What can be done about newsgroup "invasions"?
Reality is a point of view
+---- r...@stanford.edu wrote (11 Jun 1997 02:34:39 -0700):
| This is unacceptable. And this isn't even, as near as I can tell, a case
| of group regulars being far too sensitive and egging people on. About the
| only posts I'm seeing from regulars on the subject are "please, *please*
| don't respond to these idiots, just ignore them, just killfile them."
Yeah, that doesn't work. Nor reasoning. Meta, that can help,
but takes too long and requires interaction. Scoring is the
best reader solution but doesn't help admins find extra space
for the blathering. Lack of space starts article thrashing.
| On top of that, this has apparently been going on for some time. Why do
| the regular posters to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose still have accounts?
| Anywhere? This is abuse.
There's that Charter thing again.
| If this sort of thing can happen to an unmoderated group and the only
| possible way of addressing the problem is to moderate the group, then
| unmoderated groups are broken and all new newsgroups should be
| robomoderated.
|
| Yes, I'm serious.
+----
And there's a rully big shoe.
Charge people to post?
--
Gary Johnson gjoh...@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
A. Deckers
In <m3bu5dp...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
[...]
>A friend of mine asked me to take a look at the rec.games.mecha pre-RFD
>for robomoderation, as well as seeing if he could use my robomoderation
>software, so I took a look at rec.games.mecha at the moment. Basically,
>something like 50-70% of the current traffic of the group is crossposted
>to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose and consists of trash (at least from the
>perspective of the rec.games.mecha reader).
Hmmm... someone (who shall remain nameless) recently deleted the
history file on our news server, so our news spool may not be entirely
representative, but here's what my xpost-analysis script reports for
this group. This indicates that approx 30% of the group's content is
xposted. FWIW, this is nothing compared to what the readers of
soc.culture.catalan have to put up with: approx. 60% of their group's
content is xposted to es.charla.* (es."talk".*) or soc.culture.spain,
a great deal of it flame-bait and trolls.
------------------------------
Subject: rec.games.mecha xpost report introduction
This is a cross-post analysis for the rec.games.mecha group(s) on
server localnews.mcc.ac.uk.
It was generated on Wed Jun 11 11:02:09 1997.
Any enquiries about this report should be directed to:
Alain Deckers <I-hate-cy...@man.ac.uk>
NB: In what follows, the phrase "xposted to/from N groups" means there
were N group in the Newsgroups: header.
------------------------------
Subject: rec.games.mecha xpost report data
Number of articles in group: 1081
Average groups per article: 4.42
Most widely xposted article was seen in 41 groups
Xposting distribution was:
articles posted to 1 groups: 738 ( 68.27%) ( 68.27%)
articles posted to 2 groups: 22 ( 2.04%) ( 70.31%)
articles posted to 3 groups: 29 ( 2.68%) ( 72.99%)
articles posted to 4 groups: 6 ( 0.56%) ( 73.54%)
articles posted to 5 groups: 3 ( 0.28%) ( 73.82%)
articles posted to 6 groups: 6 ( 0.56%) ( 74.38%)
articles posted to 7 groups: 6 ( 0.56%) ( 74.93%)
articles posted to 8 groups: 9 ( 0.83%) ( 75.76%)
articles posted to 9 groups: 11 ( 1.02%) ( 76.78%)
articles posted to 10 groups: 7 ( 0.65%) ( 77.43%)
articles posted to 11 groups: 38 ( 3.52%) ( 80.94%)
articles posted to 12 groups: 53 ( 4.90%) ( 85.85%)
articles posted to 13 groups: 24 ( 2.22%) ( 88.07%)
articles posted to 14 groups: 13 ( 1.20%) ( 89.27%)
articles posted to 15 groups: 6 ( 0.56%) ( 89.82%)
articles posted to 16 groups: 79 ( 7.31%) ( 97.13%)
articles posted to 18 groups: 2 ( 0.19%) ( 97.32%)
articles posted to 19 groups: 3 ( 0.28%) ( 97.59%)
articles posted to 20 groups: 17 ( 1.57%) ( 99.17%)
articles posted to 22 groups: 4 ( 0.37%) ( 99.54%)
articles posted to 23 groups: 4 ( 0.37%) ( 99.91%)
articles posted to 41 groups: 1 ( 0.09%) (100.00%)
Most popular xposting groups (top 10 or fewer):
xposts to/from rec.games.mecha: 1081
xposts to/from alt.games.final-fantasy: 217
xposts to/from alt.evil: 205
xposts to/from rec.music.rem: 167
xposts to/from alt.slack: 166
xposts to/from alt.fan.karl-malden.nose: 145
xposts to/from misc.test: 124
xposts to/from alt.test: 124
xposts to/from sci.math: 119
xposts to/from alt.binaries.slack: 118
Alain
--
Introduction to news.groups:
<URL:http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/new-users-please-read.txt>
Guidelines for Usenet Group Creation:
<URL:ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1>
Russ Allbery
In news.groups, A Deckers <I-hate-cy...@man.ac.uk> writes:
> Hmmm... someone (who shall remain nameless) recently deleted the history
> file on our news server, so our news spool may not be entirely
> representative, but here's what my xpost-analysis script reports for
> this group. This indicates that approx 30% of the group's content is
> xposted.
Hmm. Interesting. It *feels* like a lot more than that.
Your statistics program may be thrown off by the multiple multi-thousand
part binaries that were posted, although I think most of them were
crossposted. It may also be thrown off by cancel messages for the same,
depending on how your script works.
> FWIW, this is nothing compared to what the readers of
> soc.culture.catalan have to put up with: approx. 60% of their group's
> content is xposted to es.charla.* (es."talk".*) or soc.culture.spain, a
> great deal of it flame-bait and trolls.
There's a major difference in my mind between massive crossposting to
groups which are arguable on related topics and could contain useful
traffic and crossposting to groups which have *nothing* to do with the
group and whose regular posters' sole goal is to annoy people.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Raphael Quinet
In article <slrn5pt29d.ei3.I...@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, I-hate-cy...@man.ac.uk (A. Deckers) writes:
|> In <m3bu5dp...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
|> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
|> [...]
|> >A friend of mine asked me to take a look at the rec.games.mecha pre-RFD
|> >for robomoderation, as well as seeing if he could use my robomoderation
|> >software, so I took a look at rec.games.mecha at the moment. Basically,
|> >something like 50-70% of the current traffic of the group is crossposted
|> >to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose and consists of trash (at least from the
|> >perspective of the rec.games.mecha reader).
|>
|> history file on our news server, so our news spool may not be entirely
|> representative, but here's what my xpost-analysis script reports for
|> this group. This indicates that approx 30% of the group's content is
Here is a another analysis, done on Wed, June 11, 1997 at 15:35 MET.
The server I use has an expiration time of one week for rec.* groups.
This analysis was done with a slightly modified version of the
"getsumm" script written by Tom Harrington (t...@rmii.com).
Short summary of the results:
- 72% of the articles in rec.games.mecha are cross-posted
- 53% of the articles are cross-posted to more than 10 groups (30% to 16
groups and 19% to 12 groups).
- 49% of the articles are cross-posted to misc.test and alt.test
A lot of articles are also cross-posted to other test groups, in an
attempt to further destroy the group. They are not shown in the "top 10"
listing below, but they appear in the full analysis (available on request,
but not posted here because it is 1700+ lines long). These test groups
are: uk.test (531 articles), relcom.test (531), fr.test (531), han.test
(531) and eunet.test (322). Most of these articles are part of a massive
spam bomb attack on the group: a big binary file posted in 21580 parts,
and another in 3736 parts.
I could only find 187 articles cross-posted to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,
which is 10% of the traffic, but that percentage doubles if you exclude
the 800+ articles that are part of the spam (not yet cancelled).
Exerpt from the output of "getsumm -at rec.games.mecha" follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 1727 unexpired messages in rec.games.mecha
Cross-posting: numeric analysis
Max number of newsgroups/article: 23
Average number of newsgroups/article: 8.36
Num. Num. Percent of
groups articls total
1 663 38.39
2 48 2.78
3 47 2.72
4 11 0.64
5 4 0.23
6 9 0.52
7 2 0.12
8 13 0.75
9 12 0.69
10 1 0.06
11 38 2.20
12 328 18.99
13 9 0.52
14 1 0.06
15 0 0.00
16 531 30.75
17 0 0.00
18 3 0.17
19 2 0.12
20 4 0.23
21 0 0.00
22 0 0.00
23 1 0.06
Cross-posting: cross-posted newsgroup analysis
Newsgroups crossposted from rec.games.mecha (top ten),
by frequency of posting, of 1727 articles:
Num. Percent of
posts total Newsgroup
941 54.49 alt.games.final-fantasy
928 53.73 alt.evil
912 52.81 alt.slack
901 52.17 rec.music.rem
900 52.11 alt.gothic
853 49.39 misc.test
853 49.39 alt.test
583 33.76 alt.binaries.slack
576 33.35 sci.math
569 32.95 alt.smokers
Subjects in rec.games.mecha (top ten):
Num. Percent of
posts total Subject
73 4.23 [BT] Blaine and others (was: Re: Obscure clan Mechs?)
52 3.01 Fluffy Speaks! Was: Re: Guidance for HTML and Word Definitions (0631/3736)
41 2.37 MACROSS WINS
32 1.85 Moderation
31 1.80 Kill those damn cats!!!!
25 1.45 [ADMIN]I AM BEING FORGED!
23 1.33 Mr. Stackpole is full of shit.
21 1.22 [admin] Meowers
20 1.16 [Moderation] Forcing Moderation (was: Fluffy Speaks! )
19 1.10 Okay, how about this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not look like a very healty group... :-(
-Raphael
Tim Skirvin
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
>If this sort of thing can happen to an unmoderated group and the only
>possible way of addressing the problem is to moderate the group, then
>unmoderated groups are broken and all new newsgroups should be
>robomoderated.
I'd like to state this is definitely high on my list of reasons
for moderating the newsgroups I already moderate, for proposing the Usenet
Volunteer Moderators, and for being one of the proponents for mod.*.
Moderation has gone beyond a nice frill anymore - it's downright necessary
to make a working group. We have to make it as easy as possible.
Otherwise, consider this a "Me Too".
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a><*>
<a href="http://www.killfile.org/~daemons/">The Killfile Dungeon</a>
Robotech_Master
In article <m3bu5dp...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> A friend of mine asked me to take a look at the rec.games.mecha pre-RFD
> for robomoderation,
A pre-RFD which I posted in news.groups for feedback from news.groups
regulars, but haven't yet seen any... :)
> as well as seeing if he could use my robomoderation software, so I
> took a look at rec.games.mecha at the moment. Basically, something
> like 50-70% of the current traffic of the group is crossposted to
> alt.fan.karl-malden.nose and consists of trash (at least from the
> perspective of the rec.games.mecha reader).
> This is *after* killfiling the binary bombs (which are legitimately
> being cancelled as spews).
Other people in this thread have noted it seems to be more like 30%
where they are, which is understandable. It varies over time; there
have been times in the past where, even before zapping those on-topic
articles which I don't have any interest in, my killfile has gotten
rid of well over 80% of the group traffic. And that's without those
3,000 and 20,000 part binary bombs, either. It's an utter nuisance.
> This is unacceptable. And this isn't even, as near as I can tell, a
> case of group regulars being far too sensitive and egging people on.
> About the only posts I'm seeing from regulars on the subject are
> "please, *please* don't respond to these idiots, just ignore them,
> just killfile them." The Meow types are continuing this anyway, and
> are now diving into various regular rec.games.mecha threads. This
> is obviously and without a shadow of a doubt an attempt to destroy a
> newsgroup. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
I don't even know _why_ they're doing it. I mean, I could understand
if some rec.games.mecha reader torqued them off sometime in the
distant past. But as far as I can tell, there's no real reason, and
from posts I see in DejaNews, they want rec.games.mecha to "surrender,
under the same terms offered to alt.games.final-fantasy". Whatever
_those_ are. If it weren't so irritating, and if it wasn't happening
to one of my favorite newsgroups, it might be slightly amusing.
> On top of that, this has apparently been going on for some time.
> Why do the regular posters to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose still have
> accounts? Anywhere? This is abuse. There is absolutely no
> redeeming qualities or justifications for this behavior. This is
> alt.syntax.tactical, pure and simple. And this has been going on
> for a *LONG TIME*. Presumably the "mail their ISPs" bit has already
> been done. To no effect.
It's been done, is being done, _will_ be done...and I wouldn't quite
say it's to _no_ effect. It had the effect of two of the more visible
people doing it getting their email addresses appended to those
binary-bomb spams. Which gave the Meowers some ammunition to rant and
rave and claim that Camille and Peter are trying to force moderation
by making the posts themselves. Ludicrous.
Besides which, when email accounts are practically as easy to come by
as hotel matchbooks, and many sysadmins can't be bothered to care what
their users post, and sometimes you can't even _tell_ what ISP these
people are actually using, "mail their ISPs" becomes about as
long-term effective as bailing out the Titanic with a tablespoon. I
really don't blame those RGMers who wonder "why can't we just set up a
cancelbot?" I wish it were that simple.
> Either we can maintain the usability of unmoderated groups, or we
> can't. Looking at rec.games.mecha right now, I think the answer is
> starting to look like "can't." A group of people who get their
> kicks by pissing other people off are currently capable of
> essentially swamping a useful newsgroup to such a degree that it
> cannot be used for its stated purpose, and there doesn't appear to
> be anything anyone can do to stop them. This is wrong. This is not
> acceptable. This is not a Usenet I want to be part of.
If there's something that could be done about this sort of thing, I'd
love to know about it. I'm sure the people on alt.games.final-fantasy
would appreciate it, too.
--
Chris Meadows aka | Author, Team M.E.C.H.A., Crapshoot & Co.
Robotech_Master | on the Superguy Listserv (bit.listserv.superguy)
robo...@jurai.net | With a World Wide Web homepage located at
robo...@eyrie.org | http://www.jurai.net/~robotech/index.html
Bruce Baugh
>Either we can maintain the usability of unmoderated groups, or we can't.
>Looking at rec.games.mecha right now, I think the answer is starting to
>look like "can't."
You know, I've been saying this for a while now, and getting poo-pooed by a
number of n.g regulars for it. I don't _like_ the idea that no moderated group
can count on being safe, but it seems to me demonstrably the case. And I know
I've brought up the meow brigade as a specific case in point.
> A group of people who get their kicks by pissing other
>people off are currently capable of essentially swaping a useful newsgroup
>to such a degree that it cannot be used for its stated purpose, and there
>doesn't appear to be anything anyone can do to stop them. This is wrong.
>This is not acceptable. This is not a Usenet I want to be part of.
Like you, I have to wonder why it is any of these people still have
accounts...or rather, no, I don't. I've tried e-mailing administrators about
them, and met with silence or rudeness. It's a given that there are going to
be a certain (hopefully small) number of admins who Just Don't Care.
>I haven't changed my mind on retromoderation. Yet.
>But good lord, it's tempting.
Yes, it is. And frankly, it actually does make sense to me. Given this body of
stuff intended purely to be disruptive, I can no longer comfortably make a
case that it's wrong to just nuke it.
I do continue to make the case when discussing it with people who don't follow
news.*, because they should know that if they start doing it they will run
into trouble. But I think that the news.* concensus lags well behind the
reality of such things.
(Weren't meowers brought up during the rec.pets.cats reorg? Granted that some
r.p.c'ers had almost optimally unuseful responses, I share their concern.)
--
Bruce Baugh <*> http://www.phix.com/~bruce/
Moderator, comp.os.ms-windows.win95.moderated
List manager, Christlib, Christian/libertarian mailing list
Host, new sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Andrew Gierth
>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
Russ> On top of that, this has apparently been going on for some
Russ> time. Why do the regular posters to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Russ> still have accounts? Anywhere? This is abuse. There is
Russ> absolutely no redeeming qualities or justifications for this
Russ> behavior. This is alt.syntax.tactical, pure and simple. And
Russ> this has been going on for a *LONG TIME*. Presumably the "mail
Russ> their ISPs" bit has already been done. To no effect.
Too many ISPs, backbones, newsadmins, whatever (especially in the US)
simply say "we take no responsibility for our users".
As long as that attitude continues, what chance do unmoderated groups
have?
--
Andrew.
Fluffy
In article <slrn5pt29d.ei3.I...@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>,
I-hate-cy...@man.ac.uk says...
>
>In <m3bu5dp...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>[...]
>>A friend of mine asked me to take a look at the rec.games.mecha pre-RFD
>>software, so I took a look at rec.games.mecha at the moment. Basically,
>>something like 50-70% of the current traffic of the group is crossposted
>>to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose and consists of trash (at least from the
>>perspective of the rec.games.mecha reader).
>
>history file on our news server, so our news spool may not be entirely
>representative, but here's what my xpost-analysis script reports for
>this group. This indicates that approx 30% of the group's content is
>soc.culture.catalan have to put up with: approx. 60% of their group's
>content is xposted to es.charla.* (es."talk".*) or soc.culture.spain,
>a great deal of it flame-bait and trolls.
>
So less than 14% of the articles involve the nose. And when you consider that
more than half of these are rgm regulars crossposting, it hardly constitutes
an invasion. Russ has his head up his ass.
Fluffy
In article <87oh9c5...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, Andrew says...
>
>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
>
> Russ> On top of that, this has apparently been going on for some
> Russ> time. Why do the regular posters to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
> Russ> still have accounts? Anywhere? This is abuse. There is
> Russ> absolutely no redeeming qualities or justifications for this
> Russ> behavior. This is alt.syntax.tactical, pure and simple. And
> Russ> this has been going on for a *LONG TIME*. Presumably the "mail
> Russ> their ISPs" bit has already been done. To no effect.
Of course not. Are you daft? We don't use .edu domains.
>Too many ISPs, backbones, newsadmins, whatever (especially in the US)
>simply say "we take no responsibility for our users".
No. They say that freedom of speech is of paramount concern. Idiots like
you who want to revoke the bill of rights and similar covenants in countries
other than the USA are merely advocates of a worldwide police state. Or should
I say "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Communist! (spit!)
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
On 11 Jun 1997 02:34:39 -0700, in article <m3bu5dp...@windlord.Stanford.EDU> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>A friend of mine asked me to take a look at the rec.games.mecha pre-RFD
>for robomoderation, as well as seeing if he could use my robomoderation
>software, so I took a look at rec.games.mecha at the moment. Basically,
>something like 50-70% of the current traffic of the group is crossposted
>to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose and consists of trash (at least from the
>perspective of the rec.games.mecha reader).
I too took a look at rec.games.mecha after reading Russ's article and got a
radically different impression. My opinion of Russ's ethics and credibility
has gone down another few notches.
Apparently there's a clique of bullies regularly posting in that newsgroup
whose main interest is not the 'giant robot' games (the purported topic of
that newsgroup) but 'fighting spam', where 'spam' to them means 'anything
posted anywhere by one of the people the regulars want to silence'. Several
of them are listed in the www.netscum.net database, so I don't need to
mention their names.
The newsgroup is sort of like a dumbed-down version of nan-am / alt.flame.
Its "regulars" invade other newsgroups, falsely accuse the posters there of
"net-abuse", and organize letter-writing campaigns to postmasters, complaining
about the contents of their users' Usenet posts, and boast of having people's
plugs pulled (fortunately, they very seldom succeed).
No wonder they've pissed off a lot of people, some of whom are now flaming
the censors back in the censors' "home" newsgroup.
>This is *after* killfiling the binary bombs (which are legitimately being
>cancelled as spews).
There are no "legitimate" 3rd party cancels and you know it.
>This is unacceptable. And this isn't even, as near as I can tell, a case
>of group regulars being far too sensitive and egging people on. About the
>only posts I'm seeing from regulars on the subject are "please, *please*
>don't respond to these idiots, just ignore them, just killfile them." The
Russ, this is not true, and you know it. The "regulars" post obscene flames
and discuss mostly their "spam-fighting" activity, coordinate massive
postmaster complaints, and discuss postmaster responses. I haven't seen any
posts from the "regulars" resembling anything close to what you're saying,
nor any discussion of the "robot games".
All I see from the regulars are the hissing flames and calls for more
postmaster complaints.
>Meow types are continuing this anyway, and are now diving into various
>regular rec.games.mecha threads. This is obviously and without a shadow
>of a doubt an attempt to destroy a newsgroup. There's no ifs, ands, or
>buts about it.
>
>Yes, one can get rid of the vast majority of the abusive traffic by
>killfiling crossposts to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose. Under most
>circumstances, I'd consider that the reasonable solution. But *70% of the
>newsgroup??* That's absurd. And you can't even kill on Xref at most
>sites because most sites don't carry alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, so to
>killfile it you have to take the XHDR overhead hit.
Russ, this is not true, and you know it. Any half-decent newsreader can
killfile articles with "Newsgroups:.*alt\.fan\.karl-malden\.nose" in the
header. Any half-decent newsreader can killfile "Newsgroups:.*,.,.*" to hide
whatever cross-posting the considers "excessive". No one needs to killfile on
"Xref:".
Moreover the same people are doing all the flaming. Someone truly interested
in discussing "mecha" and not "spam-fighting" can easily killfile about a
dozen posters that generate all the off-topic, and be left with a low-volume
newsgroup.
While your "70%" claim is also false (someone just posted that only 30% of
the traffic is cross-posted to Nose), I agree that a user of a newsreader
with no killfile capability will find this newsgroup, and many other
unmoderated newsgroups, to be difficult to use and next to useless.
Does this mean that such users should be permitted to censor others?
To you, perhaps. Not to an honorable person.
>On top of that, this has apparently been going on for some time. Why do
>the regular posters to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose still have accounts?
Because more and more sysadmins ignore the complaints from the whining
net.scum like r.g.m "regulars", and in fact view the complainers as
net-abusers who waste sysadmins' time with their stupid complaints.
Check out Tom Betz's Net.Scum Web page: http://www.netscum.net/betzt0.html
for the excellent response he got from Digex, where he sent a false complaint.
>Anywhere? This is abuse. There is absolutely no redeeming qualities or
>justifications for this behavior.
What behavior? They post what they feel like, just like you post what
you feel like. Why censor the "meowers" and not the r.g.m "regulars",
or not you for that matter? Why censor anyone?
> This is alt.syntax.tactical, pure and
>simple. And this has been going on for a *LONG TIME*. Presumably the
>"mail their ISPs" bit has already been done. To no effect.
That's good. Chris Lewis boasted that he's been complaining to PSI, my
upstream, about my "advocating spam". Chris Lewis also claimed repeatedly that
I've been disconnected from PSI. The first claim sounds like the truth.
The second claim is a lie - I'm still on PSI, have been on it since 1991,
despite Chris Lewis's lies. (Chris Lewis's lies are documented on his net.scum
Web page: http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html - please read it.)
Likewise it's good the coordinated letter-writing complains organized by the
r.g.m "regulars" are rightfully ignored by their victims' postmasters.
Anyone who falls victim to a postmaster complain from one of the scumbags
listed on the http://www.netscum.net Web site need only point to the
complainer's net.scum Web page.
>The rec.games.mecha readers are proposing robomoderation to deal with this
>problem and fix a few things that they can then fix about their group at
>the same time. That's cool, and I wish them the best of luck. But
>there's another issue here that should be raised.
>
>If this sort of thing can happen to an unmoderated group and the only
>possible way of addressing the problem is to moderate the group, then
>unmoderated groups are broken and all new newsgroups should be
>robomoderated.
>
>Yes, I'm serious.
"Moderation" is broken. By applying it where it's not appropriate, you'll
convince sufficiently many providers to treat all newsgroups as unmoderated.
>Either we can maintain the usability of unmoderated groups, or we can't.
>Looking at rec.games.mecha right now, I think the answer is starting to
>look like "can't." A group of people who get their kicks by pissing other
>people off are currently capable of essentially swaping a useful newsgroup
>to such a degree that it cannot be used for its stated purpose, and there
This isn't true, and you know it.
>doesn't appear to be anything anyone can do to stop them. This is wrong.
>This is not acceptable. This is not a Usenet I want to be part of.
Would you like an AOL chatroom better? You'd make a good "room monitor".
>As an aside, I've never been more tempted to just start cancelling
>articles than I am right now. Given fifteen minutes, I could
>*dramatically* increase the readability and signal of rec.games.mecha with
>pretty much zero negative effects.
There's a rogue canceller at Stanford - D.Karp. You'll make a fine couple.
>I haven't changed my mind on retromoderation. Yet.
>
>But good lord, it's tempting.
I'm yet to see you comment on the "retromoderation" Chris Lewis has been
conducting in news.admin.censorship. Last weekend he forged cancels for 27
totally different articles posted by ki...@thecia.net. The only thing the
cancelled articles had in common was the URL of Chris Lewis's net.scum page,
i.e. "http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html". Chris Lewis is so upset about his
net.scum page that he forges cancels for any Usenet article that mentions it.
Nor have you commented on "retromoderation" (content-based forged cancels)
by Bob Curtis (the moderator of misc.business.consulting), Ehud Gavron,
Nat Makarevitch, Shawn Oliver, and their ilk. Do you condone their actions?
Reality is a point of view
+---- Fluffy wrote (11 Jun 1997 18:15:54 -0700):
| No. They say that freedom of speech is of paramount concern.
There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of
excessive speech. Mix in off topic and the freedom part starts
to look like an ill fitting flag.
t.r.mcloughlin
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
[snip]
> i.e. "http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html". Chris Lewis is so upset about his
> net.scum page that he forges cancels for any Usenet article that mentions it.
hmmm. i've never had a post of mine cancelled before.
t "newsgroups clipped" rm
t.r.mcloughlin
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
[snip]
> i.e. "http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html". Chris Lewis is so upset about his
> net.scum page that he forges cancels for any Usenet article that mentions it.
hmmm... I've never had a post of mine canceled before.
t "can't wait" rm
Keith Alan Donovan
some type of game that as some kind of mecha in it. As to your freedom
of speech you have it and so do we but, how would you like it if we came
and flooded your ng with talk of mechs. The ng's were set up some that
people who like the same things could talk about them. That you have the
freedom of speech does not give you the right to come here and say what
ever you want. If you can not deal with that then turn off your computer
until you grow up.
Keith A. Donovan
t.r.mcloughlin
Russ Allbery wrote:
[snip the last temptation of russ]
at first reading, i thought russ may have eaten an uncomfortable
burrito, but considering the respondents who were inspired to
post, i think he may have a point.
trm
Ricardo Hector Gonzales
t.r.mcloughlin (tmcl...@erols.com) wrote:
: > i.e. "http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html". Chris Lewis is so upset about his
: > net.scum page that he forges cancels for any Usenet article that mentions it.
: hmmm... I've never had a post of mine canceled before.
So rogue cancels are ok as long as the post being cancelled are not yours?
It's that kind of attitude that let 6 million Jews be killed.
-Ric G.
Official FAQ Maintainer - news.admin hierarchy
"Of all the sins with which a man defiles himself in this world, this is the
sin with which he is most defiled." - M Shabbat 2:6
Bring Me The Fake Totties of Terri DiSisto
Animal Rights Activists and the Elders of Zion forced Ricardo Hector
Gonzales to say:
[newsgroups de-kookified and followups set appropriately]
[ka-THUNK! goes the Axe]
# So rogue cancels are ok as long as the post being cancelled are not yours?
# It's that kind of attitude that let 6 million Jews be killed.
# -Ric G.
# Official FAQ Maintainer - news.admin hierarchy
# "Of all the sins with which a man defiles himself in this world, this is the
# sin with which he is most defiled." - M Shabbat 2:6
This post is off-topic in rec.games.mecha. Please discuss only those
topics which have to do with giant robot games in rec.games.mecha.
--Camille.
Official Content-based Canceller - rec.games.hierarchy
--
"It's not every day you meet a Legend." -- Mike Stackpole
"Good, bad.....I'm the guy with the LART."
http://www.primenet.com/~capella/
Support CAUCE! http://cauce.org/ KILL SPAMMERS AND BURN THE CORPSES!
Russ Allbery
In rec.games.mecha, Dimitri Vulis KOTM <d...@bwalk.dm.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> A friend of mine asked me to take a look at the rec.games.mecha pre-RFD
>> for robomoderation, as well as seeing if he could use my robomoderation
>> software, so I took a look at rec.games.mecha at the moment.
>> Basically, something like 50-70% of the current traffic of the group is
>> crossposted to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose and consists of trash (at least
>> from the perspective of the rec.games.mecha reader).
> I too took a look at rec.games.mecha after reading Russ's article and
> got a radically different impression. My opinion of Russ's ethics and
> credibility has gone down another few notches.
I don't care, Dimitri. If you haven't figured that out by now, you really
haven't been listening. I post my opinions; whether that causes people to
consider me ethical, unethical, credible, or non-credible is their choice.
> Apparently there's a clique of bullies regularly posting in that
> newsgroup
Yes, there is. They're posting from alt.fan.karl-malden.nose. They or
someone who is acting as a copycat of them is posting binary bombs to
rec.games.mecha. They're crossposting tons of traffic that has nothing to
do with rec.games.mecha. They are making it very difficult to use the
group for the purpose that it was intended, which is apparently their
goal. They posted an ultimatum of sorts to alt.games.final-fantasy under
similar circumstances, which albeit amusing if it stood on its own was not
amusing at all given the circumstances.
> whose main interest is not the 'giant robot' games (the purported topic
> of that newsgroup) but 'fighting spam', where 'spam' to them means
> 'anything posted anywhere by one of the people the regulars want to
> silence'.
This is laughable and you know it. Please, do explain how the junk that
is being dumped into this newsgroup by the self-titled Meowers is on-topic
for the group in the slightest. When you attempt to destroy the usability
of a public forum, people get angry and yell at you for it. What do you
expect?
> The newsgroup is sort of like a dumbed-down version of nan-am /
> alt.flame. Its "regulars" invade other newsgroups, falsely accuse the
> posters there of "net-abuse", and organize letter-writing campaigns to
> postmasters, complaining about the contents of their users' Usenet
> posts, and boast of having people's plugs pulled (fortunately, they very
> seldom succeed).
*snrk* Sure. And the sky is bright magenta and it rains orange paint.
The only letter-writing campaigns launched from here are in response to
organized and systematic attempts to destroy the usefulness of the
newsgroup by crossposting mindless junk into it. The only unfortunate
thing about those sorts of attempts is that they've failed. Vandals do
not deserve to have accounts and do not deserve to be able to post.
>> This is unacceptable. And this isn't even, as near as I can tell, a
>> case of group regulars being far too sensitive and egging people on.
>> About the only posts I'm seeing from regulars on the subject are
>> "please, *please* don't respond to these idiots, just ignore them, just
>> killfile them."
> Russ, this is not true, and you know it. The "regulars" post obscene
> flames and discuss mostly their "spam-fighting" activity, coordinate
> massive postmaster complaints, and discuss postmaster responses. I
> haven't seen any posts from the "regulars" resembling anything close to
> what you're saying, nor any discussion of the "robot games".
What newsgroup are you reading, Dimitri? Did you make a typo and
accidentally read news.admin.net-abuse.misc when you were trying to read
rec.games.mecha? You may want to check your typing skills and try again;
that description bears no resemblence to the newsgroup we were discussing.
> All I see from the regulars are the hissing flames and calls for more
> postmaster complaints.
Perhaps you could list who you think are "regulars," then. You may find
that the people you think are regulars are in fact Meowers who are
attempting to stir up even more trouble. I have the advantage of knowing
a number of regulars in this newsgroup from long, long before any of this
started and therefore have a bit more of a score card than you do.
>> Yes, one can get rid of the vast majority of the abusive traffic by
>> killfiling crossposts to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose. Under most
>> circumstances, I'd consider that the reasonable solution. But *70% of
>> the newsgroup??* That's absurd. And you can't even kill on Xref at
>> most sites because most sites don't carry alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, so
>> to killfile it you have to take the XHDR overhead hit.
> Russ, this is not true, and you know it. Any half-decent newsreader can
> killfile articles with "Newsgroups:.*alt\.fan\.karl-malden\.nose" in the
> header.
Do you know what XHDR means, Dimitri? If you want to expose your total
ignorance of how news software works, try not to correct people who know
more than you do when you're in the process of it. Nothing I said in the
above paragraph was "not true."
> No one needs to killfile on "Xref:".
Sure, if you want to download the entire headers of all of the articles in
the newsgroup in order to run your killfile. When the binary bombs start
again, that takes a while.
> While your "70%" claim is also false (someone just posted that only 30%
> of the traffic is cross-posted to Nose),
And someone else posted a different analysis that showed higher
crossposting, and various other people have pointed out that it varies
tremendously. I also made the mistake of assuming that all of the Meower
attacks were crossposted to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose; this is apparently
not the case. (Which also pokes a hole in some of your killfile
arguments.)
> I agree that a user of a newsreader with no killfile capability will
> find this newsgroup, and many other unmoderated newsgroups, to be
> difficult to use and next to useless. Does this mean that such users
> should be permitted to censor others?
> To you, perhaps. Not to an honorable person.
If one cannot have a reasonable expectation of finding traffic concerning
the subject of a newsgroup in that newsgroup, Usenet is worthless. All of
your arguments about censorship become entirely academic at that point.
> "Moderation" is broken. By applying it where it's not appropriate,
> you'll convince sufficiently many providers to treat all newsgroups as
> unmoderated.
I don't care. If incompetent providers and spam havens want to opt out of
Usenet and ensure that nothing their users post ever shows up at any
responsible site, they can go with my blessing.
Russ Allbery
In news.groups, t r mcloughlin <tmcl...@erols.com> writes:
> at first reading, i thought russ may have eaten an uncomfortable
> burrito, but considering the respondents who were inspired to post, i
> think he may have a point.
The "Fluffy" persona that followed up is an excellent example of the sort
of thing that rec.games.mecha is having to deal with in quantity. Massive
overquoting, no real content added, occasional ad hominem attacks,
occasionally just incoherent raving or jokes that must have been funny to
someone but which have nothing to do with the newsgroup.
Dimitri you can safely ignore when trying to evaluate the situation. He
isn't part of the problem and generally has more sense than to engage in
the sorts of activities that the Meowers start. He just seems to like
attacking me.
David Bromage
[newsgroups trimmed]
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM (d...@bwalk.dm.com) wrote:
>cancelled articles had in common was the URL of Chris Lewis's net.scum page,
>i.e. "http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html". Chris Lewis is so upset about his
>net.scum page that he forges cancels for any Usenet article that mentions it.
So how come I was able to read your article if he cancels every one
mentioning it? This site does accept Chris' cancels.
You and your fellow kooks have yet to understand that those on the netscum
pages wear the title as a badge of honour. it is a stauts symbol. We are
actually honoured to be on the pages, and others are disappointed NOT to
be on it!
I have a link to my netscum page on my personal home page. It sits in
between my other two great Usenet honours, being called "dirt false
christian scum" and being threatened with legal action by the Church of
$cientology. I'm proud of all three! :)
Cheers
David (net.scum and proud of it!)
Kate Wrightson
In article <5nmiv4$3ko...@primium.eyrie.tpc>,
Bruce Baugh <br...@phix.com> wrote:
>In article <m3bu5dp...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>Either we can maintain the usability of unmoderated groups, or we can't.
>>Looking at rec.games.mecha right now, I think the answer is starting to
>>look like "can't."
>
>number of n.g regulars for it. I don't _like_ the idea that no moderated group
>can count on being safe, but it seems to me demonstrably the case. And I know
>I've brought up the meow brigade as a specific case in point.
I don't know that I've ever posted publically about it, but I favor a
similar system. I'd like to see an outlet in every hierarchy and
sub-hierarchy, an unmoderated *.discussion or *.unmoderated where those
who cannot or will not post to moderated groups can talk, so that there's
a choice (c'mon Bruce, choice is what we libs are all about, yes?).
This ties in with a comment someone (can't remember who, and I'm sorry
'cause I wanted to mail the poster with thanks for his words) recently
made about the time which we 'oldbies' spend on the net; where we used to
mentor new users, we now fight spam. Modbots would relieve some of the
pressure, and let us get back to being nice to *people*, rather than
being rude to spam.
Maybe this will be my first post to *.technical.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Kate Wrightson | USENET is based on the principle of mutual aid.
ka...@rigel.econ.uga.edu| Those who benefit from the common resource must
blaze.cba.uga.edu/~kate| give something to benefit the common good.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
[rec.games.mecha and alt.best.* snipped]
Fluffy writes:
>In article <87oh9c5...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, Andrew says...
[...]
>>Too many ISPs, backbones, newsadmins, whatever (especially in the US)
>>simply say "we take no responsibility for our users".
>No. They say that freedom of speech is of paramount concern.
But what do you do when one persons freedom of spech interfears with
anouthers freedom of speach?
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. Buy easter bilbies.
Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay? ex-net.scum and proud
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yukky' a convinceing argument
Chris Camfield
Bruce Baugh (br...@phix.com) writes:
> In article <m3bu5dp...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
[chop]
>> A group of people who get their kicks by pissing other
>>people off are currently capable of essentially swaping a useful newsgroup
>>to such a degree that it cannot be used for its stated purpose, and there
>>doesn't appear to be anything anyone can do to stop them. This is wrong.
>>This is not acceptable. This is not a Usenet I want to be part of.
> Like you, I have to wonder why it is any of these people still have
> accounts...or rather, no, I don't. I've tried e-mailing administrators about
> them, and met with silence or rudeness. It's a given that there are going to
> be a certain (hopefully small) number of admins who Just Don't Care.
I think this category of admins are more damaging than in just this
respect. Granted, it's less severe, but I suspect that admins with this
sort of attitude are also the same sort who might not bother to honour
control messages for the humanities hierarchy (because they Just Don't
Care), or ignore the requests of users to add newsgroups (btJDC). There
was a recent post in sci.classics by one individual (posting through
DejaNews, IIRC) whose admin, after multiple requests for
humanities.classics, not only didn't add the newsgroup but removed
sci.classics out of spite!
On to a question: I was always given to believe that, while Usenet was
"organized" as one form of anarchy or another, that sites could bring
pressure to bear on others by refusing to honour packets from them. Is
this becoming justifiable, under the circumstances? I actually assume
that it's totally impractical, but thought I'd mention it anyhow.
I'm going to be melodramatic and state that philosophically, these people
threaten all of Usenet.
Chris
--
Chris Camfield - ccam...@freenet.carleton.ca
To approach myth by way of reason is like measuring color differences with
a ruler. Nevertheless, we can use only that yardstick given to us.
-- Frank Brommer
piranha
[newsgroups header trimmed back to the original two.
note follow-up.]
In article <5noc48$g9h$1...@news2.digex.net>,
Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ric...@primus.paranoia.com> wrote:
>
>So rogue cancels are ok as long as the post being cancelled are not yours?
>It's that kind of attitude that let 6 million Jews be killed.
allright. thank you, godwin. that didn't take long at all.
may i heartily recommend to anyone else who's inclined to
answer the kooks, to trim back the newsgroups line before
doing so. if we all did that, the kook kabal would be in
dire straits of boredom, and quite a few groups would be
spared this sort of dreck. if you actually think any of the
kooks will listen to your wise words (tho why you would ima-
gine that is quite beyond me), cc. the gentlemen.
-alix
------------------------------------------------------------------------
please help fight spam -- http://www.cauce.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter da Silva
Rec.games.mecha?
In article <5noc48$g9h$1...@news2.digex.net>,
Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ric...@primus.paranoia.com> wrote:
> t.r.mcloughlin (tmcl...@erols.com) wrote:
> : > i.e. "http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html". Chris Lewis is so upset about his
> : > net.scum page that he forges cancels for any Usenet article that mentions it.
> : hmmm... I've never had a post of mine canceled before.
> So rogue cancels are ok as long as the post being cancelled are not yours?
Objection, your honor, question assumes facts not in evidence!
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
Ricardo Hector Gonzales
: This post is off-topic in rec.games.mecha. Please discuss only those
: topics which have to do with giant robot games in rec.games.mecha.
You know as well as everyone else that rec.games.mecha has degenerated
into a group like news.admin.net-abuse.misc where people interested in
control invent "enemies" and then discuss how to best hurt these enemies.
The group hasn't had anything to do with giant robot games for months
and is probably in the wrong name space (should be more like
alt.flame.censorship or alt.cabal.censorship).
If you want to clean up the group and restore it to its previous
purpose, I suggest that you eliminate yourself and others who act as
you do.
-Ric G.
Official FAQ Maintainer - news.admin hierarchy
"Of all the sins with which a man defiles himself in this world, this is the
Russ Allbery
Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ric...@primus.paranoia.com> writes:
> You know as well as everyone else that rec.games.mecha has degenerated
> into a group like news.admin.net-abuse.misc where people interested in
> control invent "enemies" and then discuss how to best hurt these
> enemies. The group hasn't had anything to do with giant robot games for
> months and is probably in the wrong name space (should be more like
> alt.flame.censorship or alt.cabal.censorship).
This is typical of the sorts of arguments that are used during a newsgroup
invasion; thanks, Ricardo, for an excellent example. Once the people
trying to destroy the newsgroup have gotten it bad enough off, they then
start justifying their right to post there on the basis of what the
newsgroup now looks like. The object is to create a downward spiral,
where more junk gets posted to the group because junk is already there.
Unfortunately, they often succeed, at least for a while.
It's all a game. Quite a bit of what seems utterly pointless actually has
some purpose behind it. Although most of the junk posts are nothing but
junk, there *is* more thought put behind one or two per couple dozen than
you might think.
Peter da Silva
In article <5npb5s$cpo$1...@news2.digex.net>,
> You know as well as everyone else that rec.games.mecha has degenerated
> into a group like news.admin.net-abuse.misc where people interested in
> control invent "enemies" and then discuss how to best hurt these enemies.
Ah, so *that's* what your "FAQ" is for.
Inventing enemies and showing people how to attack them.
If you want to clean up the group and restore it to its previous
purpose, I suggest that you eliminate yourself and others who act as
you do.
sw
In article <5nnika$6...@drn.zippo.com>, <Fluffy> wrote:
>In article <87oh9c5...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, Andrew says...
>>simply say "we take no responsibility for our users".
>
>you who want to revoke the bill of rights and similar covenants in countries
>other than the USA are merely advocates of a worldwide police state. Or should
>I say "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Communist! (spit!)
Freedom of speech my big toe.
And I'm not a communist, you stupid cat. I'm a *Fascist*. A true (um, what
color am I supposed to use here? It's not blue. I think it's black. Umm...)
...whatever color..., dyed-in-the-wool, cult-of-personality, world-dominating
secret-police, no-privacy, paranoia-is-a-way-of-life, fascist.
And *damn* is it going to feel good when you get thrown up against the
wall when the revolution comes. I want to live just long enough to see it
happen.
--JT
Dr. Jai Maharaj
In article <Tw568D...@bwalk.dm.com>,
Russ Allbery still supports the Cabal terrorists and forgers? Frankly, I
am surprised because I recall fro a couple of years ago that he had lost every
argument in which he was supportive of the Cabal.
Jai Maharaj
j...@mantra.com
Om Shanti
Bill Palmer
In <5nnika$6...@drn.zippo.com> Fluffy writes:
>
>In article <87oh9c5...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, Andrew says...
>>
>>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
I will add this on the topic, because something needs to be
said. Since it was created, alt.genius.bill-palmer has
been invaded and infested by some the foulest parasites ever
to slither out of the sewers of Usenet. I have decried
their foul presence, and I have "toasted" them again and
again--but, since parasites have no pride, they cling on
to a.g.b-p, their unwilling "host." I have an especially
vile leech, Cockroach Rog Wemyss (aka "Williams") dumping
his crazed, 75k libel concoction again and again, for instance.
Even so, I would in no way take away these parties' (foul
as these subhumans are) right to post in alt.genius.bill-palmer.
I believe very strongly in the freedom of Usenet posters to
speak out, and the fact that I am currently bedeviled by a
number of cowardly, vicious, parasitical abusers of freedom
of speech will not cause me to act contrary to my stated
views.
So, what can be done about newsgroup "invasions"? In my
view, either ignore the invaders, or tell the world what
they are up to and why.
>>
>> Russ> On top of that, this has apparently been going on for some
>> Russ> time. Why do the regular posters to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
>> Russ> still have accounts? Anywhere? This is abuse. There is
>> Russ> absolutely no redeeming qualities or justifications for this
>> Russ> behavior. This is alt.syntax.tactical, pure and simple. And
>> Russ> this has been going on for a *LONG TIME*. Presumably the
"mail
>> Russ> their ISPs" bit has already been done. To no effect.
>
>Of course not. Are you daft? We don't use .edu domains.
>
>>Too many ISPs, backbones, newsadmins, whatever (especially in the US)
>>simply say "we take no responsibility for our users".
>
>No. They say that freedom of speech is of paramount concern. Idiots
like
>you who want to revoke the bill of rights and similar covenants in
countries
>other than the USA are merely advocates of a worldwide police state.
Or should
>I say "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Communist! (spit!)
>
Bruce Baugh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <5notiv$6nd$1...@cronkite.cc.uga.edu>, ka...@rigel.econ.uga.edu
says...
>similar system. I'd like to see an outlet in every hierarchy and
>sub-hierarchy, an unmoderated *.discussion or *.unmoderated where those
>who cannot or will not post to moderated groups can talk, so that
there's
>a choice (c'mon Bruce, choice is what we libs are all about, yes?).
Oh, absolutely. Notice that I advocate adding moderated newsgroups
rather than moderating existing ones except when there's pretty much
unanimous consent for moderation - I think people who regard moderation
as more vile than the meow brigade and the like are making a silly
choice, but it's there to make. If moderation becomes the default, I
would certainly want to make sure that an unmoderated outlet remains.
>made about the time which we 'oldbies' spend on the net; where we used
to
>mentor new users, we now fight spam. Modbots would relieve some of the
>pressure, and let us get back to being nice to *people*, rather than
>being rude to spam.
That's a good comment; my compliments to its originator. And yes, a
simple modbot system would help a lot. I'd be much happier teaching
people how to do simple processing than wading through a lot of the junk
we get on n.g these days.
- --
Bruce Baugh <*> http://www.phix.com/~bruce
br...@phix.com <*> Host, new S.F. by Stirling and Effing er
(The above space is deliberate; ask and I'll tell you why, too.)
Manager, Christlib, mailing list of Christian & libertarian concerns
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQEPAgUBM6A70H3AXR8sjiylAQFJggfQqIudDAgS2Y83xUomkne9zprbjYCAFX/Q
FJACGvNECWJ4pfwgRSO4rNGUYPiFUYaRHEl1QN2kTpIwrTSJH9/GTKM4KTMo0ukm
HRgxS/ibSp3UnnfliCJ3DR9nd9eSKfuzolL1GduvuAKq+tLbET0caNVEZ0Q3XtH7
dOxSpu0KCOWt4EdMfLhjdgRtZMFkbumNDS04qzgjF85fr8FTt2eDk//Xqe7/xsZG
w7XZoT+q3RZl1mTnA4uu7fmpzhTQjlrMt+WyXMP9OkdSrEyVDQFnwDMSnzDPEpnd
mdtB2doMRA4l+cval/yDzX/z+STGzhPV96BxXIZwfOUtbA==
=ua2Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bruce Baugh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <5nnlss$m...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>I think this category of admins are more damaging than in just this
>respect. Granted, it's less severe, but I suspect that admins with
this
>sort of attitude are also the same sort who might not bother to honour
>control messages for the humanities hierarchy (because they Just Don't
>Care), or ignore the requests of users to add newsgroups (btJDC).
There
I'm inclined to agree, though I admit to having anecdotal evidence to
support this. (Which is not to say that there are no good reasons for
putting some requests off, sometimes indefinitely. This is something
else, however.)
>On to a question: I was always given to believe that, while Usenet was
>"organized" as one form of anarchy or another, that sites could bring
>pressure to bear on others by refusing to honour packets from them. Is
>this becoming justifiable, under the circumstances? I actually assume
>that it's totally impractical, but thought I'd mention it anyhow.
See news.admin.net-abuse.* - it's done with varying degrees of
coordination now. It's not particularly effective, as nearly as I can
tell, except in cases of profoundly flagrant net abuse, but then see the
old "herding cats" metaphor.
>I'm going to be melodramatic and state that philosophically, these
people
>threaten all of Usenet.
In some ways I agree, melodramatic as it might be. Abusers will be
abusers. But if action isn't taken to stop them, _then_ we get into the
realm of Really Serious Problems.
- --
Bruce Baugh <*> http://www.phix.com/~bruce
br...@phix.com <*> Host, new S.F. by Stirling and Effing er
(The above space is deliberate; ask and I'll tell you why, too.)
Manager, Christlib, mailing list of Christian & libertarian concerns
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQEQAgUBM6BJKX3AXR8sjiylAQE8sQfRAS0rgObkH+GV42qNESpcixq/cKENxiVw
PdgIvPBV770YW/6wLGaPydix9KHK2U6BVXLx5NgtZ+QguN1/21Nn3XUWeDEBkgej
P67jHKJEFz3aTdcRRQgKp2Wu7LkouOkJBDFyYRHNiS7mNVcgdONI4z4fVe0mA+vv
CvzvHh83sQpLkSi2DnjYLc6IYrIVP0J1YEHBSx0z6sQS7wMHfIKKdvDDzg3M/RQF
Wp9qkEQswQn7Maw4TtpJ09LDRgF0b11H/YPW6hnWfR4SX4Ekpx+qDEkAOhPW2FG2
wd7Kh8ZAeSqLjxItAC8iOTvWj4stUZmgJnsyXbyFcPD/B2c=
=YVYq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
~Spark The Heretic
(ABOI removed, as Palmy isn't capable of getting into that group through
normal means.)
Bill Palmer wrote:
>
> In <5nnika$6...@drn.zippo.com> Fluffy writes:
> >
> >In article <87oh9c5...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, Andrew says...
> >>
> >>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
>
> I will add this on the topic, because something needs to be
> said. Since it was created, alt.genius.bill-palmer has
> been invaded and infested by some the foulest parasites ever
> to slither out of the sewers of Usenet.
We newgrouped it for the express purpose of scorching your sorry ass.
Now quit whining or we'll take it away.
Learn to read the agb-p FAQ already.
(archived at http://www.spark.org/admin/palmfaq.html for the readers'
convienience.)
[sewage flushed to save the endangered Arkansas Spotted Bandwidth]
--
TJ Miller jr.
Spark's Comprehensive Guide to Flame
http://www.spark.org/
----------------------------------------------------
me...@spark.org
----------------------------------------------------
"Well, at least I had a life"
Roger Wiseman in <5lj892$ka...@ns2.hgo.net>
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> enscribed:
>In rec.games.mecha, Dimitri Vulis KOTM <d...@bwalk.dm.com> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>> A friend of mine asked me to take a look at the rec.games.mecha pre-RFD
>>> for robomoderation, as well as seeing if he could use my robomoderation
>>> software, so I took a look at rec.games.mecha at the moment.
>>> Basically, something like 50-70% of the current traffic of the group is
>>> crossposted to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose and consists of trash (at least
>>> from the perspective of the rec.games.mecha reader).
>
>> I too took a look at rec.games.mecha after reading Russ's article and
>> got a radically different impression. My opinion of Russ's ethics and
>> credibility has gone down another few notches.
>
>I don't care, Dimitri. If you haven't figured that out by now, you really
>haven't been listening. I post my opinions; whether that causes people to
>consider me ethical, unethical, credible, or non-credible is their choice.
I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Didn't you once e-mail me
to explain that you unsubscribed from a certain mailing list for "political"
reasons - because your continued association with the people on that list was
harming your reputation among your fellow Cabal supporters?
If you really posted your true thoughts without seeking the external
approval from the nan-am lynch mob, you'd be a kook like us. You're not.
>> Apparently there's a clique of bullies regularly posting in that
>> newsgroup
>
>Yes, there is. They're posting from alt.fan.karl-malden.nose. They or
>someone who is acting as a copycat of them is posting binary bombs to
>rec.games.mecha. They're crossposting tons of traffic that has nothing to
>do with rec.games.mecha. They are making it very difficult to use the
>group for the purpose that it was intended, which is apparently their
>goal. They posted an ultimatum of sorts to alt.games.final-fantasy under
>similar circumstances, which albeit amusing if it stood on its own was not
>amusing at all given the circumstances.
This is the second article I post in my life in rec.games.mecha. The first
one was the one you've responded to. I received an e-mail from one of the
"bullies" I was referring to, ordering me to "stay out of rec.games.mecha"
and also saying "kill spammers". (You may recall that Chris Lewis calls
me a "spammer" for "advocating spamming".)
The same person has posted numerous articles in r.g.m calling for moderation
and even retromoderation (forged cancels). Please explain why it's OK
for this person to post meta-discussions that belong in news.groups, and
it's not OK for me to comment on this proposal.
I also want to make clear that I don't consider attacks on newsgroups to be a
Good Thing. The control freak I'm talking about has had nothing to contribute
to the "giant robot games" discussion. This person is interested in controlling
the discussion, in ordering people around, in having their plugs pulled, and
instead of r.g.m it could well be happening in any other newsgroup as long
as this obviously disturbed person gets to be "in charge".
I ask the a.f.k-m.n people to consider more productive ways of fighting the
censors than flooding the newsgroup, which this person obviously couldn't care
less about. This situation reminds me of the Frequently Asked Question: why
don't we run a cancelbot to cancel everything Chris Lewis posts? The answer
is, Chris Lewis hasn't posted anything worthwhile in his whole miserable life,
and cancelling his drivel would cause no harm, unlike his forged cancels
issued against articles that are actually worth reading.
>> whose main interest is not the 'giant robot' games (the purported topic
>> of that newsgroup) but 'fighting spam', where 'spam' to them means
>> 'anything posted anywhere by one of the people the regulars want to
>> silence'.
>
>This is laughable and you know it. Please, do explain how the junk that
>is being dumped into this newsgroup by the self-titled Meowers is on-topic
>for the group in the slightest. When you attempt to destroy the usability
>of a public forum, people get angry and yell at you for it. What do you
>expect?
A self-appointed censor e-mails "newbies" and tries to intimidate them.
Some leave the newsgroup. Some fight back. Some don't realize that the
newsgroup is not "owned" by the self-appointed censor, and that screwing
up the newsgroup only hurts those who are really interested in
discussing the "giant robot" games - and the censor isn't one of them.
By cross-posting to a.f.k-m.n I hope to convince the people there (if they're
really behind this traffic) that this is not a good way to fight the self-
appointed censors. The censors don't really care about the newsgroup - they
want to be "in charge" of something. The people who are hurt by such
activities are the ones who care about the discussion topic and
are not interested in censoring anyone.
>The only letter-writing campaigns launched from here are in response to
>organized and systematic attempts to destroy the usefulness of the
>newsgroup by crossposting mindless junk into it. The only unfortunate
>thing about those sorts of attempts is that they've failed. Vandals do
>not deserve to have accounts and do not deserve to be able to post.
Who appointed you to decide who deserves to be able to post?
Perhaps the self-appointed censor who e-mails people to say,
"stay out of my newsgroup" doesn't deserve to be able to e-mail.
>>> This is unacceptable. And this isn't even, as near as I can tell, a
>>> case of group regulars being far too sensitive and egging people on.
>>> About the only posts I'm seeing from regulars on the subject are
>>> "please, *please* don't respond to these idiots, just ignore them, just
>>> killfile them."
>
>> Russ, this is not true, and you know it. The "regulars" post obscene
>> flames and discuss mostly their "spam-fighting" activity, coordinate
>> massive postmaster complaints, and discuss postmaster responses. I
>> haven't seen any posts from the "regulars" resembling anything close to
>> what you're saying, nor any discussion of the "robot games".
>
>What newsgroup are you reading, Dimitri? Did you make a typo and
>accidentally read news.admin.net-abuse.misc when you were trying to read
>rec.games.mecha? You may want to check your typing skills and try again;
>that description bears no resemblence to the newsgroup we were discussing.
I'm talking about rec.games.mecha, where your friends are discussing
fighting spam, complaining to postmasters, and pulling plugs, and
whoever is interested in discussing the "giant robot" games has to
dig trhough the gunk that belongs in news.*.
>> No one needs to killfile on "Xref:".
>
>Sure, if you want to download the entire headers of all of the articles in
>the newsgroup in order to run your killfile. When the binary bombs start
>again, that takes a while.
Now you sound like Andrew Nellis who reads news with no killfile and a
2400 modem. In fact, you sound like a person whose name I forgot who
argued on news.* a few years ago that Usenet traffic must be limited
so one person can read the entire traffic every day.
>> While your "70%" claim is also false (someone just posted that only 30%
>> of the traffic is cross-posted to Nose),
>
>And someone else posted a different analysis that showed higher
>crossposting, and various other people have pointed out that it varies
>tremendously. I also made the mistake of assuming that all of the Meower
>attacks were crossposted to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose; this is apparently
>not the case. (Which also pokes a hole in some of your killfile
>arguments.)
Killfile on "From:". Share your killfile with others.
>> I agree that a user of a newsreader with no killfile capability will
>> find this newsgroup, and many other unmoderated newsgroups, to be
>> difficult to use and next to useless. Does this mean that such users
>> should be permitted to censor others?
>
>> To you, perhaps. Not to an honorable person.
>
>If one cannot have a reasonable expectation of finding traffic concerning
>the subject of a newsgroup in that newsgroup, Usenet is worthless. All of
>your arguments about censorship become entirely academic at that point.
The answer to speech you don't like is more speech.
If 50% of the traffic in a given newsgroup is off-topic, the best way
to increase the S/N ratio is to post more signal. People will find it
and will read it and respond to it. Post a sample killfile. Explain to
the misposters why their behavior is dishonorable (if it is).
>> "Moderation" is broken. By applying it where it's not appropriate,
>> you'll convince sufficiently many providers to treat all newsgroups as
>> unmoderated.
>
>I don't care. If incompetent providers and spam havens want to opt out of
>Usenet and ensure that nothing their users post ever shows up at any
>responsible site, they can go with my blessing.
It does sound to me that you don't care about the future of Usenet.
I don't think that abusing moderation to the point where many large
providers consider all newsgroups to be unmoderated is a Good Thing,
just like abusing cancels to the point where they need to be dumped
was not necessarily a good thing.
I also note that you've snipped any discussion of "retomoderation".
Russ, what do you think about Chris Lewis forging cancels for the 27
articles posted by Kibo, whose only thing in common was the mention of
Chris Lewis's Net.Scum site - http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html?
Timothy J Young
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) wrote:
: In rec.games.mecha, Dimitri Vulis KOTM <d...@bwalk.dm.com> writes:
: >> A friend of mine asked me to take a look at the rec.games.mecha pre-RFD
: >> for robomoderation, as well as seeing if he could use my robomoderation
: >> software, so I took a look at rec.games.mecha at the moment.
Actually, alt.college.college-bowl could use some software to combat
exactly the same problem rec.games.mecha seems to be having.
: >> Basically, something like 50-70% of the current traffic of the group is
: >> crossposted to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose and consists of trash (at least
: >> from the perspective of the rec.games.mecha reader).
: > Apparently there's a clique of bullies regularly posting in that
: > newsgroup
: Yes, there is. They're posting from alt.fan.karl-malden.nose. They or
: someone who is acting as a copycat of them is posting binary bombs to
: rec.games.mecha. They're crossposting tons of traffic that has nothing to
: do with rec.games.mecha. They are making it very difficult to use the
: group for the purpose that it was intended, which is apparently their
: goal. They posted an ultimatum of sorts to alt.games.final-fantasy under
: similar circumstances, which albeit amusing if it stood on its own was not
: amusing at all given the circumstances.
Not to mention that they've periodically chased everyone out of
alt.college.college-bowl. We've seen binary bombs, listserv floods,
alt.flame dumps, every trick in the book. Their latest is posting stuff
originally in alt.fan.karl-malden.nose eighteen months ago when it was
populated mostly by Harvard students.
I didn't see any of them for a while, since I don't get "the Nose" here
at GWU and it's been years since I last read any of the "flame" groups
(alt.evil, alt.flame, alt.stupidity, etc.)
We've been trying to get a moderated group for nearly two years. It's
tough b/c we need to recruit moderators, decide on human vs.
robo-moderation, and do all of this to coincide with college students
being on campus. I sent an RFD in March but it was never posted. The
"meowers" were the main reason originally, but there's so much spam there
now that can't be traced to anything "meow" related that I'd still want a
moderated group even if all "meow" traffic was killed off tomorrow for
good.
: > whose main interest is not the 'giant robot' games (the purported topic
: > of that newsgroup) but 'fighting spam', where 'spam' to them means
: > 'anything posted anywhere by one of the people the regulars want to
: > silence'.
: This is laughable and you know it. Please, do explain how the junk that
: is being dumped into this newsgroup by the self-titled Meowers is on-topic
: for the group in the slightest. When you attempt to destroy the usability
: of a public forum, people get angry and yell at you for it. What do you
: expect?
: > The newsgroup is sort of like a dumbed-down version of nan-am /
: > alt.flame. Its "regulars" invade other newsgroups,
No, that's what spammers do. That's what the Kook Kabal does.
--
| Tim Young (tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) Red Sox o-Meter : |
| GWU Law School '99 : Dartmouth College '96 :( |
Sir Fluffy d'Meow
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> thought for a moment, and meowed:
{chomp}
> A friend of mine asked me to take a look at the rec.games.mecha pre-RFD
> for robomoderation, as well as seeing if he could use my robomoderation
> software, so I took a look at rec.games.mecha at the moment. Basically,
> something like 50-70% of the current traffic of the group is crossposted
> to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose and consists of trash (at least from the
> perspective of the rec.games.mecha reader).
> This is *after* killfiling the binary bombs (which are legitimately being
> cancelled as spews).
The Bombs are looking more and more like an Attempt by Someone other than the
usual Meowers to get Peoples' Attention about the Invasion, perhaps to stop
the Meowing. It appears to be a Divide and Conquer Strategy, and a partially
successful one in that Meowers and rec.games.mecha Natives alike have been
eyeing one another with Suspicion.
Know too that there are several Meow Factions, some who want only to play
Sillybuggers and others who truly wish to be destructive. The Latter follow
the Former and turn minor Annoyances into Big Problems.
> This is unacceptable.
Yup.
> And this isn't even, as near as I can tell, a case
> of group regulars being far too sensitive and egging people on.
That /is/ a Part of the Problem, but definitely not All of it.
> About the
> only posts I'm seeing from regulars on the subject are "please, *please*
> don't respond to these idiots, just ignore them, just killfile them."
These Warnings would be best kept to Mail. Posted, they only serve as a
Symbol of Success to the Invaders {it demonstrates that People are annoyed}.
> The
> Meow types are continuing this anyway, and are now diving into various
> regular rec.games.mecha threads.
Then the Invasion is nearing its Crest.
> This is obviously and without a shadow
> of a doubt an attempt to destroy a newsgroup.
The apparent Intent is not to destroy Newsgroups /per se/ but to see how
strong the Reactions will be. Calls for Moderation are a clear Victory in the
Eyes of those who take their Invasions seriously.
> There's no ifs, ands, or
> buts about it.
>
> Yes, one can get rid of the vast majority of the abusive traffic by
> killfiling crossposts to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose. Under most
> circumstances, I'd consider that the reasonable solution. But *70% of the
> newsgroup??* That's absurd. And you can't even kill on Xref at most
> sites because most sites don't carry alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, so to
> killfile it you have to take the XHDR overhead hit.
And, the Address Lists are large and variable.
> On top of that, this has apparently been going on for some time. Why do
> the regular posters to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose still have accounts?
They have tolerant or sympathetic Administrators.
> Anywhere? This is abuse.
Yes, but surprisingly many Providers will not act on off-Topic Postings to
unmoderated Newsgroups unless they are Spam.
> There is absolutely no redeeming qualities or
> justifications for this behavior.
It does occupy the Time of those who would otherwise be out at Night changing
30s to 80s on Speed Limit Signs.
> This is alt.syntax.tactical, pure and
> simple.
A.s.t used a fairly sophisticated Form of Psychological Warfare as
Entertainment. Meow is much simpler, more like Capture the Flag. It lacks
the Plannning and Organization employed in the earlier Invasions.
> And this has been going on for a *LONG TIME*. Presumably the
> "mail their ISPs" bit has already been done. To no effect.
Right.
> The rec.games.mecha readers are proposing robomoderation to deal with this
> problem and fix a few things that they can then fix about their group at
> the same time. That's cool, and I wish them the best of luck. But
> there's another issue here that should be raised.
>
> If this sort of thing can happen to an unmoderated group and the only
> possible way of addressing the problem is to moderate the group, then
> unmoderated groups are broken and all new newsgroups should be
> robomoderated.
There is still some Value in keeping most Newsgroups unmoderated. If
Moderation is used exclusively, the Attack Methods will simply change. Is not
the Arms Race with Sex Spammers enough for now?
> Yes, I'm serious.
>
> Either we can maintain the usability of unmoderated groups, or we can't.
This probably depends upon the Newsgroup. Many Topics will simply not capture
the Attention of those who might invade.
> Looking at rec.games.mecha right now, I think the answer is starting to
> look like "can't."
But, these Invasions do eventually end. Targets of previous Attacks have
returned to Normalcy. That is little Consolation, of Course, to those whose
Newsgroups are current Targets.
> A group of people who get their kicks by pissing other
> people off are currently capable of essentially swaping a useful newsgroup
> to such a degree that it cannot be used for its stated purpose, and there
> doesn't appear to be anything anyone can do to stop them.
Too, it perpetuates itself. The harder People try to regain their Newsgroups,
the worse the Invasions become. The only Way to thwart Meow is to accept it.
> This is wrong.
> This is not acceptable. This is not a Usenet I want to be part of.
This change was inevitable, as the Networks have been transformed into
commercial Entities. Policies that are attractive to paying Customers
{We will allow you to post whatever you like, wherever you like} are
beginning to outweigh older Ones that supported the Interests of the
Host Institutions and the Networks themselves {post responsibly or be
fired|suspended|without Network Access}.
> As an aside, I've never been more tempted to just start cancelling
> articles than I am right now. Given fifteen minutes, I could
> *dramatically* increase the readability and signal of rec.games.mecha with
> pretty much zero negative effects.
This assumes, of Course, that you can keep up with the Flooding.
> I haven't changed my mind on retromoderation. Yet.
Good.
> But good lord, it's tempting.
*Full* UDPs of the Servers allowing this Behavior would be more
effective. Unless Providers are willing to assume Responsibility for
what originates from their Networks, these Problems will only worsen.
Market Demands are an Incentive for some Providers to look away.
Responsible Sites need to be more active in shunning those who chase
Dollars at the expense of the Networks. That a /gaming/ Newsgroup --
nothing especially controversial -- is forced to give serious
Consideration to moderating itself is A Bit Much.
Mw.,
F.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv
Comment: Fluffy's Meow Page <URL:http://world.com/~flufster/>
iQCVAwUBM6DPC8bziQAzdTzZAQEHTAP/STovscw/+PUtObXjB5rPDPYj+ZBToFB4
fXR2P7AXGPTKLFGC0kMM+72p3lEhJdDgd4naR/VwVur5U66gzaHbFSuP4YyXc4UX
iJpOBsb7ZOONECdtFqKsXZX5c6iFxiYa02qjYHaHxwO6nlBqHwn/dWH+vW783fRp
3TgrLQLLqyI=
=VoOf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Student
> No. They say that freedom of speech is of paramount concern. Idiots like
> you who want to revoke the bill of rights and similar covenants in countries
> other than the USA are merely advocates of a worldwide police state. Or should
> I say "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Communist! (spit!)
Sorry, couldn't resist !
Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not! Marxism, its a step in that direction.
And what we know as "Communism" (the russian / chinese version) hasn't much to
do with the ideas of Marx and Engels (who was a firm owner btw.).
Marx says "everyone by his abilities, everyone to his needs". And that doesn't
sound so bad. So before blaming something, read up on it. Don't just trust the
popular media.
Btw : Marx claims that his system can only work in a free society, one without
a government controlling or suppressing the people, something close
to no government at all
Michael Brinkhues
Kyper
The artist formerly known as Sir Fluffy d'Meow <fluf...@world.com>
wrote:
>> Looking at rec.games.mecha right now, I think the answer is starting to
>> look like "can't."
>
>But, these Invasions do eventually end. Targets of previous Attacks have
>returned to Normalcy. That is little Consolation, of Course, to those whose
Yep, but sometimes those newsgroups get attacked again... (they've
started on alt.gothic again, at the same time as the alt.music.hardcore
"crew" decide to attack again...)
- Aidan
--
/-=-=-=-=-=-=-a-i-d-a-n-@-s-k-i-n-n-e-r.d-e-m-o-n.c-o.u-k-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\
|While you try to pretend that you're a god on high |Webpage at: |
|With your party ideals and your squeaky clean lies |http://www.skinne|
|When it comes to the crunch you're no smarter than I |r.demon.co.uk |
\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/
Alan Krueger
[ alt.best.of.internet trimmed from newsgroups ]
In article <339F9F...@erols.com>,
Keith Alan Donovan <Keit...@erols.com> wrote:
>Kitty Kat go away. We don't want you here unless you want to talk about
>some type of game that as some kind of mecha in it. As to your freedom
>of speech you have it and so do we but, how would you like it if we came
>and flooded your ng with talk of mechs. The ng's were set up some that
>people who like the same things could talk about them. That you have the
>freedom of speech does not give you the right to come here and say what
>ever you want. If you can not deal with that then turn off your computer
>until you grow up.
Fine, but take this out of alt.best.of.internet. If you see a funny post
in this thread, feel free to REpost it to ABOI.
--
W. Alan Krueger | http://www.cs.umn.edu/~krueger/home.cgi
Graduate Student |--------------------------------------------------------
CSci Department | Support the anti-spam bill - http://www.cauce.org
U of Minnesota | Join the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email
Doug Bolton
On 12 Jun 1997 13:20:03 -0700, s...@eyrie.org (sw) wrote:
>In article <5nnika$6...@drn.zippo.com>, <Fluffy> wrote:
>>In article <87oh9c5...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, Andrew says...
>>>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
>>
>>>Too many ISPs, backbones, newsadmins, whatever (especially in the US)
>>>simply say "we take no responsibility for our users".
>>
>>No. They say that freedom of speech is of paramount concern. Idiots like
>>you who want to revoke the bill of rights and similar covenants in countries
>>other than the USA are merely advocates of a worldwide police state. Or should
>>I say "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Communist! (spit!)
>
>Freedom of speech my big toe.
>
>And I'm not a communist, you stupid cat. I'm a *Fascist*. A true (um, what
>color am I supposed to use here? It's not blue. I think it's black. Umm...)
>...whatever color..., dyed-in-the-wool, cult-of-personality, world-dominating
>secret-police, no-privacy, paranoia-is-a-way-of-life, fascist.
>
>And *damn* is it going to feel good when you get thrown up against the
>wall when the revolution comes. I want to live just long enough to see it
>happen.
I liked that tune. And Blade Runner is an interesting movie.
Things are already getting a bit confused. Like 'The Family'.
We're going to see more anarchy, not less. Get use to it. There's no where to
hide. Even in Tibet. Centralized states are anachronisms. Even Fascist ones.
Take off the brown shirt (the colour you were looking for) and meow.
Mjeu.
Terrance Peter La Casse, Jr.
On Thu, 12 Jun 97 00:27:40 EDT, d...@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis
KOTM) wrote:
:I too took a look at rec.games.mecha after reading Russ's article and got a
:radically different impression. My opinion of Russ's ethics and credibility
:has gone down another few notches.
:
:Apparently there's a clique of bullies regularly posting in that newsgroup
:whose main interest is not the 'giant robot' games (the purported topic of
:that newsgroup) but 'fighting spam', where 'spam' to them means 'anything
:posted anywhere by one of the people the regulars want to silence'. Several
:of them are listed in the www.netscum.net database, so I don't need to
:mention their names.
:
:The newsgroup is sort of like a dumbed-down version of nan-am / alt.flame.
:Its "regulars" invade other newsgroups, falsely accuse the posters there of
:"net-abuse", and organize letter-writing campaigns to postmasters, complaining
:about the contents of their users' Usenet posts, and boast of having people's
:plugs pulled (fortunately, they very seldom succeed).
:
:No wonder they've pissed off a lot of people, some of whom are now flaming
:the censors back in the censors' "home" newsgroup.
As a rec.games.mecha regular, I must inform you that your initial
impression of rec.games.mecha is incorrect. In fact, there is no such
clique of bullies, and the only censorship being discussed is the
proposed move to a moderated newsgroup. If you have been contacted by
someone who was rude or behaved in some unethical manner, then I
assure you that person was acting as an individual and not as a
representative of the group.
:Russ, this is not true, and you know it. The "regulars" post obscene flames
:and discuss mostly their "spam-fighting" activity, coordinate massive
:postmaster complaints, and discuss postmaster responses. I haven't seen any
:posts from the "regulars" resembling anything close to what you're saying,
:nor any discussion of the "robot games".
:
:All I see from the regulars are the hissing flames and calls for more
:postmaster complaints.
Again, your impressions are false and your statements incorrect.
:"Moderation" is broken. By applying it where it's not appropriate, you'll
:convince sufficiently many providers to treat all newsgroups as unmoderated.
This may be the case, but in rec.games.mecha, the consensus so far is
that moderation is appropriate. The only posts that should be made to
rec.games.mecha should be on-topic, where on-topic is defined by the
newsgroup charter.
:>Either we can maintain the usability of unmoderated groups, or we can't.
:>Looking at rec.games.mecha right now, I think the answer is starting to
:>look like "can't." A group of people who get their kicks by pissing other
:>people off are currently capable of essentially swaping a useful newsgroup
:>to such a degree that it cannot be used for its stated purpose, and there
:
:This isn't true, and you know it.
But it is true, and I am starting to believe that you are purposely
posting misinformation for some unknown purpose. Why?
:>doesn't appear to be anything anyone can do to stop them. This is wrong.
:>This is not acceptable. This is not a Usenet I want to be part of.
:
:Would you like an AOL chatroom better? You'd make a good "room monitor".
As much contempt as I have for AOL, their chatrooms (I've heard)
seldom suffer from "invasions" like the one rec.games.mecha is
suffering from.
I hope that I have been able to make the true situation on
rec.games.mecha more clear.
Thank you,
Peter La Casse
--
****************************************
* email: lacasse at cs dot wisc dot edu*
****************************************
Doug Bolton
On 12 Jun 1997 12:41:01 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
<dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>[rec.games.mecha and alt.best.* snipped]
>
>Fluffy writes:
>
>>In article <87oh9c5...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, Andrew says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>Too many ISPs, backbones, newsadmins, whatever (especially in the US)
>>>simply say "we take no responsibility for our users".
>
>>No. They say that freedom of speech is of paramount concern.
>
>But what do you do when one persons freedom of spech interfears with
>anouthers freedom of speach?
Shout louder ?
Robotech_Master
In article <96975E81F4FB1CC2.D17AE300...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Sir Fluffy d'Meow <fluf...@world.com> wrote:
> The Bombs are looking more and more like an Attempt by Someone other
> than the usual Meowers to get Peoples' Attention about the Invasion,
> perhaps to stop the Meowing. It appears to be a Divide and Conquer
> Strategy, and a partially successful one in that Meowers and
> rec.games.mecha Natives alike have been eyeing one another with
> Suspicion.
Whether the bombs were thrown by Meowers or not, they only serve to
point up the underlying problem of the newsgroup invasion. And I
should note that the Meowers probably wouldn't have been looked at so
suspiciously were it not for their past behavior in the group.
> Know too that there are several Meow Factions, some who want only to
> play Sillybuggers and others who truly wish to be destructive. The
> Latter follow the Former and turn minor Annoyances into Big
> Problems.
Meaning no personal offense, the rec.games.mecha readers are really
getting tired of both, as the first straw poll's 27-7 results in favor
of moderation seem to suggest.
>> This is unacceptable.
>
> Yup.
You've got that right.
>> This is obviously and without a shadow of a doubt an attempt to
>> destroy a newsgroup.
> The apparent Intent is not to destroy Newsgroups /per se/ but to see
> how strong the Reactions will be. Calls for Moderation are a clear
> Victory in the Eyes of those who take their Invasions seriously.
<shrug> Then let them enjoy their "victory". In six or seven weeks,
when we either moderate rec.games.mecha or create
rec.games.mecha.moderated, we won't have to put up with them anymore.
We take newsgroup invasions rather seriously, too, particularly when
it's our group that's being invaded.
>> On top of that, this has apparently been going on for some time.
>> Why do the regular posters to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose still have
>> accounts?
> They have tolerant or sympathetic Administrators.
Which isn't really a surprise. A pity, but not a surprise.
>> There are absolutely no redeeming qualities or justifications for
>> this behavior.
> It does occupy the Time of those who would otherwise be out at Night
> changing 30s to 80s on Speed Limit Signs.
Which isn't much of a comfort to the rec.games.mecha users whose group
is being deluged.
> But, these Invasions do eventually end. Targets of previous Attacks
> have returned to Normalcy. That is little Consolation, of Course,
> to those whose Newsgroups are current Targets.
End and then begin again. This is actually the _second_ Meow invasion
of rec.games.mecha; the first was sometime late last year. So what if
it goes away? It will only come back again, unless we do something
about it.
> Too, it perpetuates itself. The harder People try to regain their
> Newsgroups, the worse the Invasions become. The only Way to thwart
> Meow is to accept it.
Unacceptable.
> *Full* UDPs of the Servers allowing this Behavior would be more
> effective. Unless Providers are willing to assume Responsibility
> for what originates from their Networks, these Problems will only
> worsen. Market Demands are an Incentive for some Providers to look
> away. Responsible Sites need to be more active in shunning those
> who chase Dollars at the expense of the Networks. That a /gaming/
> Newsgroup -- nothing especially controversial -- is forced to give
> serious Consideration to moderating itself is A Bit Much.
I'd rather like to see full UDPs of those servers, too. But it seems
that the larger scale the Usenet bureaucracy is, the more inertia it
has and the harder it is to change things. It seems far more likely
that we can get a fast, workable solution for our group at the
moderation level than any other way.
--
Chris Meadows aka | Author, Team M.E.C.H.A., Crapshoot & Co.
Robotech_Master | on the Superguy Listserv (bit.listserv.superguy)
robo...@jurai.net | With a World Wide Web homepage located at
robo...@eyrie.org | http://www.jurai.net/~robotech/index.html
sw
In article <33a9c080.3669785@news>, Doug Bolton <me...@direct.ca> wrote:
>On 12 Jun 1997 13:20:03 -0700, s...@eyrie.org (sw) wrote:
>>And I'm not a communist, you stupid cat. I'm a *Fascist*. A true (um, what
>>color am I supposed to use here? It's not blue. I think it's black. Umm...)
>>...whatever color..., dyed-in-the-wool, cult-of-personality, world-dominating
>>secret-police, no-privacy, paranoia-is-a-way-of-life, fascist.
>
>hide. Even in Tibet. Centralized states are anachronisms. Even Fascist ones.
>Take off the brown shirt (the colour you were looking for) and meow.
I'm sorry. Call me crazy ("Hi, Crazy!") but I have a hard time taking
seriously a political future advisory from someone who makes it a point to
hang out with a group of people whose mode of behavior most closely imitates
that of a half-deaf, syphilitic male cat.
Besides, we fascists have bigger guns. Can a place with no centralized
government afford nukes or stealth fighters? Iiiiiii don't think so!
--JT
Russ Allbery
>> I don't care, Dimitri. If you haven't figured that out by now, you
>> really haven't been listening. I post my opinions; whether that causes
>> people to consider me ethical, unethical, credible, or non-credible is
>> their choice.
> I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Didn't you once e-mail me
> to explain that you unsubscribed from a certain mailing list for
> "political" reasons - because your continued association with the people
> on that list was harming your reputation among your fellow Cabal
> supporters?
No. I did not. If you have e-mail that says that that purports to be
from me, I'd be very interested to see it.
I mailed you saying I had unsubscribed to freedom-knights because my
presence on that list was disruptive given that neither Grubor nor Boursy
are capable of rational discussions if they are aware that I am listening.
I believe you misunderstood what I was saying at the time as well and I
mailed you a correction and clarification. Maybe you never received it?
> This is the second article I post in my life in rec.games.mecha. The
> first one was the one you've responded to. I received an e-mail from one
> of the "bullies" I was referring to, ordering me to "stay out of
> rec.games.mecha" and also saying "kill spammers".
Yes. I understand that. People are extremely angry right now, as a
result of what's been done to their newsgroup. They aren't in the mood
for being told it's all their fault.
That doesn't change the origin of the problem, or the fact that it is the
posters from alt.fan.karl-malden.nose who are attempting to destroy the
usefulness of the group. It simply means that people who feel like
they're under attack are reacting like people under attack. You may well
feel that they are overreacting. In some cases, I would agree with you.
But I would prefer to strike as close to the root of the problem as
possible rather than arguing about symptoms; remove the attack, and the
reactions to the attack will also go away.
> The same person has posted numerous articles in r.g.m calling for
> moderation and even retromoderation (forged cancels). Please explain why
> it's OK for this person to post meta-discussions that belong in
> news.groups, and it's not OK for me to comment on this proposal.
I have no problem with you commenting on my opinions in this newsgroup.
> I also want to make clear that I don't consider attacks on newsgroups to
> be a Good Thing.
I'm aware of that, and I hope everyone else is aware of that as well. I
don't consider you part of this problem, at the least. That's the reason
why I'm responding to you at length and largely ignoring the Meowers; you
have opinions, principles, and perspectives that I consider worth careful
consideration and discussion, even if I end up disagreeing with them.
> The control freak I'm talking about has had nothing to contribute to the
> "giant robot games" discussion. This person is interested in controlling
> the discussion, in ordering people around, in having their plugs pulled,
> and instead of r.g.m it could well be happening in any other newsgroup
> as long as this obviously disturbed person gets to be "in charge".
I don't think that's the case. I think that person is upset at seeing
something that they value destroyed by vandals for no other reason than
that they can and is reacting like a person who has been attacked. I
think the appropriate solution to all of these problems is to enforce
separation between the two newsgroups, and robomoderation is one way of
doing that. Then the crossposts will cease, so will the reactions to
them, and this group can get back to discussing its topic.
>> The only letter-writing campaigns launched from here are in response to
>> organized and systematic attempts to destroy the usefulness of the
>> newsgroup by crossposting mindless junk into it. The only unfortunate
>> thing about those sorts of attempts is that they've failed. Vandals do
>> not deserve to have accounts and do not deserve to be able to post.
> Who appointed you to decide who deserves to be able to post?
I'm a user of Usenet, which is a community effort between everyone who is
a part of it. I'm providing my input on how I feel the community should
be run, just as you are.
> Perhaps the self-appointed censor who e-mails people to say, "stay out
> of my newsgroup" doesn't deserve to be able to e-mail.
Perhaps not. You have your standards, and I have mine. One standard or
another will be imposed; it's not possible to avoid that. We simply have
to decide which one.
>> What newsgroup are you reading, Dimitri? Did you make a typo and
>> accidentally read news.admin.net-abuse.misc when you were trying to
>> read rec.games.mecha? You may want to check your typing skills and try
>> again; that description bears no resemblence to the newsgroup we were
>> discussing.
> I'm talking about rec.games.mecha, where your friends are discussing
> fighting spam, complaining to postmasters, and pulling plugs, and
> whoever is interested in discussing the "giant robot" games has to dig
> trhough the gunk that belongs in news.*.
They do, yes. And yes, I'm discussing that, as are some of my friends,
because that's what a lot of people care about discussing right now.
Large problems get discussed. That's the way Usenet works. However, the
group certainly does contain on-topic traffic as well, however drowned
out, *from the regulars*.
>> If one cannot have a reasonable expectation of finding traffic
>> concerning the subject of a newsgroup in that newsgroup, Usenet is
>> worthless. All of your arguments about censorship become entirely
>> academic at that point.
> The answer to speech you don't like is more speech.
> If 50% of the traffic in a given newsgroup is off-topic, the best way to
> increase the S/N ratio is to post more signal. People will find it and
> will read it and respond to it. Post a sample killfile. Explain to the
> misposters why their behavior is dishonorable (if it is).
I understand this argument. I even like it quite a bit in many
circumstances. But I also recognize that it's possible to drown out
discussion even with all of these measures, that enough valuable,
intelligent people who make the forum what it is will not be willing or
able to take those measures, and that it is possible to make a Usenet
newsgroup nigh worthless even with people taking those measures. In other
words, that's not a realistic solution to every problem.
>> I don't care. If incompetent providers and spam havens want to opt out
>> of Usenet and ensure that nothing their users post ever shows up at any
>> responsible site, they can go with my blessing.
> It does sound to me that you don't care about the future of Usenet.
I think you're aware that I do. At which point you should be considering
how my vision of the future of Usenet may be different than yours, given
that it doesn't seem like I care about the future you envision.
> I don't think that abusing moderation to the point where many large
> providers consider all newsgroups to be unmoderated is a Good Thing,
I don't think that's ever going to happen, because I don't think those
large providers are going to consider it an abuse.
> just like abusing cancels to the point where they need to be dumped was
> not necessarily a good thing.
I agree with you there.
> I also note that you've snipped any discussion of "retomoderation".
You didn't say anything that I felt like responding to or considered
particularly germane to this discussion.
> Russ, what do you think about Chris Lewis forging cancels for the 27
> articles posted by Kibo, whose only thing in common was the mention of
> Chris Lewis's Net.Scum site - http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html?
I don't follow news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins and therefore do not have
enough information to make an informed decision. Chris Lewis also has
nothing to do with this discussion.
impLAnt
Are you any kin to Michael?
-iMp
news.admin.michael-bolton
John Davis
Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <5nnika$6...@drn.zippo.com> Fluffy writes:
: >
: >In article <87oh9c5...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, Andrew says...
: >>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
: I will add this on the topic, because something needs to be
: said. Since it was created, alt.genius.bill-palmer has
: been invaded and infested by some the foulest parasites ever
: to slither out of the sewers of Usenet. [...]
In the case of a.g.b-p the solution is simple, Palmjob, First steel a
shotgun with at least one shell, hopefully one with 00 shot. Then place
the barrel in your mouth and in some fashion manage to pull the trigger.
Instantly a.g.b-p will be relieved of it's most annoying nuisance. After
a brief but sincere period of wild celebration the readers of a.g.b-p
can settle down to a stable diet of the spam ads for Hong Kong suck-a-hotchi
girls and MMF so obviously on topic for this newsgroup..
--
A_A
John Davis (o o) In article 5kkbar$2...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
~ Scott Dentice <lvs...@ix.netcom.com> whimpered
"I haven't a clue and if I did, what would I use one for?"
mailto:jrd...@databasix.com
Spark The Heretic
sw wrote:
>
> In article <33a9c080.3669785@news>, Doug Bolton <me...@direct.ca> wrote:
> >On 12 Jun 1997 13:20:03 -0700, s...@eyrie.org (sw) wrote:
> >>And I'm not a communist, you stupid cat. I'm a *Fascist*. A true (um, what
> >>color am I supposed to use here? It's not blue. I think it's black. Umm...)
> >>...whatever color..., dyed-in-the-wool, cult-of-personality, world-dominating
> >>secret-police, no-privacy, paranoia-is-a-way-of-life, fascist.
> >
> >We're going to see more anarchy, not less. Get use to it. There's no where to
> >hide. Even in Tibet. Centralized states are anachronisms. Even Fascist ones.
> >Take off the brown shirt (the colour you were looking for) and meow.
>
> I'm sorry. Call me crazy ("Hi, Crazy!") but I have a hard time taking
And how many innocents have we killed by way of comparison?
You also forgot the little fact that the only two true Fascist
governments ever to exist lead their respective countries into total
wrack and ruin in less than fifteen years. Not much of a track record,
eh?
> Besides, we fascists have bigger guns. Can a place with no centralized
> government afford nukes or stealth fighters? Iiiiiii don't think so!
Who needs nukes when there's no organized government to target? After
all, Strategic weapons were reserved as a last resort to influence a
government's policy. No other use for 'em really.
Funny you should mention the F-117A, though...
Meows from a former Tonopah Test Range resident,
--
TJ Miller jr.
Spark's Comprehensive Guide to Flame
http://www.spark.org/
----------------------------------------------------
Colin Douthwaite
Sir Fluffy d'Meow (fluf...@world.com) wrote:
> That a /gaming/ Newsgroup --
>nothing especially controversial -- is forced to give serious
>Consideration to moderating itself is A Bit Much.
But wouldn't such a newsgroup be a prime target for Moderationist
strategy ?
I find it very hard to believe that Meowers or Kook Kabalists
deliberately pursue campaigns of such magnitude to promote creation
of moderated newsgroups...that simply doesn't make sense...it is
self-defeating for them.
It seems to me that Moderationists are much more likely to be at the
source of these invasions using Meow and Spamming methods
effectively and cleverly with plenty of Net experience and expertise.
I remember clearly in 1994 an impending newsgroup moderator...in
defence of the proposed moderation...stating that in the foreseeable
future _all_ Big 7 newsgroups would become moderated.
Again, in the recent rec.pets.cats reorg there was a definite phase
in the RFD discussion when both trollers and moderationists moved in
strongly. Once moderation looked like a loser these people seemed to
fade away and lose interest.
Surely no one could deny that Moderation has been the "popular
panacea" since mid-1996 ?
Bye,
Reality is a point of view
[note: newsgroups trimmed]
+---- cf...@southern.co.nz wrote (14 Jun 1997 07:52:53 GMT):
| Surely no one could deny that Moderation has been the "popular
| panacea" since mid-1996 ?
+----
Growing numbers of daily posters too. People that post daily.
Any percentages on the number of new posters that wield volume
clumsily floating around out there? There must be a point of
critical mass, where the number of newsgroups crowd like minded
randomized Bacon's into clusters that then bunch into cluster
competitions.
mod.flame.*?
Sort of like a difficult alt.flame.*.
--
Gary Johnson gjoh...@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
Sir Fluffy d'Meow
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> thought for a moment, and meowed:
> Sir Fluffy d'Meow (fluf...@world.com) wrote:
>
> > That a /gaming/ Newsgroup --
> >nothing especially controversial -- is forced to give serious
> >Consideration to moderating itself is A Bit Much.
>
> But wouldn't such a newsgroup be a prime target for Moderationist
> strategy ?
Such a Possibility is dependent upon the Assumption that all who support the
Existence of more moderated Newsgroups are of like Minds. This is simply not
the Case. As an Example, Fluffy is supporting the Effort to recreate the
mod.* Hierarchy precisely because it can help to draw Moderation {particularly
Retromoderation} away from other Hierarchies, particulary alt.*. Unmoderated
Newsgroups are among Netnews' most unusual and valuable Characteristics and
merit Preservation.
> I find it very hard to believe that Meowers or Kook Kabalists
> deliberately pursue campaigns of such magnitude to promote creation
> of moderated newsgroups...that simply doesn't make sense...it is
> self-defeating for them.
How so? There are Thousands more Newsgroups from whence these came. For an
Outsider to force a Newsgroup to change its Charter is a Display of
considerable Power, albeit a serious Abuse of that Power.
> It seems to me that Moderationists are much more likely to be at the
> source of these invasions using Meow and Spamming methods
> effectively and cleverly with plenty of Net experience and expertise.
Possibly, but the Motives are more likely personal. Fluffy's Guess is that
the latest Binary Bomb was sent by a present of former Victim of a Meow or
Meow-like Attack, intent on attracting closer Scutiny at the Situation. If
so, it has been successful.
> I remember clearly in 1994 an impending newsgroup moderator...in
> defence of the proposed moderation...stating that in the foreseeable
> future _all_ Big 7 newsgroups would become moderated.
That implies the Existence of /Lots/ of willing Moderators. Are there enough
such Individuals who would be capable of a successful Showing in a UVV Opinion
Poll? Meow-like Attacks only hit a fairly small Number of Newsgroups at any
Time. Will very many existing Newsgroups really choose to become moderated
because of the Possibility of Attacks that have not occurred?
> Again, in the recent rec.pets.cats reorg there was a definite phase
> in the RFD discussion when both trollers and moderationists moved in
> strongly. Once moderation looked like a loser these people seemed to
> fade away and lose interest.
This would indicate that there is not a very strong «Moderationist Movement».
If there was, there would be far more No Votes for each unmoderated CFV.
> Surely no one could deny that Moderation has been the "popular
> panacea" since mid-1996 ?
Moderation has gained Popularity, but only Fools believe it to be a Panacea.
It cannot, for Example, /prevent/ dedicated Attacks by those with but a small
Amount of technical Knowledge. It can, however, make dealing with those
Attacks less difficult in that only the Presence of a valid Approval, rather
than BI or whatever, needs to be evaluated.
Meow.
Fluffy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv
Comment: Fluffy's Meow Page <URL:http://world.com/~flufster/>
iQCVAwUBM6KKHcbziQAzdTzZAQE+GQP/XZLDZ3kCJcjNvKJ0W/glcGBmpIKZQGCF
7C87DOfZrHgykvBr8kHD7OI4+eLezu+X4U1O39yYbtbBU7GOiFb0m1n6fuJA2YBc
FkAuIQKWuLyVY0bKdo7D8E5dU9dY6OoV2gInvGijhSEbUjmsN/gUkibCaD3rEIAC
YkQyvL3vhik=
=sFgG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tim Skirvin
cf...@southern.co.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes:
>It seems to me that Moderationists are much more likely to be at the
>source of these invasions using Meow and Spamming methods
>effectively and cleverly with plenty of Net experience and expertise.
There's a 'Moderationist' Cabal now?
Why doesn't anybody ever inform me of this stuff?
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
Co-Proponent, mod.*
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a><*>
<a href="http://www.killfile.org/~daemons/">The Killfile Dungeon</a>
Bring Me The Fake Totties of Terri DiSisto
Animal Rights Activists and the Elders of Zion forced Colin Douthwaite to say:
# It seems to me that Moderationists are much more likely to be at the
# source of these invasions using Meow and Spamming methods
# effectively and cleverly with plenty of Net experience and expertise.
You are DEAD WRONG. I certainly have had nothing to do with the spam and
binary-bombs that have plagued my Usenet home. None of the other
moderation proponents have had anything to do with it--they either haven't
the technical skills (no offence meant to them) or they haven't the
desire to be so destructive, or they're simply not that mean-spirited.
I suggest you look elsewhere for your culprit, because it certainly was
NOT a pro-moderation poster.
--Camille.
--
"It's not every day you meet a Legend." -- Mike Stackpole
"Good, bad.....I'm the guy with the LART."
http://www.primenet.com/~capella/
Support CAUCE! http://cauce.org/ KILL SPAMMERS AND BURN THE CORPSES!
For a good time, mail RE...@worldnet.att.net or rob...@iea.com
Doug Bolton
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 18:59:08 -0500, i...@yoyo.mil (impLAnt) wrote:
>In article <33a8c065.3642524@news>, me...@direct.ca (Doug Bolton) wrote:
>
>> On 12 Jun 1997 12:41:01 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>> <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> >[rec.games.mecha and alt.best.* snipped]
>> >
>> >Fluffy writes:
>> >
>> >>In article <87oh9c5...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, Andrew says...
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >>>Too many ISPs, backbones, newsadmins, whatever (especially in the US)
>> >>>simply say "we take no responsibility for our users".
>> >
>> >>No. They say that freedom of speech is of paramount concern.
>> >
>> >But what do you do when one persons freedom of spech interfears with
>> >anouthers freedom of speach?
>>
>> Shout louder ?
>
>Are you any kin to Michael?
Well maybe, I can't sing either.
Doug Bolton
On 13 Jun 1997 11:22:11 GMT, std...@et.FH-Osnabrueck.DE (Student) wrote:
>> No. They say that freedom of speech is of paramount concern. Idiots like
>> you who want to revoke the bill of rights and similar covenants in countries
>> other than the USA are merely advocates of a worldwide police state. Or should
>> I say "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Communist! (spit!)
>
>Sorry, couldn't resist !
>
>Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not! Marxism, its a step in that direction.
>And what we know as "Communism" (the russian / chinese version) hasn't much to
>do with the ideas of Marx and Engels (who was a firm owner btw.).
>
>Marx says "everyone by his abilities, everyone to his needs". And that doesn't
>sound so bad. So before blaming something, read up on it. Don't just trust the
>popular media.
>
>Btw : Marx claims that his system can only work in a free society, one without
> a government controlling or suppressing the people, something close
> to no government at all
All societies require a hierarchical structure. Socialism requires a means of
forcing people to submit to its requirements for 'the good of all'. This, of
course, leads to abuse. Forcing people to be less individualistic and more
socially generous isn't much different than forcing them to do anything else
they (we) don't necessarily want to do. Fortunately, requiring people to do that
which is against human nature is bound to fail. Collectivism works with family
groups such as tribal groups, it didn't, hasn't and won't work in larger
societies.
But keep trying. We need a Year Zero once in a while to see what we're missing.
Oh and thanks for 'politically correct', it's been quite a hit.
Mjeow.
fluff...@thepentagon.com
In article <5ntikl$iok$3...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>, cf...@southern.co.nz says...
>>nothing especially controversial -- is forced to give serious
>>Consideration to moderating itself is A Bit Much.
>
>strategy ?
>
>deliberately pursue campaigns of such magnitude to promote creation
>of moderated newsgroups...that simply doesn't make sense...it is
>self-defeating for them.
>
>
>defence of the proposed moderation...stating that in the foreseeable
>future _all_ Big 7 newsgroups would become moderated.
>
>in the RFD discussion when both trollers and moderationists moved in
>strongly. Once moderation looked like a loser these people seemed to
>fade away and lose interest.
>
>panacea" since mid-1996 ?
What I find interesting in the current moderation discussions in
rec.games.mecha is that they plan to go with an innocuous charter
with the provision to allow amendments by the moderators. The first
amendment that is contemplated is the introduction of retromoderation.
That certainly is a sneaky way to get retromoderation past news.groups
without even mentioning it. Thank Bruce Baugh and Russ Allberry for
their suggestions along those lines.
A downward spiral to the bowels of usenet such as alt.fan.keanu-reeves.moderated
would then occur.
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
In article <m3soymm...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
>presence on that list was disruptive given that neither Grubor nor Boursy
>are capable of rational discussions if they are aware that I am listening.
I disagree. My friends John Grubor and Steve Boursy have been engaging in
rational discussion with you while you were there and appreciated your
valuable contributions. They're engaged in rational discussion despite the
presence of Michael Scheidell, and even Martin Hannigan for a while. We all
treat the list as "public forum" and are aware that the Cabal is listening. I
think the list would be more useful to everyone involved if you and Tim
Skirvin were also on it. On the other hand, I'm sorry to see you develop the
tendency to "vogue" (to posture in search of external validation), for even if
what you said were true, it would be their problem, not yours. I would not
consider leaving a forum just because I thought that my mere presense is
causing someone discomfort - it's their responsibility to ignore what they
don't like.
>> This is the second article I post in my life in rec.games.mecha. The
>> first one was the one you've responded to. I received an e-mail from one
>> of the "bullies" I was referring to, ordering me to "stay out of
>> rec.games.mecha" and also saying "kill spammers".
>
>Yes. I understand that. People are extremely angry right now, as a
>result of what's been done to their newsgroup. They aren't in the mood
>for being told it's all their fault.
>
>That doesn't change the origin of the problem, or the fact that it is the
>posters from alt.fan.karl-malden.nose who are attempting to destroy the
>usefulness of the group. It simply means that people who feel like
>they're under attack are reacting like people under attack. You may well
>feel that they are overreacting. In some cases, I would agree with you.
>But I would prefer to strike as close to the root of the problem as
>possible rather than arguing about symptoms; remove the attack, and the
>reactions to the attack will also go away.
I have suspicions, but no proof, about what's behind these attacks.
I'd appreciate your opinion of the following paranoid conspiracy theory.
You know that some people on news.groups are opposed to all unmoderated
newsgroups on philosphical grounds. They want all new newsgroups to be
moderated, and support all efforts to moderated existing unmoderated
newsgroups.
You also know that some people like to "take over" newsgroups and turn
them into their personal fiefdoms. Recently reported examples included
a satellite dish salesman who tried to takes over a satellite discussion
newsgroup, and the misc.business.consulting moderator who tried to take
over a cigar discussion newsgroup (he is in that business too).
You also know that some people play pretty complicated games on the 'net.
For example, at least 3 times this year there were reports of forged 3rd
party cancels on the f-k mailing list which turned out to be bogus.
People are trying hard to drag us into flame wars using falsified evidence.
You probably also know that years ago, perhaps before even you first came on
Usenet, I used to e-mail people a lot who posted "off-topic". I'd politely
suggest to them a more appropriate forum for their posts, or gently point out
that they're "flaming". I was responsible for the early end of quite a few
flame wars and off-topic threads.
I also used to discuss the tactics of this low-level "net.copping" with others
who did it, like Kent Paul Dolan, and we agreed, beased on our experiences,
that such e-mails can only succeed in stopping the behavior if they are
phrased in a friendly, non-confrontational manner.
We found that if a (mis)poster receives several e-mail responses, and one of
them says something like, "Stay out of my newsgroup, you asshole", then in the
vast majority of cases the poster will not only continue posting as before,
but will flame, and possibly mailbomb everyone who had e-mailed him, including
those who were friendly and excuricatingly polite. (That was one of the
reasons why I quit this activity a few years ago.)
Finally, I've decided not to name any names, but if you correlate the names of
the "meowers" in rec.games.mecha with www.netscum.net, you'll notice that some
of their leaders are known Cabal supporters who publicly oppose "spam" and
boast of their postmaster complaints. Why are they amongst the "meowers"?
Here then is what I think _may_ be happening. Certain people on r.g.m have
decided to try to take the newsgroup "moderated" with themselves as the
moderators of course. They provoked a "war" between rec.games.mecha and
alt.fan.karl-malden.nose. Most of the people in r.g.m think they're fighting
the invading "mewers". Most of the "mewers" think they're fighting the
censorship-minded jerks in r.g.m. Both sides are being duped.
Most of the r.g.m "regulars" who think they are "fighting spam" probably
aren't aware of the master plan. When the CFV to moderated r.g.m is finally
issued, the "unwashed masses" in that newsgroup will be sufficiently
brainwashed to vote YES and to support any other efforts to "fight spam". And
of course the various boughs and steins will support any moderation vote.
I don't have any proof that this is happening, but to me this theory seems to
be more consistent with the evidence that yours.
It's further quite possible that the companies that sell the "giant robot"
games and associated accessories are interested in taking the forum moderated.
In the recent example that I adduced, a satellite dish dealer has declared
himself the "mediator" (retromoderator) of an unmoderated alt newsgroup and
begin forging cancels for any articles that were critical of the product he
was selling (as well as any articles that criticized his "retromoderation").
Once again, I have no evidence of their involvement, but I assure you that the
"market research" people at many companies watch Usenet very carefully and are
very interested in what is said where about there products - and they don't
like unmoderated Usenet newsgroups.
>> The same person has posted numerous articles in r.g.m calling for
>> moderation and even retromoderation (forged cancels). Please explain why
>> it's OK for this person to post meta-discussions that belong in
>> news.groups, and it's not OK for me to comment on this proposal.
>
>I have no problem with you commenting on my opinions in this newsgroup.
But you're not the one e-mailing people and ordering them to "stay out of my
newsgroup". Don't you realize that such an e-mail would have provoked many
posters into posting even more off-topic trash in the newsgroup in question,
and that the sender knew it very well? This person's actions display either
malice or extremely poor judgment. How can you support a proposal to make such
a person a newsgroup moderator?
Similarly, some wannabe-censor is now posting obnoxious public "off-topic
notices" in rec.photo.*. The obvious and expected result of his actions is to
draw in more flames and off-topic traffic. I bet that soon he'll propose to
take some of the affected newsgroup moderated, with him as the moderator.
>> I also want to make clear that I don't consider attacks on newsgroups to
>> be a Good Thing.
>
>I'm aware of that, and I hope everyone else is aware of that as well. I
>don't consider you part of this problem, at the least. That's the reason
>why I'm responding to you at length and largely ignoring the Meowers; you
>have opinions, principles, and perspectives that I consider worth careful
>consideration and discussion, even if I end up disagreeing with them.
Why thank you - aren't you afraid they'll yank away your Cabal card? :-)
>> The control freak I'm talking about has had nothing to contribute to the
>> "giant robot games" discussion. This person is interested in controlling
>> the discussion, in ordering people around, in having their plugs pulled,
>> and instead of r.g.m it could well be happening in any other newsgroup
>> as long as this obviously disturbed person gets to be "in charge".
>
>I don't think that's the case. I think that person is upset at seeing
>something that they value destroyed by vandals for no other reason than
>that they can and is reacting like a person who has been attacked. I
>think the appropriate solution to all of these problems is to enforce
>separation between the two newsgroups, and robomoderation is one way of
>doing that. Then the crossposts will cease, so will the reactions to
>them, and this group can get back to discussing its topic.
I don't have any simple solution for any problems, sorry.
I do think that sending obnoxious, harrassing e-mail (whether in response to
their Usenet articles or for any other reason) should be treated as a very
serious form of net-abuse by ISPs. Most ISPs will react to a report of one of
their users mailbombing a site very quickly. Some will even lock out the
account first and ask questions later. Perhaps we should adapt a policy of
pulling the plugs on people who sends such harrassing e-mail, since it's been
conclusively shown to provoke further net-abuse by the recipients.
As for the concrete situation in r.g.m: people who are now discussing
"fighting spam" should be asked, politely, to move these threads to a more
appropriate news.* forum. Much of the other "off-topic" material is
sufficiently redundant to qualify as "cancellable spam". In the past Stan
Kalish used to forge cancels for less redundant gunk. I suppose he's not doing
it this time so as not to interfere with the upcoming call for moderation. :-)
If your network connection can't handle just killfiling on "from:" everyone
involved in the flame wars, then why not ask someone to issue NoCeMs for the
"off-topic" material and urge one's sysadmin to apply these NoCeMs to spool?
Why not ask one's sysadmin to alias out the sites that originate only the
"off-topic" material?
>>> The only letter-writing campaigns launched from here are in response to
>>> organized and systematic attempts to destroy the usefulness of the
>>> newsgroup by crossposting mindless junk into it. The only unfortunate
>>> thing about those sorts of attempts is that they've failed. Vandals do
>>> not deserve to have accounts and do not deserve to be able to post.
>
>> Who appointed you to decide who deserves to be able to post?
>
>I'm a user of Usenet, which is a community effort between everyone who is
>a part of it. I'm providing my input on how I feel the community should
>be run, just as you are.
Everyone deserves to be able to post. Even the net-abusers.
>> Perhaps the self-appointed censor who e-mails people to say, "stay out
>> of my newsgroup" doesn't deserve to be able to e-mail.
>
>Perhaps not. You have your standards, and I have mine. One standard or
>another will be imposed; it's not possible to avoid that. We simply have
>to decide which one.
Ineffective censorship attempts provoke further net-abuse. If your friends
really wish to discuss "giant robot games" in peace, they should repudiate the
leaders of the moderation effort, whose activities clearly incite further
net-abuse, refuse to be used a pawns in the "anti-spam" wars, and clamly
ignore any future invasions. This is the standard of honor.
>>> What newsgroup are you reading, Dimitri? Did you make a typo and
>>> accidentally read news.admin.net-abuse.misc when you were trying to
>>> read rec.games.mecha? You may want to check your typing skills and try
>>> again; that description bears no resemblence to the newsgroup we were
>>> discussing.
>
>> I'm talking about rec.games.mecha, where your friends are discussing
>> fighting spam, complaining to postmasters, and pulling plugs, and
>> whoever is interested in discussing the "giant robot" games has to dig
>> trhough the gunk that belongs in news.*.
>
>They do, yes. And yes, I'm discussing that, as are some of my friends,
>because that's what a lot of people care about discussing right now.
>Large problems get discussed. That's the way Usenet works. However, the
>group certainly does contain on-topic traffic as well, however drowned
>out, *from the regulars*.
One interesting technical solution that was discussed during the NoCeM
debates but never implemented as far as I know: let one or more people
post the message-ids of the articles they consider worth reading. Let
the readers download and read only what one or more "reviewers" they
trust have approved.
>>> If one cannot have a reasonable expectation of finding traffic
>>> concerning the subject of a newsgroup in that newsgroup, Usenet is
>>> worthless. All of your arguments about censorship become entirely
>>> academic at that point.
>
>> The answer to speech you don't like is more speech.
>
>> If 50% of the traffic in a given newsgroup is off-topic, the best way to
>> increase the S/N ratio is to post more signal. People will find it and
>> will read it and respond to it. Post a sample killfile. Explain to the
>> misposters why their behavior is dishonorable (if it is).
>
>I understand this argument. I even like it quite a bit in many
>circumstances. But I also recognize that it's possible to drown out
>discussion even with all of these measures, that enough valuable,
>intelligent people who make the forum what it is will not be willing or
>able to take those measures, and that it is possible to make a Usenet
>newsgroup nigh worthless even with people taking those measures. In other
>words, that's not a realistic solution to every problem.
But if turning a newsgroup moderated is considered a possible solution for
such a problem, then those who want to moderate the newsgroup may try to
exacerbate the problem in order to convince others that moderation is the best
solution. It certainly looks to me like this may be happening in r.g.m.
>>> I don't care. If incompetent providers and spam havens want to opt out
>>> of Usenet and ensure that nothing their users post ever shows up at any
>>> responsible site, they can go with my blessing.
>
>> It does sound to me that you don't care about the future of Usenet.
>
>I think you're aware that I do. At which point you should be considering
>how my vision of the future of Usenet may be different than yours, given
>that it doesn't seem like I care about the future you envision.
Sorry, you're just playing with words.
Do you want Usenet to split up and die, like Fidonet did?
>> I don't think that abusing moderation to the point where many large
>> providers consider all newsgroups to be unmoderated is a Good Thing,
>
>I don't think that's ever going to happen, because I don't think those
>large providers are going to consider it an abuse.
Did you think that Netcom would disable cancels when you first saw my cbcb?
(Get it at http://www.thecia.net/~kibo/cancelbot.html :-)
>> Russ, what do you think about Chris Lewis forging cancels for the 27
>> articles posted by Kibo, whose only thing in common was the mention of
>> Chris Lewis's Net.Scum site - http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html?
>
>I don't follow news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins and therefore do not have
>enough information to make an informed decision.
Very well, here's what Chris Lewis wrote in news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins:
]Path: ...!data.ramona.vix.com!sonysjc!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!News1.Vancouver.iSTAR.net!news.istar.net!n1van.istar!hammer.uoregon.edu!nrchh45.rich.nt.com!bcarh189.bnr.ca!despams.ocunix.on.ca!not-for-mail
]Message-ID: <97061012583...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>
]Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins,news.lists.filters
]Date: 9 Jun 1997 12:58:36 EST
]Followup-To: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
]From: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
]Subject: EMP/ECP cancelled (Re: When will Sol. 2.6 be released?: kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net>) @@NCM
]Organization: Despams 'R Us
]Approved: news-admin-bul...@math.psu.edu
]X-Complain-To: kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net>
]Lines: 156
]
]-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
]
]
]
]
]27 articles were cancelled in 79 groups. The Breidbart Index is 45.22 (BI2: 62.11)
]
]
]
]Regards,
]Chris Lewis
]cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
]
]@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
]Version: 0.9
]Issuer: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca;
]Type: spam
]Action: hide
]Count: 27
]Notice-ID: ferret19970609.24
]@@BEGIN NCM BODY
]<5nd8qe$fa0$4...@news.thecia.net> comp.dcom.cell-relay,
] news.admin.censorship,
] news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
]<5nd932$fa0$6...@news.thecia.net> alt.guitar,
] alt.guitar.bass,
] alt.guitar.tab,
] rec.music.makers.guitar,
] rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5nd99g$fa0$7...@news.thecia.net> comp.os.linux.setup,
] comp.os.linux.misc,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5nd9lc$fa0$8...@news.thecia.net> rec.aquaria.marine.reefs,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5nd9tr$fa0$9...@news.thecia.net> alt.comp.periphs.scanner,
] comp.periphs.scanners,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5ndas7$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> comp.windows.x,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5nda53$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5ndaao$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.games.frp.storyteller,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5ndaii$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.sport.soccer,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5ndan8$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> soc.culture.caribbean,
] soc.culture.african.american,
] soc.culture.canada,
] rec.sport.olympic,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5ndbla$fa0$2...@news.thecia.net> comp.music.midi,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5ndb2g$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.games.miniatures.warhammer,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5ndb7b$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.games.video.sony,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5ndbbb$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.music.celtic,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5ndbfk$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.sport.hockey,
] rec.sport.basketball.pro,
] rec.sport.baseball,
] rec.sport.soccer,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5nedjv$i06$2...@news.thecia.net> comp.lang.c++,
] comp.protocols.tcp-ip,
] comp.unix.programmer,
] comp.unix.questions,
] news.admin.censorship,
] news.admin.net-abuse.misc,
] news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
]<5ned7p$i06$1...@news.thecia.net> comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5nedrf$i06$3...@news.thecia.net> comp.sys.hp.hardware,
] comp.sys.hp.misc,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5nee6e$i06$4...@news.thecia.net> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5neebv$i06$5...@news.thecia.net> rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5neelj$i06$6...@news.thecia.net> rec.motorcycles.racing,
] news.admin.censorship,
] rec.motorcycles,
] rec.motorcycles.harley
]<5nefij$i06$1...@news.thecia.net> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,
] news.admin.censorship,
] alt.culture.hawaii
]<5neet9$i06$7...@news.thecia.net> rec.pets.dogs.behavior,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5nef3h$i06$8...@news.thecia.net> rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
] news.admin.censorship,
] news.adminn.net-abuse.misc
]<5nefrs$i06$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.boats.paddle,
] news.admin.censorship,
] news.admin.misc
]<5neg1u$i06$1...@news.thecia.net> sci.agriculture,
] news.admin.censorship
]<5neg95$i06$1...@news.thecia.net> comp.sys.sun.admin,
] comp.unix.solaris,
] news.admin.censorship
]@@END NCM BODY
]
]|Path: bcarh8ac.bnr.ca!bmdhh222.bnr.ca!btnet-feed2!easynet-uk!disgorge.news.demon.net!demon!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!europa.clark.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.0.65.142!news-feed1.tiac.net!news.thecia.net!not-for-mail
]|From: kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net>
]|Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay,news.admin.censorship,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
]|Subject: Re: SSCOP Issue
]|Date: 8 Jun 1997 03:27:10 GMT
]|Organization: Complete Internet Access, Inc
]|Message-ID: <5nd8qe$fa0$4...@news.thecia.net>
]|References: <33924B02...@nortel.ca>
]|NNTP-Posting-Host: shell.thecia.net
]|X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA 970409; i386 BSD/OS 2.1]
]|Lines: 24
]|
]|Deepak Verma <dee...@nortel.ca> wrote:
]|: I'm looking to find out what are the possible scenarios in
]|: which UNIs on a switch can transfer from a data transfer state
]|: to an idle state. More specifically, I'm trying to find out in
]|: what scenarios does the SSCOP connection stay in an idle state
]|: without trying to re-establish itself.
]|
]|: From my understanding of the UNI specs and the QSAAL specs, in most
]|: cases, when a UNI exists and a carrier exists, an attempt would be
]|: made to re-establish the SSCOP connection. To repeat, is there
]|: any other scenario, where it would not try and re-establish???
]|
]|: Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
]|
]|Feedback: Northern Telecom is the home of Chris Lewis, the asshole
]|that forges cancels from the bnr.ca computer.
]|
]|Please boycott Northern Telecom - censors and forgers
]|
]|See http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html for more info on the forger.
]|
]|
]|--
]|-=| KIBO is EVERYWHERE! |=-
]- --
]All postings to news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins are unconfirmed and
]unverified unless stated otherwise by the moderators. All opinions
]expressed above are considered the opinions of the original poster
]not the moderators or their respective employers.
]
]For a copy of the guidelines to this group, see
]http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/home/nana/
]
]-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
]Version: 2.6
]
]iQCVAgUBM5w2fp3FmCyJjHfhAQFXzgP/QTUPI/R6U9E9fkBVQHtHDQGAJ5czfR86
]DGYzKQO7tc2HczijqLM56N/1OPENb9nyK/pxh76oZRrTYX1LYJVlfkLcxsxPnAUo
]DvN1C1R4ySs/DHphRtQrtejr0Vte1oocrynLbHRxlU1U+YUIBbA+hU6CORoyBIuj
]O0ttOefcnRk=
]=KaNO
]-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
sw
In article <5nu5jd$3...@drn.zippo.com>, <fluff...@thepentagon.com> wrote:
>In article <5ntikl$iok$3...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>, cf...@southern.co.nz says...
>
>would then occur.
Yes-sir-ree. I'm sure that on-topic Keanu Reeves discussions are the end
goal of every pro-moderation advocate out there.
I'm sure... nay, *certain* that people like Russ and Tim and the rest woke
up one morning a few years ago and said "By god, you know what we need to
do? We need to go spend our valuable time -- time which we could more
productively use to pick lint from between our toes -- and force moderation
down the throats of peace-loving Keanu Reeves fans everywhere."
Yeeeeeeah.
--JT
Douglas Weller
On Sat, 14 Jun 97 11:52:16 EDT, d...@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
wrote:
[SNIP]
>>> Russ, what do you think about Chris Lewis forging cancels for the 27
>>> articles posted by Kibo, whose only thing in common was the mention of
>>> Chris Lewis's Net.Scum site - http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html?
>>
>>I don't follow news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins and therefore do not have
>>enough information to make an informed decision.
>
>Very well, here's what Chris Lewis wrote in news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins:
>
Thanks for this. Spam is spam, and this seems to qualify -- you can't just
alter part of a post and leave the rest the same and escape the Breidbart
index, or people could get away with it all the time.
So someone asks for feedback on a technical question, or asks something
else, and the reply is an irrelevant attack on Chris Lewis. The fact that a
previous article is quoted doesn't make the articles different. Do you
really think I should be able to, say advertise a satellite dish on 79
newsgroups by replying to questions saying I can sell them a dish, and
escape being cancelled because the question I'm replying to is different
each time?
Doug
Reality is a point of view
+---- fluff...@thepentagon.com wrote (14 Jun 1997 06:16:29 -0700):
| What I find interesting in the current moderation discussions in
| rec.games.mecha is that they plan to go with an innocuous charter
| with the provision to allow amendments by the moderators. The first
| amendment that is contemplated is the introduction of retromoderation.
|
| That certainly is a sneaky way to get retromoderation past news.groups
| without even mentioning it. Thank Bruce Baugh and Russ Allberry for
| their suggestions along those lines.
Is this true? I thought .q was a BAD, SPECIAL CASE deal.
White 1975 Cordoba
fluff...@thepentagon.com wrote:
>
> In article <5ntikl$iok$3...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>, cf...@southern.co.nz says...
> >
> >>nothing especially controversial -- is forced to give serious
> >>Consideration to moderating itself is A Bit Much.
> >
> >strategy ?
> >
> >I find it very hard to believe that Meowers or Kook Kabalists
> >deliberately pursue campaigns of such magnitude to promote creation
> >of moderated newsgroups...that simply doesn't make sense...it is
> >self-defeating for them.
> >
> >It seems to me that Moderationists are much more likely to be at the
> >source of these invasions using Meow and Spamming methods
> >effectively and cleverly with plenty of Net experience and expertise.
> >
> >I remember clearly in 1994 an impending newsgroup moderator...in
> >defence of the proposed moderation...stating that in the foreseeable
> >future _all_ Big 7 newsgroups would become moderated.
> >
> >Again, in the recent rec.pets.cats reorg there was a definite phase
> >in the RFD discussion when both trollers and moderationists moved in
> >strongly. Once moderation looked like a loser these people seemed to
> >fade away and lose interest.
> >
> >Surely no one could deny that Moderation has been the "popular
> >panacea" since mid-1996 ?
>
> rec.games.mecha is that they plan to go with an innocuous charter
> with the provision to allow amendments by the moderators. The first
> amendment that is contemplated is the introduction of retromoderation.
>
> That certainly is a sneaky way to get retromoderation past news.groups
> without even mentioning it. Thank Bruce Baugh and Russ Allberry for
> their suggestions along those lines.
>
> would then occur.
I think Bruse and Russ would enjoy taking a downward spiral to
the bowels of Keanu Reeves.
Russ Allbery
Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> writes:
> +---- fluff...@thepentagon.com wrote (14 Jun 1997 06:16:29 -0700):
> | What I find interesting in the current moderation discussions in
> | rec.games.mecha is that they plan to go with an innocuous charter
> | with the provision to allow amendments by the moderators. The first
> | amendment that is contemplated is the introduction of
> | retromoderation.
> |
> | That certainly is a sneaky way to get retromoderation past
> | news.groups without even mentioning it. Thank Bruce Baugh and Russ
> | Allberry for their suggestions along those lines.
> +----
> Is this true?
It's being posted by one of the people actively attempting to destroy the
group. What do you think? Of course it's not completely true. It's a
blend of small amounts of truth with lies in order to make it sound
credible; I fully expect the Meowers to launch a campaign to try to defeat
moderation, and this is likely to be typical of the opening salvos.
> I thought .q was a BAD, SPECIAL CASE deal.
nnq? I think I posted repeatedly during that debate that moderators have
historically always had the ability to change their policies based on the
changing needs of the readership and have done so in nearly every
moderated newsgroup on Usenet which has been around for a while. There
are only a few very limited situations in which lack of flexibility is a
good thing; the debate over nnq, in my opinion, was over whether it was
one such case.
Some limits on that flexibility are a good thing. Retromoderation is
clearly unacceptable, for example. But locking the moderation policy down
to minutia with no leeway for any changes ever is a bad idea except in a
very limited set of special cases. What we're likely to get out of the
discussion is some sort of flexibility under particular circumstances and
some other things which aren't flexible.
But it's not my proposal, so I couldn't tell you for sure.
sw
In article <TXPa9D1...@bwalk.dm.com>,
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <d...@bwalk.dm.com> wrote:
>In article <m3soymm...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
>Most of the r.g.m "regulars" who think they are "fighting spam" probably
>aren't aware of the master plan. When the CFV to moderated r.g.m is finally
>issued, the "unwashed masses" in that newsgroup will be sufficiently
>brainwashed to vote YES and to support any other efforts to "fight spam". And
>of course the various boughs and steins will support any moderation vote.
>
>I don't have any proof that this is happening, but to me this theory seems to
>be more consistent with the evidence that yours.
You're absolutely and completely right.
The whole moderation thing is just part of my personal plan for world
domination, hingeing on control of the usenet and brainwashing of the
populace.
I'm genuinely sorry you were able to put the pieces together, Doctor Vulis.
Because, you see, now that you know, we have to silence you. It's for your
own good, and the future of the planet. We'll have a black helicopter by
to pick you up in about ten, okay?
--JT
fluff...@thepentagon.com
In article <5nukep$m...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Bring says...
>
>Animal Rights Activists and the Elders of Zion forced Colin Douthwaite to say:
>
># source of these invasions using Meow and Spamming methods
># effectively and cleverly with plenty of Net experience and expertise.
>You are DEAD WRONG. I certainly have had nothing to do with the spam and
>binary-bombs that have plagued my Usenet home. None of the other
>moderation proponents have had anything to do with it--they either haven't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are on the record as opposing moderation. Now it seems you have been
caught in a lie. I wonder how many others you have been making?
sw
A figment of sw's imagination, fluff...@thepentagon.com, exposited thusly...
>>Animal Rights Activists and the Elders of Zion forced Colin Douthwaite to say:
>>
>># It seems to me that Moderationists are much more likely to be at the
>># source of these invasions using Meow and Spamming methods
>># effectively and cleverly with plenty of Net experience and expertise.
>>
>>You are DEAD WRONG. I certainly have had nothing to do with the spam and
>>binary-bombs that have plagued my Usenet home. None of the other
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>moderation proponents have had anything to do with it--they either haven't
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You are on the record as opposing moderation. Now it seems you have been
>caught in a lie. I wonder how many others you have been making?
You know, there's nothing sadder than to see two figments of my imagination
argueing like this. Guys, please. And fluffymeow, our evil plan to force
moderation upon rec.games.mecha is already succeeding -- I don't think we
need to keep routing articles there, 'kay?
Honestly, I swear. I give you figments portions of my vast intellect and
computer time, and what do you use it for? Argueing with each other. You're
not supposed to argue with each *other*, darn you!
Sheesh. Some figments.
--JT, Pro-Moderation Fascist World-Conquerer
Ken Arromdee
s...@eyrie.org (sw) wrote:
>I'm sure... nay, *certain* that people like Russ and Tim and the rest woke
>up one morning a few years ago and said "By god, you know what we need to
>do? We need to go spend our valuable time -- time which we could more
>productively use to pick lint from between our toes -- and force moderation
>down the throats of peace-loving Keanu Reeves fans everywhere."
>Yeeeeeeah.
It's not that simple. What usually happens is that people get what they think
is a good idea, and then get so enthused that they get carried away with it.
In some sense, the motivation to improve the net is still there, but it's
accompanied by an unwillingness to listen to or accommodate other people.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@randomc.com, karr...@nyx.nyx.net,
http://www.randomc.com/~arromdee)
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie
which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and
I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the
structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." --Albert Einstein
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 14 Jun 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> As for the concrete situation in r.g.m: people who are now discussing
> "fighting spam" should be asked, politely, to move these threads to a more
> appropriate news.* forum. Much of the other "off-topic" material is
> sufficiently redundant to qualify as "cancellable spam". In the past Stan
> Kalish used to forge cancels for less redundant gunk.
(First of all, you already know I don't agree with the way you use the
word "forge"--I don't pretend to be anyone else in a cancel message)
No, I didn't issue cancels for the less redundant. Harder to identify as
spam, yes. Did several off-topic posts that weren't spam remain
uncancelled? Yes.
> I suppose he's not doing it this time so as not to interfere with the
> upcoming call for moderation. :-)
As I've explained several times, I'm not generally (except when "Something
*Really*, *Really* Bad That No-one Has Started to Cancel yet happens)
cancelling now. If I'm ready to go full speed again before moderation, I
will. And, as I did before, if necessary, I'll implement UDPs on
individuals and/or sites to make sure all recursive spamming and bombing
stops. I encourage other despammers to do so if necessary, and to look at
alt.fan.karl-malden.nose carefully if they haven't already.
And, it's important to note as I and others have noted before that not all
who regularly post to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose spam--furthermore, not all
those who commit net-abuse there really intend to in the first place.
Major bombings affiliated with "the Nose" over the past sixth months,
furthermore, haven't occurred in the Nose so as to spare its traffic
and/or not annoy its readers.
I've closely followed meow-related-and-associated abuse for the better
part of a year. Many of the characteristics of the recent bombing alone
(which, furthermore, it should be noted, wasn't entirely a binary one)
place a large amount of doubt in my mind that this bombing was the doing
of a proponent of moderation or an enemy of malicious meowers/Nosers.
There has been a shift of location of the bulk of meow abuse in recent
months, and the location of this bombing too uncannily matches previous
meow-related haunts.
And there are other characteristics which I won't go into at length that
strongly suggest this *was* a "pro-meow" attack in the, inherently in this
case, malicious sense.
I think an unimportant, unasked question, which would help matters if
answered is "Was the response of the despammers quick enough in deleting
the bombing?".
Stan
P.S. I won't absolutely eliminate a pro-mod. person as a suspect,
however. It would be foolish to do so at this point.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM6OvhpyiGl9g1kgJAQG8owP/WZ9eu4XkuosdRGYEaMt7L3DK/VFBDbIR
7EJPZjScAiE+JCdu2Ko4kZN8GAAcgWeffDKC8P1TOrQ+Kj34l9de8W1t4ptPl6Uv
0+/mm+0JyzsuNc9jCOmULzZes8lx/WVQH9Az5DJT0oBch6/m9E5V/qV70yXpFlam
Zh0d4sWb08I=
=NMUs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jim Riley
In article <m3bu5dp...@windlord.Stanford.EDU> Russ Allbery wrote:
>If this sort of thing can happen to an unmoderated group and the only
>possible way of addressing the problem is to moderate the group, then
>unmoderated groups are broken and all new newsgroups should be
>robomoderated.
Other hierarchies set limits on the amount of cross-posting allowed,
why can't the same be done for the Big-8? And if you can define
how many groups can be posted to, why can't you define which groups
can be included in the cross-post?
How can this be enforced? Simply dropping non-compliant posts.
Or better yet implement distributed robomoderation. The news
software can figure out that a submission is destined for a moderated
group and divert it to e-mail. Why is it such a jump in logic to
divert it to a relatively simple script to determine if the post is
acceptable or not?
--
Jim Riley
Joe Bernstein
Bruce Baugh <br...@phix.com> wrote:
> (Weren't meowers brought up during the rec.pets.cats reorg? Granted that some
> r.p.c'ers had almost optimally unuseful responses, I share their concern.)
rpc had already *beaten* ast. More than once. Not to mention any
number of other trolls - I've seen rpc given as a canonical example of a
group to be trolled in any number of places (definitions of "troll", the
troll FAQ, the ast FAQ, ...), complete with suggestions of how to do it.
They simply were not impressed, and no, not all of the methods they used
to beat them were illegitimate.
I'm disturbed by the notion that all groups should be moderated, or
retromod should be ok, simply because of creatures like ast.
news.groups has, several times now, survived attacks, albeit not (since
I've been here) on quite this scale. news.admin.net-abuse.misc survived
the dictionary spam, for crying out loud, which puts what I've seen
about rec.games.mecha way to shame. Neither was a justification for
moderating the relevant group.
There *are* justifications for moderating news.groups. As I recall,
much of the initial impetus came from the incredible number of *threads*
that the Kashmir debate resulted in, which there was no easy way to
killfile, and this problem has recurred with every controversial debate
since (rather spectacularly with the Ultima one currently). This has
*nothing* to do with such concerted destruction efforts as spam-trolling
or plain trolling or binary bombing, all of which tend to self-correct
on healthy groups with significant numbers of interested readers.
Moderation should be a way of accomplishing specific goals, not a
generic "let's build a wall against the barbarians!" solution.
I suspect the problem in this case is that there are not enough
interested readers (it probably takes more people to defend a group than
it should to justify its creation), and also that it's taken this long
for the serious net-abuse folks to get involved.
Joe Bernstein
once again without any kind of killfile, by the way
Timothy J Young
Joe Bernstein (j...@sfbooks.com) wrote:
: Bruce Baugh <br...@phix.com> wrote:
: > (Weren't meowers brought up during the rec.pets.cats reorg? Granted
: > that some r.p.c'ers had almost optimally unuseful responses, I share
: > their concern.)
: rpc had already *beaten* ast. More than once. Not to mention any
: number of other trolls - I've seen rpc given as a canonical example of a
: group to be trolled in any number of places (definitions of "troll", the
: troll FAQ, the ast FAQ, ...), complete with suggestions of how to do it.
: They simply were not impressed, and no, not all of the methods they used
: to beat them were illegitimate.
: I'm disturbed by the notion that all groups should be moderated,
It's the future, like it or not. Think of all usenet as one big staging of
a theatrical version of Golding's "Lord of the Flies." Hobbes, if he were
alive, would be wetting his pants if he knew of the existence of this
forum.
There are kinds and varieites of moderation I'm a bit concerned about, but
overall, you're going to see more modeartion in the future, for better or
for worse. I mean, news.groups readers seem to have reached a consensus
that soc.culture.* should all be moderated, for instance. That range of
groups that aren't viable as unmoderated is only going to expand.
: retromod should be ok, simply because of creatures like ast.
"Creatures like a.s.t" is defining the problem very narrowly, IMO.
: news.groups has, several times now, survived attacks, albeit not (since
: I've been here) on quite this scale. news.admin.net-abuse.misc survived
: the dictionary spam, for crying out loud, which puts what I've seen
: about rec.games.mecha way to shame. Neither was a justification for
: moderating the relevant group.
But news.groups is huge. Are you saying that only groups large enough
to be largely immune to attacks from "meow" or binary bombs or the like
are viable? I very much disagree.
: There *are* justifications for moderating news.groups. As I recall,
: much of the initial impetus came from the incredible number of *threads*
: that the Kashmir debate resulted in, which there was no easy way to
: killfile, and this problem has recurred with every controversial debate
: since (rather spectacularly with the Ultima one currently). This has
: *nothing* to do with such concerted destruction efforts as spam-trolling
: or plain trolling or binary bombing, all of which tend to self-correct
: on healthy groups with significant numbers of interested readers.
What's the difference? If anything, the Kashmir and Ultima debates are
fundamentally on-topic for news.groups in a way that "KURT COBAIN IS
DEAD!!" and the like are not. I know which I'd rather see on news.groups,
even if I have no particular interest in Kashmir or Ultima.
: Moderation should be a way of accomplishing specific goals, not a
: generic "let's build a wall against the barbarians!" solution.
And what exactly do you mean by that? What other use for moderation is
there, when it comes right down to it? (Unless you're talking about an
announcement group with only a few posts at a time.)
: I suspect the problem in this case is that there are not enough
: interested readers (it probably takes more people to defend a group than
: it should to justify its creation)
How many is enough? Only groups with a *huge* number of readers/posters
are viable according to your definition.
: and also that it's taken this long
: for the serious net-abuse folks to get involved.
They've got a lot of things to deal with.
: Joe Bernstein
: once again without any kind of killfile, by the way
--
| Tim Young (tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) Red Sox o-Meter : |
| GWU Law School '99 : Dartmouth College '96 :( |
Bring Me The Fake Totties of Terri DiSisto
Animal Rights Activists and the Elders of Zion forced to say:
# You are on the record as opposing moderation. Now it seems you have been
# caught in a lie. I wonder how many others you have been making?
Wrong, Fluffy. I am on the record as opposing moderation of
REC.GAMES.MECHA--being instead in favour of the creation of
REC.GAMES.MECHA.MODERATED.
Try again.
--Camille.
--
"It's not every day you meet a Legend." -- Mike Stackpole
"Good, bad.....I'm the guy with the LART."
http://www.primenet.com/~capella/
Support CAUCE! http://cauce.org/ KILL SPAMMERS AND BURN THE CORPSES!
SPAM ADVOCATE RE...@WORLDNET.ATT.NET THREATENS LAWSUIT, FILM AT 11
Stella Nemeth
gjoh...@dream.season.com (Reality is a point of view) wrote:
> +---- fluff...@thepentagon.com wrote (14 Jun 1997 06:16:29 -0700):
> | What I find interesting in the current moderation discussions in
> | rec.games.mecha is that they plan to go with an innocuous charter
> | with the provision to allow amendments by the moderators. The first
> | amendment that is contemplated is the introduction of retromoderation.
> |
> | That certainly is a sneaky way to get retromoderation past news.groups
> | without even mentioning it. Thank Bruce Baugh and Russ Allberry for
> | their suggestions along those lines.
> +----
>
>Is this true? I thought .q was a BAD, SPECIAL CASE deal.
Please don't believe everyting Henrietta Thomas writes. No one on the
nnq Moderation Team has any intention of using Retromoderation. I'm
on record as saying that although Retromoderation is NOT immoral in
itself (being the only moderation power in most Commercial nets),
adding it to the powers of a Usenet-style Moderator's powers IS
immoral and I have no intention of allowing it to happen.
Nor am I alone in that set of beliefs within the Moderation Team. Our
Charter calls for only third party cancels of MMF and Spam that we
don't manage to catch with the bot and we are holding to that. No one
on the Moderation Team cancels messages while holding the moderator's
title. They can do one or the other, but not both.
Stella Nemeth at sne...@home.com
One of the Moderators of news.newusers.questions
Reality is a point of view
+---- sne...@home.com wrote (Sun, 15 Jun 1997 17:53:30 GMT):
| gjoh...@dream.season.com (Reality is a point of view) wrote:
| > +---- fluff...@thepentagon.com wrote (14 Jun 1997 06:16:29 -0700):
| > | rec.games.mecha is that they plan to go with an innocuous charter
| > | with the provision to allow amendments by the moderators. The first
| > +----
| >Is this true? I thought .q was a BAD, SPECIAL CASE deal.
|
| Please don't believe everyting Henrietta Thomas writes. No one on the
| nnq Moderation Team has any intention of using Retromoderation.
I was commenting on the 'innocuous' 'provision' stuff, not any
specific policy.
I thought it was a Proponent of n.n.q saying that the
insulation was a special case solution. A Proponent listed on
the CFV anyway.
Don't fix what ain't broke seems to be the rule, and is a
reasonable one, so I'll stop crying wolf after the most recent
RFD's I've tangled myself in get past CFV. It was an
educational experience, thanks n.g.
Reality is a point of view
+---- j...@sfbooks.com wrote (Sun, 15 Jun 1997 08:23:04 -0600):
| I'm disturbed by the notion that all groups should be moderated, or
| retromod should be ok, simply because of creatures like ast.
Yep.
Ever see the movie Brazil? The reason I ask is because it is a
weird reference, which I have a habit of, to the idea of
portions of the terrorized herding other portions of the
terrorized away from or to something through acts of
pseudoterrorism. I'm not saying rra is a kook, I'm saying the
possibility exists.
Direction should not be driven by irritants.
Bruce Baugh
In article <slrn5q8t8e....@dream.season.com>, Reality is a point of view wrote:
> Direction should not be driven by irritants.
Immune systems the world over seem to disagree.
From where I sit, formulating a response to the problems that have
actually come up in a newsgroup, and some awareness of common problems
known to occur widely, makes a very great deal of sense. Are you
suggesting that pght to take action without reference to their own
thexpereicexperience (and that of others), or just that they ought not
be concerned about recurring sources of disruption? I ask seriously,
by the way, because I'mpretty sure I'm failing to grasp your point,
and even if I end up disagreeing with it, I'd like to understand it.
--
Bruce Baugh | http://www.phix.com/~bruce
ari...@eyrie.org | Christlib - Christian & libertarian concerns
| New work by S.M. Stirling & George Alec Effing er
"I am what I know, a glacier made from layers of history's snow"
Reality is a point of view
+---- ari...@eyrie.org wrote (15 Jun 1997 23:29:46 GMT):
| In article <slrn5q8t8e....@dream.season.com>, Reality is a point of view wrote:
| > Direction should not be driven by irritants.
|
| Immune systems the world over seem to disagree.
Direction should drive direction, avoiding irritants. That way
you get where you want to go instead of where irritants want
you to go.
Sometimes fever requires a bathtub of ice water.
| From where I sit, formulating a response to the problems that have
| actually come up in a newsgroup, and some awareness of common problems
| known to occur widely, makes a very great deal of sense. Are you
| suggesting that pght to take action without reference to their own
| thexpereicexperience (and that of others), or just that they ought not
| be concerned about recurring sources of disruption? I ask seriously,
| by the way, because I'mpretty sure I'm failing to grasp your point,
| and even if I end up disagreeing with it, I'd like to understand it.
+----
I know of at least one newsgroup suffering the presence of lots
of off topic tripe for extended periods, including
crossposting. Lots of things have been tried. Luckily there
isn't enough interest in moderation. Along the way there has
been frequent live reenactments of classic USENETish dialog.
Everyone has taken a turn complaining about the tripe. People
like to complain.
Bitch & Moan
Random & Noise
Questions & Answers
Announcements & Gossip
Sorted by volume? If it were is that an indication of bias?
Will that bias go away under moderation?
mod.mod-abuse.unmoderated
mod.mod-abuse.moderated
mod.mod-abuse.misc
?
Henrietta Thomas
On 14 Jun 1997 16:19:02 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> writes:
>
>> +---- fluff...@thepentagon.com wrote (14 Jun 1997 06:16:29 -0700):
>> | What I find interesting in the current moderation discussions in
>> | rec.games.mecha is that they plan to go with an innocuous charter
>> | with the provision to allow amendments by the moderators. The first
>> | amendment that is contemplated is the introduction of
>> | retromoderation.
>> |
>> | That certainly is a sneaky way to get retromoderation past
>> | news.groups without even mentioning it. Thank Bruce Baugh and Russ
>> | Allberry for their suggestions along those lines.
>> +----
>
>> Is this true?
>
>It's being posted by one of the people actively attempting to destroy the
>group. What do you think? Of course it's not completely true. It's a
>blend of small amounts of truth with lies in order to make it sound
>credible; I fully expect the Meowers to launch a campaign to try to defeat
>moderation, and this is likely to be typical of the opening salvos.
It is interesting to note that fluffymeow is a recently invented troll.
DejaNews shows only ten articles for him -- 7 in rec.games.mecha, and
3 in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. Yet in one article, he claimed to have
been in Usenet about a year.
If you're reading this, fluffymeow, I suggest you come out and tell us who
you really are. Nobody will believe anyone who is an obvious troll.
>> I thought .q was a BAD, SPECIAL CASE deal.
>
>nnq? I think I posted repeatedly during that debate that moderators have
>historically always had the ability to change their policies based on the
>changing needs of the readership and have done so in nearly every
>moderated newsgroup on Usenet which has been around for a while. There
>are only a few very limited situations in which lack of flexibility is a
>good thing; the debate over nnq, in my opinion, was over whether it was
>one such case.
>
>Some limits on that flexibility are a good thing. Retromoderation is
>clearly unacceptable, for example. But locking the moderation policy down
>to minutia with no leeway for any changes ever is a bad idea except in a
>very limited set of special cases. What we're likely to get out of the
>discussion is some sort of flexibility under particular circumstances and
>some other things which aren't flexible.
I took a stroll through the group and did not see anything which would
make this proposal a re-run of nnq. The current proposal allows the
moderators to change the charter by a 2/3 vote, with the proviso that
major changes "should" be discussed with the readership. If this turns
out to be the final proposal, I would like to see the word "should" changed
to "will", and a few words said about (a) what constitutes "major changes"
and (b) how discussions with the readership will be carried out. There
need not be an elaborate procedure, but there should be something to
indicate how they plan to involve the readership in future charter
modifications.
There _has_ been some discussion in the group about retromoderation, a
banlist, and the possibility of creating a moderated/unmoderated pair. So
the situation does not appear to be really settled yet, and I would hope
they would take their time and consider all the options before they submit
an RFD to tale.
Henrietta Thomas
h...@wwa.com
Robotech_Master
In article <33a4aced...@news.wwa.com>, Henrietta Thomas wrote:
> It is interesting to note that fluffymeow is a recently invented
> troll. DejaNews shows only ten articles for him -- 7 in
> rec.games.mecha, and 3 in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. Yet in one
> article, he claimed to have been in Usenet about a year.
He took the fluffymeow address only fairly recently. Prior to that,
he was posting as "Fluffy" with no email address included, and a
little messing around with DejaNews (to find his posts before he
adopted that address) can find some more of his posts. It's also
worth noting that thepentagon.com is one of those world-wide-web email
drop operations, where anyone can get an email account via a web
browser.
> I took a stroll through the group and did not see anything which
> would make this proposal a re-run of nnq. The current proposal
> allows the moderators to change the charter by a 2/3 vote, with the
> proviso that major changes "should" be discussed with the
> readership. If this turns out to be the final proposal, I would
> like to see the word "should" changed to "will", and a few words
> said about (a) what constitutes "major changes" and (b) how
> discussions with the readership will be carried out. There need not
> be an elaborate procedure, but there should be something to indicate
> how they plan to involve the readership in future charter
> modifications.
As proponent and writer of the (so far pre-)RFD, I've been getting a
lot of help from various news.groups regulars, one of whom is even on
the (proposed) moderation team. I'll talk this over with them and see
what they advise.
> There _has_ been some discussion in the group about retromoderation,
> a banlist, and the possibility of creating a moderated/unmoderated
> pair. So the situation does not appear to be really settled yet,
> and I would hope they would take their time and consider all the
> options before they submit an RFD to tale.
We've been discussing a great deal. I've taken two straw votes; the
results of the first were posted a few days ago, and the results of
the second (whether to create a new moderated group, moderate the
current group, or do neither) will be posted in about two hours after
the vote closes). We've gone through seven drafts so far, and will
likely have an eighth or ninth at the least before we're finished.
The whole discussion up to now should be in DejaNews, under keywords
like "RFD" "vote" "moderate" and "admin".
--
Chris Meadows aka | Author, Team M.E.C.H.A., Crapshoot & Co.
Robotech_Master | on the Superguy Listserv (bit.listserv.superguy)
robo...@jurai.net | With a World Wide Web homepage located at
robo...@eyrie.org | http://www.jurai.net/~robotech/index.html
John Stepp
Stan Kalisch III wrote:
>
******* I snipped some stan, sorry.
>
> And there are other characteristics which I won't go into at length that
> strongly suggest this *was* a "pro-meow" attack in the, inherently in this
> case, malicious sense.>
>
> P.S. I won't absolutely eliminate a pro-mod. person as a suspect,
> however. It would be foolish to do so at this point.
It wasn't a meower
It wasn't the HFW
It wasn't the pro-mod people
There is evidence avalible in Deja News (if you follow the sequence of
events), which strongly suggests anouther party.
I am not completly convinced, so you don't get the name.
I am letting the sub-genii figure it out.
I am certain that they will.
John
Sir Fluffy d'Meow
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu> thought for a moment, and meowed:
> There's a 'Moderationist' Cabal now?
>
> Why doesn't anybody ever inform me of this stuff?
Please, Tim. That has to be the weakest Excuse yet for missing all the
Meetings.
> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
> Co-Proponent, mod.*
- Fluffy
Proprietor, *
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv
Comment: Fluffy's Meow Page <URL:http://world.com/~flufster/>
iQCVAwUBM6TckcbziQAzdTzZAQGwcAP/dDCNDz+72eOWBOYEQuBRf3DUWBXVXZur
b+CXWdH9U0V9pX1XmDZJl8uLmsZxazLvU2HO7JToMMa5Sqe8Fpos9n5bdoVQiJsO
jLsnE4Y97ewWpdL8lQcWqqNeB3U+rF8C0hlyAPrOOeqAwfp6zhkO1Cnz2zco8+2E
zgXdkgnga4M=
=BkcW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Henrietta Thomas
On 15 Jun 1997 10:10:01 -0700, Bring Me The Fake Totties of Terri DiSisto
<cap...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Animal Rights Activists and the Elders of Zion forced to say:
>
># You are on the record as opposing moderation. Now it seems you have been
># caught in a lie. I wonder how many others you have been making?
>
>Wrong, Fluffy. I am on the record as opposing moderation of
>REC.GAMES.MECHA--being instead in favour of the creation of
>REC.GAMES.MECHA.MODERATED.
That was on June 11, 1997. What was your position before then?
I understand there has been more than one attempt to moderate
rec.games.mecha.
Henrietta Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@wwa.com
Henrietta Thomas
On 16 Jun 1997 03:26:17 GMT, robo...@eyrie.org (Robotech_Master) wrote:
>In article <33a4aced...@news.wwa.com>, Henrietta Thomas wrote:
>
>> It is interesting to note that fluffymeow is a recently invented
>> troll. DejaNews shows only ten articles for him -- 7 in
>> rec.games.mecha, and 3 in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. Yet in one
>> article, he claimed to have been in Usenet about a year.
>
>He took the fluffymeow address only fairly recently. Prior to that,
>he was posting as "Fluffy" with no email address included, and a
>little messing around with DejaNews (to find his posts before he
>adopted that address) can find some more of his posts.
Well, I found a flu...@evil.org and a fluffy@mutiny's hiding place,
but I doubt he is one of those. I _did_ find something posted in April
(I think it was) from a Fluffy with no address. No matter. I still don't
believe trolls, and I want him to identify himself.
>It's also worth noting that thepentagon.com is one of those
>world-wide web email drop operations, where anyone can get
>an email account via a web browser.
Yes, it's called NetForward, and you can pick your own domain
name. thepentagon.com is one of several domains a person can
choose. This kind of thing would be very difficult to trace. And if
somebody gets wise to him, all he has to do is change his address
with NetForward.
The question to be answered in regard to this feline character is
whether, and to what extent, he is involved in any newsgroup
"invasions." He is not a kook. He knows exactly what he is doing
and why. I am most concerned to find out who posted the "Light
Reading Material" binaries in alt.gothic and rec.games.mecha. I
think it is this and not any meow attack, which has frightened the
posters in your group. Which is why I am glad to know you are
taking your time and not doing anything in haste.
Balance of response to email.
Robotech_Master
In article <33a570a...@news.wwa.com>, Henrietta Thomas wrote:
> Well, I found a flu...@evil.org and a fluffy@mutiny's hiding place,
> but I doubt he is one of those. I _did_ find something posted in
> April (I think it was) from a Fluffy with no address. No matter. I
> still don't believe trolls, and I want him to identify himself.
So do a lot of people on rec.games.mecha. It hasn't happened yet, and
I rather doubt it ever will.
> Yes, it's called NetForward, and you can pick your own domain name.
> thepentagon.com is one of several domains a person can choose. This
> kind of thing would be very difficult to trace. And if somebody
> gets wise to him, all he has to do is change his address with
> NetForward.
Exactly.
> The question to be answered in regard to this feline character is
> whether, and to what extent, he is involved in any newsgroup
> "invasions." He is not a kook. He knows exactly what he is doing
> and why.
Oh, he's involved. Check this message in Deja News, in which he tells
rgm to "Surrender according to the terms offerred to agff. The
stubborn dorks did not capitulate according to the terms and are now
doomed to rot in usenet hell. Your choice". (agff being
alt.games.final-fantasy, of course.) This message is from the
addressless Fluffy, who later gave the fluffymeow@ address in the body
of one of his messages before putting it in the from: line. (If
you're really determined to make sure, you could examine the headers,
but it's proof enough for me.)
http://xp8.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=10404860&server=db97p2x&CONTEXT=866485419.568&hitnum=27
> I am most concerned to find out who posted the "Light Reading
> Material" binaries in alt.gothic and rec.games.mecha. I think it is
> this and not any meow attack, which has frightened the posters in
> your group. Which is why I am glad to know you are taking your time
> and not doing anything in haste.
Actually, the current discussion of moderation started several days
_before_ either binary-bomb spam hit r.g.m. et al, and was indeed in
regard to all the crossposted Meower dreck (which still continues to
appear in rgm). You can find the dates in Deja News.
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[Followups set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet]
I've heard from some of them, but I have some doubts regarding some of
their theories.
I hope they do find out--maybe some of them have more time than I do. ;-)
I would just encourage everyone looking for evidence not to fall for
planted, fabricated evidence.
One more piece of advice: always use Altavista over Dejanews if you're
using these services.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM6YKqpyiGl9g1kgJAQHyRwP9EAnUGeHcFF96vb21UXeIgGGdjCVV0tsm
GsQ+ltE9PxVS1sHMaHJOBQ6kHNZ9qifFxUNmubVOmb/d0sVf5V0AJJ2I3UaCXKvK
0fDXcnyBnnMXuS/gI6CHmMOljrn3FsM9vLdKscMcAjydBSysTtle5+1BX04ZZYUc
b4UYWFfDuhY=
=VkYX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael Warner
Question: What can be done...etc.
Partial answer: Whittle away on the 'froups: line.
Various and sundry random assholes will probably put back those
hilariously irrelevant groups, but it kills a few minutes of time and
a few K of band-width, and it couldn't hurt, right? It doesn't offer
the intense feeling of personal satisfaction that a really thorough
larting would, but that could get you arrested for assault. And
battery, too. Alas.
--
Michael Warner
<war...@wsu.edu>
Phil Boswell
For some ineffable reason, Tim Skirvin (Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu>)
considered 15:10:05 Sat, 14 Jun 1997 the perfect time to utter those
immortal words:
>cf...@southern.co.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes:
>>It seems to me that Moderationists are much more likely to be at the
> Why doesn't anybody ever inform me of this stuff?
Because they all assume that you're a founder member of *all* Cabals?
BTW whoever left the chocolate in the Black Helicopter, thanks :->
--
Phil Boswell (Systems Manager) Codd & Date Ltd
1 Broadway Court, CHESHAM, Bucks HP5 1EG
http://www.codd-date.co.uk/
Strictly my own opinion, as if anyone else would want it ...
Michael Martinez
In article <EGY+9OAq...@codd-date.co.uk>, Phil Boswell <Phil.B...@news.codd-date.co.uk>
<96975E81F4FB1CC2.D17AE300...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
<5ntikl$iok$3...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>
<moderationi...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>BTW whoever left the chocolate in the Black Helicopter, thanks :->
Not that this has to do with anything at all, but there really ARE black
helicopters. They're called Apache Attack Helicopters. We even got to see
them on television during (and after) the Persian Gulf War.
I can't believe people would make up a conspiracy theory about black
helicopters....
I wonder if I'll now be inundated with email about how the government will
REALLY stab us in the back come 2000?
Woof!
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
|| v ||ichael Martinez (mma...@basis.com)
++ ++------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey (Prime) Smith
>BTW whoever left the chocolate in the Black Helicopter, thanks :->
Damn... THAT'S where it went! I was looking all over for it...
**** **** **** ****
Fight the Woodside Literary Agency!
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP fund
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
RE...@worldnet.att.net loves spam, and hates you and me.
di...@rmi.net
fluff...@thepentagon.com wrote:
> =
> In article <5ntikl$iok$3...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>, cf...@southern.co.nz sa=
ys...
> >panacea" since mid-1996 ?
> =
> What I find interesting in the current moderation discussions in
> rec.games.mecha is that they plan to go with an innocuous charter
> with the provision to allow amendments by the moderators. The first
> amendment that is contemplated is the introduction of retromoderation.
> =
> That certainly is a sneaky way to get retromoderation past news.groups
> without even mentioning it. Thank Bruce Baugh and Russ Allberry for
> their suggestions along those lines.
> =
> A downward spiral to the bowels of usenet such as alt.fan.keanu-reeves.mo=
derated
> would then occur.I sugest that anyone who wants moderated newsgroups subs=
cribe to AOL. =
They have plenty of sandbox monitors to go around. That's why I'm not on =
AOL any more.
-- =
=D0ingo /\~/\
(=F6 =F6)
(~(=A5)~)
\ /
Politically INcorrect since 1953
SPAM WARNING: To those who send unsolicited JUNK E-MAIL, don't send it to =
this address. You will be warned the first time and charged $500.00 each =
time thereafter for data storage.
Doug Bolton
On Sat, 14 Jun 1997 00:34:13 -0500, Spark The Heretic <her...@spark.org> wrote:
>sw wrote:
>>
>> In article <33a9c080.3669785@news>, Doug Bolton <me...@direct.ca> wrote:
>> >On 12 Jun 1997 13:20:03 -0700, s...@eyrie.org (sw) wrote:
>> >>And I'm not a communist, you stupid cat. I'm a *Fascist*. A true (um, what
>> >>color am I supposed to use here? It's not blue. I think it's black. Umm...)
>> >>...whatever color..., dyed-in-the-wool, cult-of-personality, world-dominating
>> >>secret-police, no-privacy, paranoia-is-a-way-of-life, fascist.
>> >
>> >We're going to see more anarchy, not less. Get use to it. There's no where to
>> >hide. Even in Tibet. Centralized states are anachronisms. Even Fascist ones.
>> >Take off the brown shirt (the colour you were looking for) and meow.
>>
>> I'm sorry. Call me crazy ("Hi, Crazy!") but I have a hard time taking
>> seriously a political future advisory...
Your welcome to sit back and watch. Just try to be objective. Dogma always gets
in the way. Political organizations seem to thrive on Dogma. Especially
authoritarian ones. And don't blink, either. It's occurring that quickly.
>And how many innocents have we killed by way of comparison?
>
>You also forgot the little fact that the only two true Fascist
>governments ever to exist lead their respective countries into total
>wrack and ruin in less than fifteen years. Not much of a track record,
>eh?
>
>> Besides, we fascists have bigger guns. Can a place with no centralized
>> government afford nukes or stealth fighters? Iiiiiii don't think so!
Sparks quite right here. You're still thinking in terms of nation states.
You've got enough anarchy going in the US that I'm surprised you'd be looking
for foreign targets. You were, weren't you ?
>Who needs nukes when there's no organized government to target? After
>all, Strategic weapons were reserved as a last resort to influence a
>government's policy. No other use for 'em really.
>
>Funny you should mention the F-117A, though...
>
>Meows from a former Tonopah Test Range resident,
By the way, I've recently been to the web site.
I wanted to get your perspective on the activities here in rgm
Excellent job. Mjeow!
And Groppi powered, too!
Spark The Heretic
We thank you for meow patronage meow meow.
> I wanted to get your perspective on the activities here in rgm
> Excellent job. Mjeow!
Hey, thanx.
On RGM:
Whilst tracking the real source of the 21,000 part binary bomb, I was
asked to keep the noise levels up in rgm so that the bomber wouldn't get
suspicious until we tracked him down. Fortunately, there was a pack of
clueless idiots (Yes Mr. Frost, you were indeed a lackey) more than
willing to assist in the noise efforts. All of 'em whined about
netcopping and many tried, yet I never got so much as a negative note
from my sysadmins...amazing. A few of my ISP's did complain to the
sysadmins of those who were flooding their mailboxes with baseless crap
though, and I believe there were some actions taken in that direction,
all without a word from me. Oh well, I tried warning 'em...
BTW, I haven't seen poor Marcus on-line recently...pity. I guess the boy
should have learned the difference between a mailbox and a usenet post
when wailing out limp-wristed death threats...
At any rate, things turned out rather well. rgm lost some chaff, and we
have tons of intelligence on the bomber's methods, so we can set the
traps appropriately the next time he tries.
As usual, Goober and Boursy came in late and lousy. I figured that there
wouldn't be an ISP within 300 miles of Pennsylvania that would touch
Grubor, but there he is... I bet the 1-800 charges are a bitch.
> And Groppi powered, too!
Is there any other way to power it?
--
TJ Miller jr.
http://www.spark.org/
----------------------------------------------------
her...@spark.org
----------------------------------------------------
"Well, at least I had a life"
Roger Wiseman in <5lj892$ka...@ns2.hgo.net>
William Calley Jr.
On Thu, 12 Jun 97 22:12:02 EDT, d...@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis
KOTM) wrote:
>Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> enscribed:
>>In rec.games.mecha, Dimitri Vulis KOTM <d...@bwalk.dm.com> writes:
>>> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> A friend of mine asked me to take a look at the rec.games.mecha
pre-RFD
>>>> for robomoderation, as well as seeing if he could use my
robomoderation
>>>> software, so I took a look at rec.games.mecha at the moment.
>>>> Basically, something like 50-70% of the current traffic of the
group is
>>>> crossposted to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose and consists of trash (at
least
>>>> from the perspective of the rec.games.mecha reader).
>>
>>> I too took a look at rec.games.mecha after reading Russ's article
and
>>> got a radically different impression. My opinion of Russ's ethics
and
>>> credibility has gone down another few notches.
>>
>>I don't care, Dimitri. If you haven't figured that out by now, you
really
>>haven't been listening. I post my opinions; whether that causes
people to
>>consider me ethical, unethical, credible, or non-credible is their
choice.
>
>I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Didn't you once e-mail
me
>to explain that you unsubscribed from a certain mailing list for
"political"
>reasons - because your continued association with the people on that
list was
>harming your reputation among your fellow Cabal supporters?
>
>If you really posted your true thoughts without seeking the external
>approval from the nan-am lynch mob, you'd be a kook like us. You're
not.
>
>>> Apparently there's a clique of bullies regularly posting in that
>>> newsgroup
>>
>>Yes, there is. They're posting from alt.fan.karl-malden.nose. They
or
>>someone who is acting as a copycat of them is posting binary bombs
to
>>rec.games.mecha. They're crossposting tons of traffic that has
nothing to
>>do with rec.games.mecha. They are making it very difficult to use
the
>>group for the purpose that it was intended, which is apparently
their
>>goal. They posted an ultimatum of sorts to alt.games.final-fantasy
under
>>similar circumstances, which albeit amusing if it stood on its own
was not
>>amusing at all given the circumstances.
>
>This is the second article I post in my life in rec.games.mecha. The
first
>one was the one you've responded to. I received an e-mail from one of
the
>"bullies" I was referring to, ordering me to "stay out of
rec.games.mecha"
>and also saying "kill spammers". (You may recall that Chris Lewis
calls
>me a "spammer" for "advocating spamming".)
>
>The same person has posted numerous articles in r.g.m calling for
moderation
>and even retromoderation (forged cancels). Please explain why it's OK
>for this person to post meta-discussions that belong in news.groups,
and
>it's not OK for me to comment on this proposal.
>
>I also want to make clear that I don't consider attacks on newsgroups
to be a
>Good Thing. The control freak I'm talking about has had nothing to
contribute
>to the "giant robot games" discussion. This person is interested in
controlling
>the discussion, in ordering people around, in having their plugs
pulled, and
>instead of r.g.m it could well be happening in any other newsgroup as
long
>as this obviously disturbed person gets to be "in charge".
>
>I ask the a.f.k-m.n people to consider more productive ways of
fighting the
>censors than flooding the newsgroup, which this person obviously
couldn't care
>less about. This situation reminds me of the Frequently Asked
Question: why
>don't we run a cancelbot to cancel everything Chris Lewis posts? The
answer
>is, Chris Lewis hasn't posted anything worthwhile in his whole
miserable life,
>and cancelling his drivel would cause no harm, unlike his forged
cancels
>issued against articles that are actually worth reading.
>
>>> whose main interest is not the 'giant robot' games (the purported
topic
>>> of that newsgroup) but 'fighting spam', where 'spam' to them means
>>> 'anything posted anywhere by one of the people the regulars want
to
>>> silence'.
>>
>>This is laughable and you know it. Please, do explain how the junk
that
>>is being dumped into this newsgroup by the self-titled Meowers is
on-topic
>>for the group in the slightest. When you attempt to destroy the
usability
>>of a public forum, people get angry and yell at you for it. What do
you
>>expect?
>
>A self-appointed censor e-mails "newbies" and tries to intimidate
them.
>Some leave the newsgroup. Some fight back. Some don't realize that
the
>newsgroup is not "owned" by the self-appointed censor, and that
screwing
>up the newsgroup only hurts those who are really interested in
>discussing the "giant robot" games - and the censor isn't one of
them.
>
>By cross-posting to a.f.k-m.n I hope to convince the people there (if
they're
>really behind this traffic) that this is not a good way to fight the
self-
>appointed censors. The censors don't really care about the newsgroup
- they
>want to be "in charge" of something. The people who are hurt by such
>activities are the ones who care about the discussion topic and
>are not interested in censoring anyone.
>
>>The only letter-writing campaigns launched from here are in response
to
>>organized and systematic attempts to destroy the usefulness of the
>>newsgroup by crossposting mindless junk into it. The only
unfortunate
>>thing about those sorts of attempts is that they've failed. Vandals
do
>>not deserve to have accounts and do not deserve to be able to post.
>
>Who appointed you to decide who deserves to be able to post?
>
>Perhaps the self-appointed censor who e-mails people to say,
>"stay out of my newsgroup" doesn't deserve to be able to e-mail.
>
>>>> This is unacceptable. And this isn't even, as near as I can
tell, a
>>>> case of group regulars being far too sensitive and egging people
on.
>>>> About the only posts I'm seeing from regulars on the subject are
>>>> "please, *please* don't respond to these idiots, just ignore
them, just
>>>> killfile them."
>>
>>> Russ, this is not true, and you know it. The "regulars" post
obscene
>>> flames and discuss mostly their "spam-fighting" activity,
coordinate
>>> massive postmaster complaints, and discuss postmaster responses. I
>>> haven't seen any posts from the "regulars" resembling anything
close to
>>> what you're saying, nor any discussion of the "robot games".
>>
>>What newsgroup are you reading, Dimitri? Did you make a typo and
>>accidentally read news.admin.net-abuse.misc when you were trying to
read
>>rec.games.mecha? You may want to check your typing skills and try
again;
>>that description bears no resemblence to the newsgroup we were
discussing.
>
>I'm talking about rec.games.mecha, where your friends are discussing
>fighting spam, complaining to postmasters, and pulling plugs, and
>whoever is interested in discussing the "giant robot" games has to
>dig trhough the gunk that belongs in news.*.
>
>>> No one needs to killfile on "Xref:".
>>
>>Sure, if you want to download the entire headers of all of the
articles in
>>the newsgroup in order to run your killfile. When the binary bombs
start
>>again, that takes a while.
>
>Now you sound like Andrew Nellis who reads news with no killfile and
a
>2400 modem. In fact, you sound like a person whose name I forgot who
>argued on news.* a few years ago that Usenet traffic must be limited
>so one person can read the entire traffic every day.
>
>>> While your "70%" claim is also false (someone just posted that
only 30%
>>> of the traffic is cross-posted to Nose),
>>
>>And someone else posted a different analysis that showed higher
>>crossposting, and various other people have pointed out that it
varies
>>tremendously. I also made the mistake of assuming that all of the
Meower
>>attacks were crossposted to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose; this is
apparently
>>not the case. (Which also pokes a hole in some of your killfile
>>arguments.)
>
>Killfile on "From:". Share your killfile with others.
>
>>> I agree that a user of a newsreader with no killfile capability
will
>>> find this newsgroup, and many other unmoderated newsgroups, to be
>>> difficult to use and next to useless. Does this mean that such
users
>>> should be permitted to censor others?
>>
>>> To you, perhaps. Not to an honorable person.
>>
>>If one cannot have a reasonable expectation of finding traffic
concerning
>>the subject of a newsgroup in that newsgroup, Usenet is worthless.
All of
>>your arguments about censorship become entirely academic at that
point.
>
>The answer to speech you don't like is more speech.
>
>If 50% of the traffic in a given newsgroup is off-topic, the best way
>to increase the S/N ratio is to post more signal. People will find it
>and will read it and respond to it. Post a sample killfile. Explain
to
>the misposters why their behavior is dishonorable (if it is).
>
>>> "Moderation" is broken. By applying it where it's not
appropriate,
>>> you'll convince sufficiently many providers to treat all
newsgroups as
>>> unmoderated.
>>
>>I don't care. If incompetent providers and spam havens want to opt
out of
>>Usenet and ensure that nothing their users post ever shows up at any
>>responsible site, they can go with my blessing.
>
>It does sound to me that you don't care about the future of Usenet.
>
>I don't think that abusing moderation to the point where many large
>providers consider all newsgroups to be unmoderated is a Good Thing,
>just like abusing cancels to the point where they need to be dumped
>was not necessarily a good thing.
>
>I also note that you've snipped any discussion of "retomoderation".
>
>Russ, what do you think about Chris Lewis forging cancels for the 27
>articles posted by Kibo, whose only thing in common was the mention
of
>Chris Lewis's Net.Scum site - http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html?
These whining netscum must not have lives.
William Calley Jr.
On Sat, 14 Jun 97 11:52:16 EDT, d...@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis
KOTM) wrote:
>In article <m3soymm...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
>>presence on that list was disruptive given that neither Grubor nor
Boursy
>>are capable of rational discussions if they are aware that I am
listening.
>
>I disagree. My friends John Grubor and Steve Boursy have been
engaging in
>rational discussion with you while you were there and appreciated
your
>valuable contributions. They're engaged in rational discussion
despite the
>presence of Michael Scheidell, and even Martin Hannigan for a while.
We all
>treat the list as "public forum" and are aware that the Cabal is
listening. I
>think the list would be more useful to everyone involved if you and
Tim
>Skirvin were also on it. On the other hand, I'm sorry to see you
develop the
>tendency to "vogue" (to posture in search of external validation),
for even if
>what you said were true, it would be their problem, not yours. I
would not
>consider leaving a forum just because I thought that my mere presense
is
>causing someone discomfort - it's their responsibility to ignore what
they
>don't like.
