting this fact (see #1) have been sent to
> sonic.net. Persons who are not banned and are *frequent* participants
> on the group, ***well respected participants***, have sent email or
> their posts in protest of the moderation of the group have been
> forwarded to sonic.net. Sonic.net has chosen to COMPLETELY IGNORE all
> such mail and verifiable postings to the extent that they do not
> acknowledge them whatsoever in the public reports they have made
> regarding this situation.
So what?
Sonic has nothing to do with moderation policy. As a member in good
standing of the Usenet community, Sonic's duty is to respect that
moderation policy and sanction those of it's users who violate that policy
by forging approvals.
If you voted for the moderated a.s.c-f, you're simply getting what you
asked for. It's not Sonic's fault if you don't like the results.
If you didn't vote for the moderated group, I feel for you. There's no
way to remove an active moderator/moderation team within newsgroup
process. You'll just have to vent your cf sentiments elsewhere.
Simeon
--
The address in the header *is* actually replyable.
If replying, use mail or post here. Please, not both
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention
snevel...@sonic.net
> Per the newsgroup charter, alt.support.childfree.moderated is designed to be
> a mutually supportive venue for those who chose not to have children. It
> doesn't sound to me like militance is what they're looking for in that
> group.
Heh...
You don't spend much time hanging out in a.s.cf.m do you Dane. The
charter may speak of "mutual support" but the content is largely "breeder"
bashing.
simeon
Pete
dickweed...Pete
In article <3Rva6.1002$OH....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Mike Stump
>the posts are on topic and the user abides by acceptable netiquette.
This is irrelevant. One must respect a groups moderation, or else use
the established rules for changing moderation. A moderator is free to
moderate on any policy they want, including ones you don't personally
agree with. They are not not limited by the handbook you quote.
Further, this is also off topic for this group. It should not be
continued here.
>The moderators censor people based on their personal feelings about
>someone even when the posts are on topic and the user abides by
>acceptable netiquette.
Too bad. Don't like it, withdraw from the group, boycott the group,
seek to change the moderators. I see you have opted for the last, a
fine choice.
If you have learned that forging moderator's approval is the wrong way
to do things, then you have learn a valuable lesson.
Mike Stump
<snevel...@sonic.net> wrote:
>If you didn't vote for the moderated group, I feel for you. There's
>no way to remove an active moderator/moderation team within newsgroup
>process.
This may be, but that doesn't mean that one could not push the
community for a method to achieve this. Once the policy is set in
place, one could follow it to try and effect a change moderator.
For example, one can run a vote, and if 50% or more of the people want
a change, then change it. Maybe it should be a 2/3s vote, maybe 3/4.
The only issue seems to be what the number should be.
I don't see anything hard about doing this.
John Navas
Except getting any sort of consensus. For good or ill, alt newsgroups
are not democratic.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
Philip J. Koenig
(Mallory "Hamburger Hill" O'Brien) (mall...@my-deja.com (Mallory "Hamburger
Hill" O'Brien)) writes...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:44:04 -0800, John R Pierce
>
> >>(chortle) So that's why I could never connect any faster than 28.8 with
> >>a brand new 800mhz athalon box with v.90 56k modem? Must be
> >>that "reliable" service. ;-D
> >
> >connect.
> >
> >The specific telco circuit between your modem and the ISP's digital
> >includes the sum of the wiring in your premises, the local loop from
> >your demarc to your telco central office, and the presumably digital
> >circuit between your CO and the POP's CO. Then, a mediochre modem at
> >your end can aggrevate problems.
> >
> >Unless you are using one of those nasty software based modems, the CPU
> >speed has *nothing* to do with your connect speed... If your modem
> >*is* software based, then as long as your CPU is somewhat faster than
> >the minimum required, it still should connect at the max available
> >line speed, again determined by the telco far more than the ISP.
> >
> >-jrp
> >
>
> No cpu speed has nothing to do with an internet connection, you are
> right. The point here, in case you missed it johnny, is that i have a
> 28.8 to sonic, EVER.
> My connection to mindspring/earthlink is always above 33k and usually
> around 40.
>
> am a woman I wouldn't possibly know what I'm talking about when it
> comes to technical issues.
>
You have a chip on yer shoulder the size of Texas Mallory.
You also have:
1) a fundamental misunderstanding of the limitations of v.90
modems (the usual reason you can't go faster than 33.6 has
to do with some arcane characteristics of the path between you
and the other end, not with the other end itself necessarily)
2) an attitude that would convince virtually anyone who may
have started out in a helpful frame of mind to just blow you
off as a pompous ingrate not worthy of the electrons.
Just my .02 of course ;-)
--
Philip J. Koenig The Electric Kahuna Organization [anti-spammed]
----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millennium-------------
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkunet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Vision impaired? Try taking off the blacklist-colored glasses. *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *