Re: mwsm traffic
RonB
> news.groups? I think you make a very intelligent, very
> valid point.
Great idea!
(repost from m.w.s. to news.groups)
RonB wrote:
> I'm sorry, Dena Jo, I don't mean to be negative -- but if
> the solution for the moderated newsgroup is now going to
> the German news server and filtering out the sleaze -- what
> have we really gained? I was successfully doing that on
> MWS. I thought the point was to have a cleaned up version
> of MWS so that new, non-computer savvy users, wouldn't be
> turned off by the flood of off-topic spew. Take a look at
> MWSM at Google Groups in "View Titles Only" mode and you'll
> see that, though the poster's name has changed (a
> constantly changes), you've got basically the same view as
> we already have at MWS -- a flood of off-topic bullshit
> that drowns out any regular posts. Instead of insane
> "Hindu" racist spittle we've got insane "elective" racist
> spittle. Whoop dee doo!
>
> So what's the solution? I don't know. I'm beginning to
> think that the newsgroup concept is doomed. To gain the
> great "privilege" of a Jay/Jai free newsgroup we have to
> run the gauntlet of news.groups. Oh joy!
>
> First we must obtain the permission of the needle-nosed,
> self-righteous, patronizing misfits who have somehow wormed
> their way into the seats of authority at news.groups, and
> convince them that we lowly, mere newsgroup users "deserve"
> the opportunity to create a newsgroup free of the Jay/Jai
> vermin. In order to do this we have to flatter these
> windbags, kowtow to them, curtsy politely and follow their
> arcane rules to the letter.
>
> Oh well, unpleasant, but doable.
>
> Unfortunately, as a side "benefit" of the process, we also
> get to drag ourselves through the news.group sewer where
> every insane malcontent and newsgroup sleaze-bag apparently
> calls home base. They slink into their tunnels to hide in
> the dark and ingest their Twinkies while scoping out
> future "hosts." And like leaches, these sewer-dwelling
> freaks stick to whatever unfortunate "hopeful" is trolled
> through their cesspools -- which, of course, is necessary
> step in gaining permission to form a new newsgroup.
>
> Of course, it would be absolutely "impossible" for the
> potentates at news.groups to look into the Jay/Jai
> situation and use their atrophied brains to see that we
> really *do* have a legitimate problem that needs a
> solution -- and then *quietly* form the new newsgroup.
> Besides, actually looking at the situation would seriously
> eat into their valuable finger wagging and their spewing of
> patronizing bullshit time -- which is their main reason for
> drawing in air -- if they, indeed, *do* draw in air.
>
> Meanwhile, these same geeks with God-complexes who hold the
> keys at news.groups, cackle at the spectacle and issue dire
> predictions about how the moderated group won't work --
> forgetting to mention that the reason it *won't* work is
> because, via the dragging through the sewer process,
> we have to expose our jugulars to these blood sucking
> freaks that infest news.groups -- all of whom insanely hate
> the idea of a moderated newsgroup -- *any* moderated
> newsgroup.
>
> So now we have a Jay/Jai free moderated newsgroup that is
> as polluted as the non-Jay/Jai free unmoderated newsgroup.
> And many more trolls are slinking around in MWS then ever
> before. The trolls, of course, want to prove that they were
> right all along, and that Alan (the "Great Satan")
> really does want to moderate extensively and not just rid
> MWS of Jay/Jai's crossposts. And, to prove thier point they
> (of course) have to fill the new newsgroup up with their
> ranting crap.
>
> All of this bullshit would have been unnecessary if MWSM
> could have quietly been created after the reasonable
> demonstration of a real problem. None of these trolls would
> have even known we existed. Thanks news.groups! But don't
> worry about this -- time to get back to the important
> things in life -- fingers need wagging -- patronizing
> bullshit needs spewing.
>
> --
> RonB
> "There's a story there...somewhere"
Charles
<ron_bl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So now we have a Jay/Jai free moderated newsgroup that is
> as polluted as the non-Jay/Jai free unmoderated newsgroup.
> And many more trolls are slinking around in MWS then ever
> before. The trolls, of course, want to prove that they were
> right all along, and that Alan (the "Great Satan")
> really does want to moderate extensively and not just rid
> MWS of Jay/Jai's crossposts. And, to prove thier point they
> (of course) have to fill the new newsgroup up with their
> ranting crap.
Huh? But that is what you all wanted. A moderated newsgroup that only
got rid of crossposts. It was pointed out that the crossposts could be
easily filtered out. I think you all felt that newbies would not get
past the crossposts. Also others who you diss brought up that a full
moderation and not a robomoderation might be preferable. But the
propononts insisted on robomoderation of crossposts alone. I guess then
you will have to filter out the trolls, or ignore them if you don't
have filters, or come to a consensus to change to a more active
moderation.
--
Charles
MC
Charles <for...@mac.com> wrote:
> Huh? But that is what you all wanted. A moderated newsgroup that only
> got rid of crossposts. It was pointed out that the crossposts could be
> easily filtered out. I think you all felt that newbies would not get
> past the crossposts. Also others who you diss brought up that a full
> moderation and not a robomoderation might be preferable. But the
> propononts insisted on robomoderation of crossposts alone. I guess then
> you will have to filter out the trolls, or ignore them if you don't
> have filters, or come to a consensus to change to a more active
> moderation.
Christ almighty, talk about flogging a dead horse.
Get a life. And ask yourself why you are so *FUCKING* OBSESSED about the
whole issue of moderation. If you don't like it, don't participate.
--
Hollywood is a place where a man can get stabbed
in the back while climbing a ladder.
--William Faulkner
CASTRATE TROLLS: http://www.schmuckwithanunderwood.com/trolls.htm
Alan Brooks
We're not changing the moderation policy. This didn't need to be
cross-posted back to news.groups, and anybody who does crosspost back is
just looking to stir things up again. The current teething problems
were to be expected, and they will get better.
Alan Brooks
MWSM Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Important MWSM Documents ------------------
The MWS FAQ: http://www.online-communicator.com/faqs.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Branson Hunter
wrote:
Sounds reasonable to wait awhile. What kind of time frame are you
considering?
Branson Hunter
Guy Macon
RonB wrote:
(Something posted to news.groups with followups set so that replies
are crossposted to news.groups and misc.writing.screenplays)
RonB, you are now in my killfile for news.groups. You are doing
exactlty what everyone in mws was complaining about - generating
off-topic crossposted traffic.
*plonk*
I will assume that those who replied to you didn't realize what
you had done, but I will be killfiling any that persist.
>> Have you considered posting a version of this on
>> news.groups? I think you make a very intelligent, very
>> valid point.
>
>Great idea!
>
>(repost from m.w.s. to news.groups)
You are off-topic. Unless you have a newsgroup proposal
to discuss, take your conversation elsewhere.
I encourage others in news.groups to killfile this thread, killfile
RonB, and to killfile anything crossposted between news.groups
and misc.writing.screenplays.
I encourage the mwsm moderator to stay the course, stick to the
moderation policy that was voted for, and to encourage the users
to follow the Standard Advice.
For those who are unfimiliar with the Standard Advice, here it is:
There is a way to influence what gets discussed in a newsgroup that
works well, and another way that has never worked no matter how many
people have tried it.
What works: Posting articles on the topic you wish to see discussed,
and participating in the resulting discussion. Using killfiles and
filters so that you don't see the posts that you dislike.
What doesn't work: Complaining about how terrible all those other
posters are for not posting what you want them to post or complimenting
all those other posters for not posting what you don't want them to post.
Followups set.
Robert McClenon
wrote:
>> Have you considered posting a version of this on
>> news.groups? I think you make a very intelligent, very
>> valid point.
I disagree, and said so in mws.
>
>Great idea!
>
>(repost from m.w.s. to news.groups)
>
>RonB wrote:
>
[snip]
This is one of the more 'interesting' and bizarre suggestions that has
been posted about the newsgroup creation process. The author appears
to be saying that, when a newsgroup is determined to have a troll
problem, the NAN moderators should unilaterally and *secretly* create
a moderated group, and that the trolls will not find it. I will not
comment further here.
- - Bob McClenon
Robert McClenon
wrote:
[snip]
>
>We're not changing the moderation policy. This didn't need to be
>cross-posted back to news.groups, and anybody who does crosspost back is
>just looking to stir things up again. The current teething problems
>were to be expected, and they will get better.
>
>Alan Brooks
>MWSM Moderator
>
I have posted a reply only to misc.writing.screenplays. I agree that
cross-posting this whine about news.groups did not help.
- - Bob McClenon
Rob Kelk
>> Have you considered posting a version of this on
>> news.groups? I think you make a very intelligent, very
>> valid point.
>
>Great idea!
>
>(repost from m.w.s. to news.groups)
<repost snipped>
First, the group has already been discussed and voted on. Talking about
it now is like campaigning for Nixon, Pearson, or Churchill.
Second, repeatedly insulting people you want help from isn't going to
get them to want to help you - quite the opposite, in fact.
Third, and most importantly, any group created quietly enough for your
resident troll(s) to not hear about it will be created quietly enough
for everyone else to not hear about it either. Usenet doesn't need yet
another empty newsgroup.
--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- wxfei -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http://onag.pinetree.org>
Jacques E. Bouchard
Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in
news:10uljcu...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> RonB wrote:
>
> (Something posted to news.groups with followups set so that replies
> are crossposted to news.groups and misc.writing.screenplays)
>
> RonB, you are now in my killfile for news.groups. You are doing
> exactlty what everyone in mws was complaining about - generating
> off-topic crossposted traffic.
>
> *plonk*
You just played right into the hands of an identity-borrowing troll. One
we apparently picked up during our unfortunate brush with news.groups -
can you stand the irony?
You folks really ought to get yourselves deloused and cleaned up. You're
a veritable petrie dish teeming with all sorts of usenet bugs.
jaybee
Robert McClenon
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Usenet is a petrie dish teeming with all sorts of Usenet bugs. If you
can't carry your own repellent, stay out of Usenet. It isn't unique
to news.groups.
- - Bob McClenon
RonB
> Hopefully you are plonking the troll who forged RonB's name and
> crossposted, and not the real RonB who did not crosspost....
> something I did not catch either.
The original repost and crossposts were the troll's work. The original
post *only* in misc.writing.screenplays (or "whine" as Bob Mclenon
puts it) was mine. I also responded and crossposted to two posts in
alt.config and posted (without crossposting) to one other message at
alt.config.
Just trying to clear it up -- in case anyone cares.
Guy Macon
RonB wrote:
>The original repost and crossposts were the troll's work. The original
>post *only* in misc.writing.screenplays ... was mine.
>Just trying to clear it up -- in case anyone cares.
Thanks! I do care and I had not noticed the trollery.
Matthew Montchalin
Yes.
|> I think you all felt that newbies would not get past the crossposts.
|> Also others who you diss brought up that a full moderation and not
|> a robomoderation might be preferable. But the propononts insisted
|> on robomoderation of crossposts alone. I guess then you will have
|> to filter out the trolls, or ignore them if you don't have filters,
|> or come to a consensus to change to a more active moderation.
Alan Brooks wrote:
|We're not changing the moderation policy.
There's no need to implement changes until mwsm develops a track
record to work with.
|This didn't need to be cross-posted back to news.groups, and anybody
|who does crosspost back is just looking to stir things up again. The
|current teething problems were to be expected, and they will get better.
It takes about a year for teething problems to pass, a little longer
if the newsgroup is experiencing tons of traffic.
Since the 'subject matter' is the only thing that people seem to be
complaining about right now, it's too early to advocate a change in
moderation policy.
In short, wait about a year or so, and then things should have settled
down.
Richard Henry
"Alan Brooks" <chi...@panixy.com> wrote in message
news:cse3cf$t4m$1...@reader2.panix.com...
I disagree.
I think it is valid to keep news.groups informed of the progress of a
newly-minted moderated group. The results have some bearing on future
debates.
Richard Henry
"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
news:10uljd3...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> RonB wrote:
>
> (Something posted to news.groups with followups set so that replies
> are crossposted to news.groups and misc.writing.screenplays)
>
> RonB, you are now in my killfile for news.groups. You are doing
> exactlty what everyone in mws was complaining about - generating
> off-topic crossposted traffic.
>
> *plonk*
>
> I will assume that those who replied to you didn't realize what
> you had done, but I will be killfiling any that persist.
>
> >> Have you considered posting a version of this on
> >> news.groups? I think you make a very intelligent, very
> >> valid point.
> >
> >Great idea!
> >
> >(repost from m.w.s. to news.groups)
>
> You are off-topic. Unless you have a newsgroup proposal
> to discuss, take your conversation elsewhere.
I disagree.
This is on topic. It is a report on a recently-formed group. Knowledge of
the results will have some effect on future newsgroup formation debates.
>
> I encourage others in news.groups to killfile this thread, killfile
> RonB, and to killfile anything crossposted between news.groups
> and misc.writing.screenplays.
At the risk of re-entering your killfile, why don't you want to know the the
results of news.groups actions?
> What doesn't work: Complaining about how terrible all those other
> posters are for not posting what you want them to post or complimenting
> all those other posters for not posting what you don't want them to post.
You mean like what you are doing here?
> Followups set.
Followups fixed in the interest of continuing an intelligent discussion.
Steve Young
> [posted to news.groups only].
>
> Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>> (Something posted to news.groups with followups set so that replies
>> are crossposted to news.groups and misc.writing.screenplays)
>> RonB, you are now in my killfile for news.groups. You are doing
>> exactlty what everyone in mws was complaining about - generating
>> off-topic crossposted traffic.
>> *plonk*
> You just played right into the hands of an identity-borrowing troll. One
> we apparently picked up during our unfortunate brush with news.groups -
> can you stand the irony?
bout now, I'd be tempted to snicker a little 'troll resistant' joke
(but I won't)
> You folks really ought to get yourselves deloused and cleaned up. You're
> a veritable petrie dish teeming with all sorts of usenet bugs.
all of Usenet needs this
if the expended energy could be influenced by the common good of us all
*woo* *hoo!*
:)x
PS I'm sure most people would help, any way they can.
This is an outrageous resource, filled with a ton of intelligence
It needs our diligence to grow beyond our competition.
Kudos to all on what's been accomplished this past half dozen months
nmste...@excite.com
Indeedy! :)))
Even Spankard Lionel is known to 'help' on occasion.
(when he and Dallas are not busy threatening people with physical harm)
:((
Adam H. Kerman
Hahahaha. Hahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Nothing said to day will affect future debates, as you call them. All that
was said will be repeated again and again and again.
Guy Macon
Richard Henry wrote:
>Alan Brooks wrote...
>> This didn't need to be cross-posted back to news.groups,
>> and anybody who does crosspost back is just looking to
>> stir things up again.
>
>I disagree.
>
>I think it is valid to keep news.groups informed of the
>progress of a newly-minted moderated group. The results
>have some bearing on future debates.
This does not require crossposting.
A post to news.groups alone fullfills any need for reporting
such progress. Those interested can then go to that group
and see for themselves.
Richard Henry wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote...
>> I encourage others in news.groups to killfile this thread, killfile
>> RonB, and to killfile anything crossposted between news.groups
>> and misc.writing.screenplays.
>
>At the risk of re-entering your killfile, why don't you want to
>know the the results of news.groups actions?
>> Followups set.
>
>Followups fixed in the interest of continuing an intelligent
>discussion.
You crossposted between news.groups and misc.writing.screenplays.
I am now killfiling you for doing that, and I encourage others
to do the same.
*plonk*
Richard Henry
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.05...@puvarg.puvarg.pbz...
You may be right:
Prospective Proponent: Our newgroup is screwed up. We need a new one.
News.groups Regulars: Standard advice, standard advice.
PP: Our problem is standard-advice-proof.
NGR: How can you say that when you are not using it? Standard advice,
standard advice.
PP: Why is everyone so mean to us?
NGR: OK, but rewrite your charter three times first.
PP: 1, 2, 3.
Anti-moderation Trolls: We don't care what your problems are. We will vote
against any attempts at moderation.
etc.
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.61.05...@puvarg.puvarg.pbz...
>> At 9:06pm -0800, 01/16/05, Richard Henry <rph...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> > I think it is valid to keep news.groups informed of the progress of a
>> > newly-minted moderated group. The results have some bearing on future
>> > debates.
>>
>> Hahahaha. Hahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>>
>> Nothing said to day will affect future debates, as you call them. All that
>> was said will be repeated again and again and again.
>
>You may be right:
>
>Prospective Proponent: Our newgroup is screwed up. We need a new one.
>News.groups Regulars: Standard advice, standard advice.
>PP: Our problem is standard-advice-proof.
>NGR: How can you say that when you are not using it? Standard advice,
>standard advice.
>PP: Why is everyone so mean to us?
>NGR: OK, but rewrite your charter three times first.
None of the news.groups regulars would tell you to re-write your group's
charter. We know that it wouldn't make any difference.
The correct response here would be "We aren't being mean; you aren't
listening to what we're saying."
>PP: 1, 2, 3.
>Anti-moderation Trolls: We don't care what your problems are. We will vote
>against any attempts at moderation.
>
>etc.
--
Rob Kelk
wrote:
<snip>
>> Followups set.
>
>Followups fixed in the interest of continuing an intelligent discussion.
Unless you're asking for another new newsgroup, or the removal of an
existing newsgroup, there's nothing that news.groups can add to this
discussion.
Followups set.
edward ohare
wrote:
>
>"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
>news:10uljd3...@corp.supernews.com...
>> You are off-topic. Unless you have a newsgroup proposal
>> to discuss, take your conversation elsewhere.
>
>I disagree.
>
>This is on topic. It is a report on a recently-formed group. Knowledge of
>the results will have some effect on future newsgroup formation debates.
Better would be that mwsm groupers show up in news.groups for the next
RFD of a moderated group and offer their opinions based on experience.
>
>>
>> I encourage others in news.groups to killfile this thread, killfile
>> RonB, and to killfile anything crossposted between news.groups
>> and misc.writing.screenplays.
>
>At the risk of re-entering your killfile, why don't you want to know the the
>results of news.groups actions?
Possibly because it could be argued its not a news.group action.
news.group participants did not provide a substantial number of yes
votes, if any. The group passed on the vote. The NAN mods decided to
act on the vote, saying the group seemed viable. This also means the
NAN mods decided the moderation scheme was not defective, as alleged
by some news.groups participants, or that it was not sufficiently
defective to decline to create the group. The mws groupers got a
moderated group. Making it work is up to them. Most, maybe all,
news.groups participants would welcome their contributions, based on
their experiences, in the next RFD for a moderated group.
>Followups fixed in the interest of continuing an intelligent discussion.
Not possible. Disagreeing with Guy concerning topicality or followups
is about the same as disagreeing with a Republican Baptist over
abortion or President Shrub. However, I agree with Guy in this
situation: this thread doesn't belong here.
It should have been ignored by everyone. I intended to do so, but why
bother now that so many others have jumped in?
followups to mws.
Jacques E. Bouchard
@corp.supernews.com:
>
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> (crosspost to news.groups, misc.writing.screenplays)
>
> Another crossposter, another entry in the killfile.
>
> *plonk*
>
> Does anyone else wish to identify themselves as a
> shit-stirrer so that I can killfile you all at once?
Does setting the follow-up to alt.dev.null count as a shit-stirrer, or is
that just the usenet equivalent of a petulant four year-old covering his
ears and shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA-LA-LA-LAAAAA"?
jaybee
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>> I guess
>> then you will have to filter out the trolls, or ignore them if you
>> don't have filters, or come to a consensus to change to a more active
>> moderation.
>We're not changing the moderation policy. This didn't need to be
>cross-posted back to news.groups, and anybody who does crosspost back is
>just looking to stir things up again. The current teething problems
>were to be expected, and they will get better.
I don't see why you wouldn't change the policy. One of the nice
things about moderation is that you don't have to wait for things
to get better. You can MAKE some thing better. If you want to
convince expatriots that MSWM is a better incarnation of MSW and
worth coming back for, then I think you should at least put some
effort in getting rid of the obvious crap. It doesn't have to
be permanent, it can be turned off in a couple weeks; meanwhile you
continue to rebuild the reader base. If you are afraid of the
"I told you so" factor, don't. The problems you face now have
nothing to do with the Jai problem. It's a completely different
problem, a different mission, and a different MO. Are they explicitly
by this Jai character? No. Do they have he same kind of content?
Not really. Did the Jai postings typically use forged addresses?
No. Has Jai been posting his usual stuff by multiposting to MSWM?
No. Treat it as a different and new problem, don't feel restrained
from nuking non-Jai postings. Actually, as far as I can tell, the
anti-Jai strategem has worked well; the problem is that MSWM
attracted another troll. MSW could just as easily have picked up
the same troll, but MSWM is in a position to do something about it
now.
ru
--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Brian Mailman
> Better would be that mwsm groupers show up in news.groups for the
> next RFD of a moderated group and offer their opinions based on
> experience.
Very sensible!
> Possibly because it could be argued its not a news.group action.
It's not a news.groups group action, but sometimes an individual
volunteers to give advice concerning a group dynamics issue. They do
come up from time to time; however, my feeling without any hard numbers
is the folks bringing up the issue are rarely satisfied.
> ...The NAN mods decided to act on the vote, saying the group seemed
> viable. This also means the NAN mods decided the moderation scheme
> was not defective, as alleged by some news.groups participants, or
> that it was not sufficiently defective to decline to create the
> group.
I don't think the second sentence follows from the former. I've never
seen any of them comment on those issues as an official nanmod, only at
most as an individual. I believe they actively steer clear of slippery
slopes and commenting or making judgments about the process of the
contents of a proposal (awkward phrasing) is one such slide to insanity.
B/
Robert McClenon
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Yes.
Robert McClenon
wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:05:16 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
>>news:Pine.LNX.4.61.05...@puvarg.puvarg.pbz...
>>> At 9:06pm -0800, 01/16/05, Richard Henry <rph...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > I think it is valid to keep news.groups informed of the progress of a
>>> > newly-minted moderated group. The results have some bearing on future
>>> > debates.
>>>
>>> Hahahaha. Hahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>>>
>>> Nothing said to day will affect future debates, as you call them. All that
>>> was said will be repeated again and again and again.
>>
>>You may be right:
>>
>>Prospective Proponent: Our newgroup is screwed up. We need a new one.
>>News.groups Regulars: Standard advice, standard advice.
>>PP: Our problem is standard-advice-proof.
>>NGR: How can you say that when you are not using it? Standard advice,
>>standard advice.
>>PP: Why is everyone so mean to us?
>>NGR: OK, but rewrite your charter three times first.
>
>None of the news.groups regulars would tell you to re-write your group's
>charter. We know that it wouldn't make any difference.
Some of us do tell the proponent to revise the charter so as to
clarify that people are voting on.
>
>The correct response here would be "We aren't being mean; you aren't
>listening to what we're saying."
True.
>
>>PP: 1, 2, 3.
>>Anti-moderation Trolls: We don't care what your problems are. We will vote
>>against any attempts at moderation.
>>
>>etc.
The best way to deal with these people is Standard Advice. Killfile
them.
- - Bob McClenon
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> (crosspost to news.groups, misc.writing.screenplays)
>Another crossposter, another entry in the killfile.
>*plonk*
>Does anyone else wish to identify themselves as a shit-stirrer so that I
>can killfile you all at once?
And miss your drama-queen act?
I suggest EVERY regular in news.groups crosspost to MSW. Rise up to Guy's
challenge. Let him kill file one and all. If he has no one left to reply
to, it may reduce his post count slightly and news.groups could be used
for some useful purpose, whatever that might be.
Russ Allbery
> RonB wrote:
>> I'm sorry, Dena Jo, I don't mean to be negative -- but if the solution
>> for the moderated newsgroup is now going to the German news server and
>> filtering out the sleaze -- what have we really gained? I was
>> successfully doing that on MWS. I thought the point was to have a
>> cleaned up version of MWS so that new, non-computer savvy users,
>> wouldn't be turned off by the flood of off-topic spew. Take a look at
>> MWSM at Google Groups in "View Titles Only" mode and you'll see that,
>> though the poster's name has changed (a constantly changes), you've got
>> basically the same view as we already have at MWS -- a flood of
>> off-topic bullshit that drowns out any regular posts. Instead of insane
>> "Hindu" racist spittle we've got insane "elective" racist
>> spittle. Whoop dee doo!
Well, the theory under which the group was created is that without the
crossposting to keep this sort of thing alive, the kooks will lose
interest and stop. Given how new the group is, you haven't let enough
time go by to see if this will work, so that's still something of an open
question.
>> Of course, it would be absolutely "impossible" for the potentates at
>> news.groups to look into the Jay/Jai situation and use their atrophied
>> brains to see that we really *do* have a legitimate problem that needs
>> a solution -- and then *quietly* form the new newsgroup.
The Big Eight newsgroup creation system is currently completely incapable
of doing anything quietly, since the whole point of it is open discussion
(which unfortunately then also includes people who just want to disrupt
discussion). I certainly understand what you'd like to see here, but it's
pretty hard to do without basically going back to the old world of the
backbone Cabal where some small group of people make arbitrary decisions.
That sort of a system works great if those arbitrary decisions agree with
what you want, and sucks even more than the current system if they don't.
>> Meanwhile, these same geeks with God-complexes who hold the keys at
>> news.groups, cackle at the spectacle and issue dire predictions about
>> how the moderated group won't work -- forgetting to mention that the
>> reason it *won't* work is because, via the dragging through the sewer
>> process, we have to expose our jugulars to these blood sucking freaks
>> that infest news.groups -- all of whom insanely hate the idea of a
>> moderated newsgroup -- *any* moderated newsgroup.
I'd like to point out that, now that you have a moderated newsgroup,
there's nothing at all preventing you from collectively deciding that the
moderation rules were stupid and you need to do something more aggressive.
This was pointed out during the RFD discussion as a potential drawback
(the moderators can change the rules of the group). Bear in mind that
it's also a potential benefit (the moderators can, in conjunction with
discussions with the users of the group, adjust for changing circumstances
and practical experience and not be stuck with a moderation policy that in
practice didn't work).
It's premature at this point to take that approach, but it's something to
keep in mind.
BTW, I flatly disagree with the people who don't consider this thread
on-topic in news.groups. I plan on continuing to follow and quite
possibly respond to it, and I cordially invite any news.groups regular who
doesn't like it to killfile me.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
edward ohare
<_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>
>edward ohare wrote:
>
>>Disagreeing with Guy concerning topicality or followups
>>is about the same as disagreeing with a Republican Baptist over
>>abortion or President Shrub. However, I agree with Guy in this
>>situation: this thread doesn't belong here.
>
>It is a heavy burden being right all of the time but I try to
>bear it without complaining. :)
Good answer! Made me smile. <G>
BarB
wrote:
>BTW, I flatly disagree with the people who don't consider this thread
>on-topic in news.groups. I plan on continuing to follow and quite
>possibly respond to it, and I cordially invite any news.groups regular who
>doesn't like it to killfile me.
>
Killfile Russ?
Sacrilege!
--
BarB
Brian Mailman
It will be amusing, but also rather revealing to see if he makes an
exception for Russ, no?
B/
BarB
>I don't see why you wouldn't change the policy.
Neither do I. The job of a moderator is to keep the group usable for
readers, keep it running smoothly. It's not to slavishly follow rules
that aren't working no matter what. That's exactly why we tell users
that moderators should be chosen carefully. They hold the keys, they
have to take the heat.
BarB
Adam H. Kerman
>BTW, I flatly disagree with the people who don't consider this thread
>on-topic in news.groups. I plan on continuing to follow and quite
>possibly respond to it, and I cordially invite any news.groups regular
>who doesn't like it to killfile me.
Here's to Guy and the great honor of residing in his kill file.
Guy Macon
Russ Allbery wrote:
>BTW, I flatly disagree with the people who don't consider this thread
>on-topic in news.groups. I plan on continuing to follow and quite
>possibly respond to it, and I cordially invite any news.groups regular who
>doesn't like it to killfile me.
No need. It is easy to simply killfile you when you crosspost
between news.groups and misc.writing.screenplays, based on the
theory that your other contribution to news.groups are worth
reading. *(limited pattern-based) plonk*
Brian Mailman wrote:
>It will be amusing, but also rather revealing to see if he makes an
>exception for Russ, no?
*(limited pattern-based - for the same reasons) plonk*
Guy Macon
No.
It is neither. Killfiles are "covering your ears." The content
of a post combined with the place it is posted can be shit-stirring.
Setting followups in a simple pavlovian training exercise, training
the clueless to be aware of where their replies are being posted to.
*ding*
See? You just checked where your reply is being posted to, didn't you?
Adam H. Kerman
>Brian Mailman wrote:
Can you say "backpedal"?
As predicted, Guy did not give up his drama-queen act. No one tell Guy
that, if one objects to crossposts, one could test the Newsgroups header
for the presence of a comma, or the presence of the name of the specific
crossposted newsgroup one objects to. Killfiling an author for
crossposting to a newsgroup one doesn't like is about as effective as,
say, moderating a newsgroup for crossposting.
Honestly, a news.groupie who hasn't learned to use his kill file
properly...
Adam H. Kerman
>Brian Mailman wrote:
Good heavens! Guy just multi-posted this article to msw, apparently to
keep HIMSELF out of his own kill file! What a character is Guy.
Guy Macon
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> if one objects to crossposts, one could test the Newsgroups header
>for the presence of a comma, or the presence of the name of the specific
>crossposted newsgroup one objects to.