>
>>> This is the second article I post in my life in rec.games.mecha.
The
>>> first one was the one you've responded to. I received an e-mail
from one
>>> of the "bullies" I was referring to, ordering me to "stay out of
>>> rec.games.mecha" and also saying "kill spammers".
>>
>>Yes. I understand that. People are extremely angry right now, as a
>>result of what's been done to their newsgroup. They aren't in the
mood
>>for being told it's all their fault.
>>
>>That doesn't change the origin of the problem, or the fact that it
is the
>>posters from alt.fan.karl-malden.nose who are attempting to destroy
the
>>usefulness of the group. It simply means that people who feel like
>>they're under attack are reacting like people under attack. You may
well
>>feel that they are overreacting. In some cases, I would agree with
you.
>>But I would prefer to strike as close to the root of the problem as
>>possible rather than arguing about symptoms; remove the attack, and
the
>>reactions to the attack will also go away.
>
>I have suspicions, but no proof, about what's behind these attacks.
>I'd appreciate your opinion of the following paranoid conspiracy
theory.
>
>You know that some people on news.groups are opposed to all
unmoderated
>newsgroups on philosphical grounds. They want all new newsgroups to
be
>moderated, and support all efforts to moderated existing unmoderated
>newsgroups.
>
>You also know that some people like to "take over" newsgroups and
turn
>them into their personal fiefdoms. Recently reported examples
included
>a satellite dish salesman who tried to takes over a satellite
discussion
>newsgroup, and the misc.business.consulting moderator who tried to
take
>over a cigar discussion newsgroup (he is in that business too).
>
>You also know that some people play pretty complicated games on the
'net.
>For example, at least 3 times this year there were reports of forged
3rd
>party cancels on the f-k mailing list which turned out to be bogus.
>People are trying hard to drag us into flame wars using falsified
evidence.
>
>You probably also know that years ago, perhaps before even you first
came on
>Usenet, I used to e-mail people a lot who posted "off-topic". I'd
politely
>suggest to them a more appropriate forum for their posts, or gently
point out
>that they're "flaming". I was responsible for the early end of quite
a few
>flame wars and off-topic threads.
>
>I also used to discuss the tactics of this low-level "net.copping"
with others
>who did it, like Kent Paul Dolan, and we agreed, beased on our
experiences,
>that such e-mails can only succeed in stopping the behavior if they
are
>phrased in a friendly, non-confrontational manner.
>
>We found that if a (mis)poster receives several e-mail responses, and
one of
>them says something like, "Stay out of my newsgroup, you asshole",
then in the
>vast majority of cases the poster will not only continue posting as
before,
>but will flame, and possibly mailbomb everyone who had e-mailed him,
including
>those who were friendly and excuricatingly polite. (That was one of
the
>reasons why I quit this activity a few years ago.)
>
>Finally, I've decided not to name any names, but if you correlate the
names of
>the "meowers" in rec.games.mecha with www.netscum.net, you'll notice
that some
>of their leaders are known Cabal supporters who publicly oppose
"spam" and
>boast of their postmaster complaints. Why are they amongst the
"meowers"?
>
>Here then is what I think _may_ be happening. Certain people on r.g.m
have
>decided to try to take the newsgroup "moderated" with themselves as
the
>moderators of course. They provoked a "war" between rec.games.mecha
and
>alt.fan.karl-malden.nose. Most of the people in r.g.m think they're
fighting
>the invading "mewers". Most of the "mewers" think they're fighting
the
>censorship-minded jerks in r.g.m. Both sides are being duped.
>
>Most of the r.g.m "regulars" who think they are "fighting spam"
probably
>aren't aware of the master plan. When the CFV to moderated r.g.m is
finally
>issued, the "unwashed masses" in that newsgroup will be sufficiently
>brainwashed to vote YES and to support any other efforts to "fight
spam". And
>of course the various boughs and steins will support any moderation
vote.
>
>I don't have any proof that this is happening, but to me this theory
seems to
>be more consistent with the evidence that yours.
>
>It's further quite possible that the companies that sell the "giant
robot"
>games and associated accessories are interested in taking the forum
moderated.
>In the recent example that I adduced, a satellite dish dealer has
declared
>himself the "mediator" (retromoderator) of an unmoderated alt
newsgroup and
>begin forging cancels for any articles that were critical of the
product he
>was selling (as well as any articles that criticized his
"retromoderation").
>
>Once again, I have no evidence of their involvement, but I assure you
that the
>"market research" people at many companies watch Usenet very
carefully and are
>very interested in what is said where about there products - and they
don't
>like unmoderated Usenet newsgroups.
>
>>> The same person has posted numerous articles in r.g.m calling for
>>> moderation and even retromoderation (forged cancels). Please
explain why
>>> it's OK for this person to post meta-discussions that belong in
>>> news.groups, and it's not OK for me to comment on this proposal.
>>
>>I have no problem with you commenting on my opinions in this
newsgroup.
>
>But you're not the one e-mailing people and ordering them to "stay
out of my
>newsgroup". Don't you realize that such an e-mail would have provoked
many
>posters into posting even more off-topic trash in the newsgroup in
question,
>and that the sender knew it very well? This person's actions display
either
>malice or extremely poor judgment. How can you support a proposal to
make such
>a person a newsgroup moderator?
>
>Similarly, some wannabe-censor is now posting obnoxious public
"off-topic
>notices" in rec.photo.*. The obvious and expected result of his
actions is to
>draw in more flames and off-topic traffic. I bet that soon he'll
propose to
>take some of the affected newsgroup moderated, with him as the
moderator.
>
>>> I also want to make clear that I don't consider attacks on
newsgroups to
>>> be a Good Thing.
>>
>>I'm aware of that, and I hope everyone else is aware of that as
well. I
>>don't consider you part of this problem, at the least. That's the
reason
>>why I'm responding to you at length and largely ignoring the
Meowers; you
>>have opinions, principles, and perspectives that I consider worth
careful
>>consideration and discussion, even if I end up disagreeing with
them.
>
>Why thank you - aren't you afraid they'll yank away your Cabal card?
:-)
>
>>> The control freak I'm talking about has had nothing to contribute
to the
>>> "giant robot games" discussion. This person is interested in
controlling
>>> the discussion, in ordering people around, in having their plugs
pulled,
>>> and instead of r.g.m it could well be happening in any other
newsgroup
>>> as long as this obviously disturbed person gets to be "in charge".
>>
>>I don't think that's the case. I think that person is upset at
seeing
>>something that they value destroyed by vandals for no other reason
than
>>that they can and is reacting like a person who has been attacked.
I
>>think the appropriate solution to all of these problems is to
enforce
>>separation between the two newsgroups, and robomoderation is one way
of
>>doing that. Then the crossposts will cease, so will the reactions
to
>>them, and this group can get back to discussing its topic.
>
>I don't have any simple solution for any problems, sorry.
>
>I do think that sending obnoxious, harrassing e-mail (whether in
response to
>their Usenet articles or for any other reason) should be treated as a
very
>serious form of net-abuse by ISPs. Most ISPs will react to a report
of one of
>their users mailbombing a site very quickly. Some will even lock out
the
>account first and ask questions later. Perhaps we should adapt a
policy of
>pulling the plugs on people who sends such harrassing e-mail, since
it's been
>conclusively shown to provoke further net-abuse by the recipients.
>
>As for the concrete situation in r.g.m: people who are now discussing
>"fighting spam" should be asked, politely, to move these threads to a
more
>appropriate news.* forum. Much of the other "off-topic" material is
>sufficiently redundant to qualify as "cancellable spam". In the past
Stan
>Kalish used to forge cancels for less redundant gunk. I suppose he's
not doing
>it this time so as not to interfere with the upcoming call for
moderation. :-)
>
>If your network connection can't handle just killfiling on "from:"
everyone
>involved in the flame wars, then why not ask someone to issue NoCeMs
for the
>"off-topic" material and urge one's sysadmin to apply these NoCeMs to
spool?
>
>Why not ask one's sysadmin to alias out the sites that originate only
the
>"off-topic" material?
>
>>>> The only letter-writing campaigns launched from here are in
response to
>>>> organized and systematic attempts to destroy the usefulness of
the
>>>> newsgroup by crossposting mindless junk into it. The only
unfortunate
>>>> thing about those sorts of attempts is that they've failed.
Vandals do
>>>> not deserve to have accounts and do not deserve to be able to
post.
>>
>>> Who appointed you to decide who deserves to be able to post?
>>
>>I'm a user of Usenet, which is a community effort between everyone
who is
>>a part of it. I'm providing my input on how I feel the community
should
>>be run, just as you are.
>
>Everyone deserves to be able to post. Even the net-abusers.
>
>>> Perhaps the self-appointed censor who e-mails people to say, "stay
out
>>> of my newsgroup" doesn't deserve to be able to e-mail.
>>
>>Perhaps not. You have your standards, and I have mine. One
standard or
>>another will be imposed; it's not possible to avoid that. We simply
have
>>to decide which one.
>
>Ineffective censorship attempts provoke further net-abuse. If your
friends
>really wish to discuss "giant robot games" in peace, they should
repudiate the
>leaders of the moderation effort, whose activities clearly incite
further
>net-abuse, refuse to be used a pawns in the "anti-spam" wars, and
clamly
>ignore any future invasions. This is the standard of honor.
>
>>>> What newsgroup are you reading, Dimitri? Did you make a typo and
>>>> accidentally read news.admin.net-abuse.misc when you were trying
to
>>>> read rec.games.mecha? You may want to check your typing skills
and try
>>>> again; that description bears no resemblence to the newsgroup we
were
>>>> discussing.
>>
>>> I'm talking about rec.games.mecha, where your friends are
discussing
>>> fighting spam, complaining to postmasters, and pulling plugs, and
>>> whoever is interested in discussing the "giant robot" games has to
dig
>>> trhough the gunk that belongs in news.*.
>>
>>They do, yes. And yes, I'm discussing that, as are some of my
friends,
>>because that's what a lot of people care about discussing right now.
>>Large problems get discussed. That's the way Usenet works.
However, the
>>group certainly does contain on-topic traffic as well, however
drowned
>>out, *from the regulars*.
>
>One interesting technical solution that was discussed during the
NoCeM
>debates but never implemented as far as I know: let one or more
people
>post the message-ids of the articles they consider worth reading. Let
>the readers download and read only what one or more "reviewers" they
>trust have approved.
>
>>>> If one cannot have a reasonable expectation of finding traffic
>>>> concerning the subject of a newsgroup in that newsgroup, Usenet
is
>>>> worthless. All of your arguments about censorship become
entirely
>>>> academic at that point.
>>
>>> The answer to speech you don't like is more speech.
>>
>>> If 50% of the traffic in a given newsgroup is off-topic, the best
way to
>>> increase the S/N ratio is to post more signal. People will find it
and
>>> will read it and respond to it. Post a sample killfile. Explain to
the
>>> misposters why their behavior is dishonorable (if it is).
>>
>>I understand this argument. I even like it quite a bit in many
>>circumstances. But I also recognize that it's possible to drown out
>>discussion even with all of these measures, that enough valuable,
>>intelligent people who make the forum what it is will not be willing
or
>>able to take those measures, and that it is possible to make a
Usenet
>>newsgroup nigh worthless even with people taking those measures. In
other
>>words, that's not a realistic solution to every problem.
>
>But if turning a newsgroup moderated is considered a possible
solution for
>such a problem, then those who want to moderate the newsgroup may try
to
>exacerbate the problem in order to convince others that moderation is
the best
>solution. It certainly looks to me like this may be happening in
r.g.m.
>
>>>> I don't care. If incompetent providers and spam havens want to
opt out
>>>> of Usenet and ensure that nothing their users post ever shows up
at any
>>>> responsible site, they can go with my blessing.
>>
>>> It does sound to me that you don't care about the future of
Usenet.
>>
>>I think you're aware that I do. At which point you should be
considering
>>how my vision of the future of Usenet may be different than yours,
given
>>that it doesn't seem like I care about the future you envision.
>
>Sorry, you're just playing with words.
>
>Do you want Usenet to split up and die, like Fidonet did?
>
>>> I don't think that abusing moderation to the point where many
large
>>> providers consider all newsgroups to be unmoderated is a Good
Thing,
>>
>>I don't think that's ever going to happen, because I don't think
those
>>large providers are going to consider it an abuse.
>
>Did you think that Netcom would disable cancels when you first saw my
cbcb?
>
>(Get it at http://www.thecia.net/~kibo/cancelbot.html :-)
>
>>> Russ, what do you think about Chris Lewis forging cancels for the
27
>>> articles posted by Kibo, whose only thing in common was the
mention of
>>> Chris Lewis's Net.Scum site - http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html?
>>
>>I don't follow news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins and therefore do not
have
>>enough information to make an informed decision.
>
>Very well, here's what Chris Lewis wrote in
news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins:
>
>]Path:
..!data.ramona.vix.com!sonysjc!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!News1.Vancouver.iSTAR.net!news.istar.net!n1van.istar!hammer.uoregon.edu!nrchh45.rich.nt.com!bcarh189.bnr.ca!despams.ocunix.on.ca!not-for-mail
>]Message-ID: <97061012583...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>
>]Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins,news.lists.filters
>]Date: 9 Jun 1997 12:58:36 EST
>]Followup-To: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
>]From: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
>]Subject: EMP/ECP cancelled (Re: When will Sol. 2.6 be released?:
kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net>) @@NCM
>]Organization: Despams 'R Us
>]Approved: news-admin-bul...@math.psu.edu
>]X-Complain-To: kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net>
>]Lines: 156
>]
>]-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]27 articles were cancelled in 79 groups. The Breidbart Index is
45.22 (BI2: 62.11)
>]
>]
>]
>]Regards,
>]Chris Lewis
>]cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
>]
>]@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
>]Version: 0.9
>]Issuer: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca;
>]Type: spam
>]Action: hide
>]Count: 27
>]Notice-ID: ferret19970609.24
>]@@BEGIN NCM BODY
>]<5nd8qe$fa0$4...@news.thecia.net> comp.dcom.cell-relay,
>] news.admin.censorship,
>] news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
>]<5nd932$fa0$6...@news.thecia.net> alt.guitar,
>] alt.guitar.bass,
>] alt.guitar.tab,
>] rec.music.makers.guitar,
>] rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5nd99g$fa0$7...@news.thecia.net> comp.os.linux.setup,
>] comp.os.linux.misc,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5nd9lc$fa0$8...@news.thecia.net> rec.aquaria.marine.reefs,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5nd9tr$fa0$9...@news.thecia.net> alt.comp.periphs.scanner,
>] comp.periphs.scanners,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5ndas7$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> comp.windows.x,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5nda53$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5ndaao$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.games.frp.storyteller,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5ndaii$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.sport.soccer,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5ndan8$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> soc.culture.caribbean,
>] soc.culture.african.american,
>] soc.culture.canada,
>] rec.sport.olympic,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5ndbla$fa0$2...@news.thecia.net> comp.music.midi,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5ndb2g$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.games.miniatures.warhammer,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5ndb7b$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.games.video.sony,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5ndbbb$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.music.celtic,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5ndbfk$fa0$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.sport.hockey,
>] rec.sport.basketball.pro,
>] rec.sport.baseball,
>] rec.sport.soccer,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5nedjv$i06$2...@news.thecia.net> comp.lang.c++,
>] comp.protocols.tcp-ip,
>] comp.unix.programmer,
>] comp.unix.questions,
>] news.admin.censorship,
>] news.admin.net-abuse.misc,
>] news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
>]<5ned7p$i06$1...@news.thecia.net> comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5nedrf$i06$3...@news.thecia.net> comp.sys.hp.hardware,
>] comp.sys.hp.misc,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5nee6e$i06$4...@news.thecia.net> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5neebv$i06$5...@news.thecia.net> rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5neelj$i06$6...@news.thecia.net> rec.motorcycles.racing,
>] news.admin.censorship,
>] rec.motorcycles,
>] rec.motorcycles.harley
>]<5nefij$i06$1...@news.thecia.net> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,
>] news.admin.censorship,
>] alt.culture.hawaii
>]<5neet9$i06$7...@news.thecia.net> rec.pets.dogs.behavior,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5nef3h$i06$8...@news.thecia.net> rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
>] news.admin.censorship,
>] news.adminn.net-abuse.misc
>]<5nefrs$i06$1...@news.thecia.net> rec.boats.paddle,
>] news.admin.censorship,
>] news.admin.misc
>]<5neg1u$i06$1...@news.thecia.net> sci.agriculture,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]<5neg95$i06$1...@news.thecia.net> comp.sys.sun.admin,
>] comp.unix.solaris,
>] news.admin.censorship
>]@@END NCM BODY
>]
>]|Path:
bcarh8ac.bnr.ca!bmdhh222.bnr.ca!btnet-feed2!easynet-uk!disgorge.news.demon.net!demon!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!europa.clark.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.0.65.142!news-feed1.tiac.net!news.thecia.net!not-for-mail
>]|From: kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net>
>]|Newsgroups:
comp.dcom.cell-relay,news.admin.censorship,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
>]|Subject: Re: SSCOP Issue
>]|Date: 8 Jun 1997 03:27:10 GMT
>]|Organization: Complete Internet Access, Inc
>]|Message-ID: <5nd8qe$fa0$4...@news.thecia.net>
>]|References: <33924B02...@nortel.ca>
>]|NNTP-Posting-Host: shell.thecia.net
>]|X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA 970409; i386 BSD/OS 2.1]
>]|Lines: 24
>]|
>]|Deepak Verma <dee...@nortel.ca> wrote:
>]|: I'm looking to find out what are the possible scenarios in
>]|: which UNIs on a switch can transfer from a data transfer state
>]|: to an idle state. More specifically, I'm trying to find out in
>]|: what scenarios does the SSCOP connection stay in an idle state
>]|: without trying to re-establish itself.
>]|
>]|: From my understanding of the UNI specs and the QSAAL specs, in
most
>]|: cases, when a UNI exists and a carrier exists, an attempt would
be
>]|: made to re-establish the SSCOP connection. To repeat, is there
>]|: any other scenario, where it would not try and re-establish???
>]|
>]|: Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
>]|
>]|Feedback: Northern Telecom is the home of Chris Lewis, the asshole
>]|that forges cancels from the bnr.ca computer.
>]|
>]|Please boycott Northern Telecom - censors and forgers
>]|
>]|See http://www.netscum.net/lewisc0.html for more info on the
forger.
>]|
>]|
>]|--
>]|-=| KIBO is EVERYWHERE! |=-
>]- --
>]All postings to news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins are unconfirmed and
>]unverified unless stated otherwise by the moderators. All opinions
>]expressed above are considered the opinions of the original poster
>]not the moderators or their respective employers.
>]
>]For a copy of the guidelines to this group, see
>]http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/home/nana/
>]
>]-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>]Version: 2.6
>]
>]iQCVAgUBM5w2fp3FmCyJjHfhAQFXzgP/QTUPI/R6U9E9fkBVQHtHDQGAJ5czfR86
>]DGYzKQO7tc2HczijqLM56N/1OPENb9nyK/pxh76oZRrTYX1LYJVlfkLcxsxPnAUo
>]DvN1C1R4ySs/DHphRtQrtejr0Vte1oocrynLbHRxlU1U+YUIBbA+hU6CORoyBIuj
>]O0ttOefcnRk=
>]=KaNO
>]-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Chris Lewis is an asshole.
Colin Douthwaite
John Stepp (jfs...@aye.net) wrote:
>Stan Kalisch III wrote:
>>
>******* I snipped some stan, sorry.
>>
>> And there are other characteristics which I won't go into at length that
>> strongly suggest this *was* a "pro-meow" attack in the, inherently in this
>> case, malicious sense.>
>> Stan
>>
>> P.S. I won't absolutely eliminate a pro-mod. person as a suspect,
>> however. It would be foolish to do so at this point.
>
> It wasn't a meower
> It wasn't the HFW
> It wasn't the pro-mod people
> There is evidence avalible in Deja News (if you follow the sequence of
>events), which strongly suggests anouther party.
> I am not completly convinced, so you don't get the name.
> I am letting the sub-genii figure it out.
> I am certain that they will.
>
No need to name names...what is the motivation and purpose of the
suspect ?
Bye,
Russ Price
On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:40:02 GMT, cal...@idt.net (William Calley Jr.)
wrote:
<big snip>
>
>Chris Lewis is an asshole.
A _real_ asshole quotes 619 or so lines of other posts to
provide a 1-sentence response.
Or, would that be a 'spamming moron?' If the shoe fits ...
Russ Price
This e-mail address is a 'facsimile receiver' as defined
by Title 47 USC. Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to
this address is a violation of US Federal Law.
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
"You can whip me, and you can beat me, and you can
kill me. Just don't bore me."
Clint Eastwood, 'Heartbreak Ridge'
Wayne C. Leake
William Calley Jr. wrote:
> Chris Lewis is an asshole.
So are you, buttwipe. Quoting 32.5 tons of crap to say five dinky words...
--
Wayne, AKA Blackie!
bla...@frontiernet.net
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/4625
http://www.frontiernet.net/~blackie
Wayne C. Leake
Russ Price wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:40:02 GMT, cal...@idt.net (William Calley Jr.)
> wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>
> >
>
> provide a 1-sentence response.
>
> Or, would that be a 'spamming moron?' If the shoe fits ...
>
> Russ Price
OTOH, I agree about the huge amount of quotes. All to say 5 pissy little words...
Head for the hills, MA, I'm in one of THOSE moods...
IRS Agent
I think it is more a matter of whom Stan likes and dislikes.
In Article: Pine.SUN.3.95.96101...@crl.crl.com
Stan Kalisch (sjk...@crl.com) said:
"I hated the cat when I picked him out when I was two years old.
And I censor whatever I don't agree with, and I eat small
animals for breakfast. And I'm a cruel, heartless, meaningless
person that doesn't love anyone or anything. And I have no
ethics, and no regard for my fellow man."
ooo ooooo oooooooooooo .oooooo. oooooo oooooo oooo
`88. .888' `888' `8 d8P' `Y8b `888. `888. .8'
888b d'888 888 888 888 `888. .8888. .8'
8 Y88. .P 888 888oooo8 888 888 `888 .8'`888. .8'
8 `888' 888 888 " 888 888 `888.8' `888.8'
8 Y 888 888 o `88b d88' `888' `888'
o8o o888o o888ooooood8 `Y8bood8P' `8' `8'
88b d88 88888888888 ,ad8888ba, I8, 8 ,8I
888b d888 88 d8"' `"8b `8b d8b d8'
88`8b d8'88 88 d8' `8b "8, ,8"8, ,8"
88 `8b d8' 88 88aaaaa 88 88 Y8 8P Y8 8P
88 `8b d8' 88 88""""" 88 88 `8b d8' `8b d8'
88 `8b d8' 88 88 Y8, ,8P `8a a8' `8a a8'
88 `888' 88 88 Y8a. .a8P `8a8' `8a8'
88 `8' 88 88888888888 `"Y8888Y"' `8' `8'
__ __ ______ ______ __
| \/ | ____/ __ \ \ / /
| \ / | |__ | | | \ \ /\ / /
| |\/| | __|| | | |\ \/ \/ /
| | | | |___| |__| | \ /\ /
|_| |_|______\____/ \/ \/
_| _| _|_|_|_| _|_| _| _|
_|_| _|_| _| _| _| _| _|
_| _| _| _|_|_| _| _| _| _| _|
_| _| _| _| _| _| _| _|
_| _| _|_|_|_| _|_| _| _|
# # ### # # #
### # # # # #
### ## # # ###
# # # # # ###
# # ### # # #
# # ####### ####### # #
## ## # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # #
# # # ##### # # # # #
# # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # #
# # ####### ####### ## ##
_______ _______ _______ _ _ _
(_______|_______|_______|_)(_)(_)
_ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _
| ||_|| | ___) | | | | || || |
| | | | |_____| |___| | || || |
|_| |_|_______)\_____/ \_____/
/ |/ / ____/ __ \ | / /
/ /|_/ / __/ / / / / | /| / /
/ / / / /___/ /_/ /| |/ |/ /
/_/ /_/_____/\____/ |__/|__/