You obviously don't "get it." I doubt that you are educable, but
perhaps someone else reading this is,so I will explain it. Once.
It is a common misconception that killfiles are something other
than what they really are; time management tools. Once I identify
a person to be unlikely to contribute anything of value to the
discussion. I use a killfile to avoid having that person waste my
valuable time. I have identified crossposting to news.groups
when there is no proposal in play as an excellent diagnostic for
identifying those posters who unlikely to contribute anything of
value to the discussion. That doesn't mean that I am a robot,
blindly killfiling all who do that no matter what other data I
have concerning how likely it is that they will contribute
something of value in the future, but it is a factor.
In the present case, two well-respected and valuable posters have
told me that they disagree with this particular diagnostic. They
both have a history that leads me to believe that future post by
them will be of value. Thus no blanket killfile.
In contrast, I just looked at all posts by [ "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.chinet.com> ] in the last 500 posts, and saw nothing
worth reading. 100% of the sample I reviewed consisted of
personal attacks, and personal attacks are not something that
I pay any attention to - they are content-free. Because past
performance predicts future performance, I am now killfiling you,
thus saving me the time I would have wasted on you and saving
everyone else the time they might have wasted reading my replies
to you. And thus this newsgroup becomes an even more pleasant
place with an even higher percentage of informative posts.
Bu-bye.
*plonk*
nospam
"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
news:10upmav...@corp.supernews.com...
> In the present case, two well-respected and valuable posters have
> told me that they disagree with this particular diagnostic. They
> both have a history that leads me to believe that future post by
> them will be of value. Thus no blanket killfile.
>
You're an idiot.
Robert McClenon
Ru is right. When a moderated group was approved, the moderation team
was given a great deal of authority. That includes the authority to
change the terms of the moderation.
Here is the moderation strategy that I would suggest Alan consider.
There is a distinction, commonly understood in discussions of network
abuse, between abuse OF the network and abuse ON the network. I would
suggest that the moderators should be willing to use moderation to
filter against various sorts of abuse OF the network, but not against
abuse ON the network. This is a generalization of the concept of not
moderating based on content.
Cross-posted trolling is both abuse of the network and abuse on the
network. The cross-posting ban prevents it.
Racist posts are abuse on the network. Filtering them based on
content alone would be moderation based on content. However, the
racist posts are not just racist posts. They are also forgeries.
Forgery is an abuse OF the network, and a moderator should be able to
filter against it. Also, if 20 or more meaningless racist taunts are
posted within 30 days, they all have substantively the same content,
which is "racist insults", and that is Excessive Multiple Posting,
which is abuse OF the network.
I would suggest that the moderators consider blacklisting known
spammers and known frogged addresses as well as cross-posts.
I would also again state that the regulars of mwsm also killfile the
racist nonsense.
- - Bob McClenon
Richard Henry
"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
news:10upmav...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> > if one objects to crossposts, one could test the Newsgroups header
> >for the presence of a comma, or the presence of the name of the specific
> >crossposted newsgroup one objects to.
>
> You obviously don't "get it." I doubt that you are educable, but
> perhaps someone else reading this is,so I will explain it. Once.
>
> It is a common misconception that killfiles are something other
> than what they really are; time management tools. Once I identify
> a person to be unlikely to contribute anything of value to the
> discussion. I use a killfile to avoid having that person waste my
> valuable time. I have identified crossposting to news.groups
> when there is no proposal in play as an excellent diagnostic for
> identifying those posters who unlikely to contribute anything of
> value to the discussion. That doesn't mean that I am a robot,
> blindly killfiling all who do that no matter what other data I
> have concerning how likely it is that they will contribute
> something of value in the future, but it is a factor.
I never use a killfile. I am perfectly capable of ignoring a poster on my
own.
Steve Young
> RonB <ron_bl...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> RonB wrote:
[...]
> The Big Eight newsgroup creation system is currently completely
> incapable of doing anything quietly, since the whole point of it is
> open discussion (which unfortunately then also includes people who
> just want to disrupt discussion).
This is all for the good, IMHO
I think it behooves us to quell the worst of the disruptions.
> I certainly understand what you'd like to see here, but it's
> pretty hard to do without basically going back to the old world of the
> backbone Cabal where some small group of people make arbitrary
> decisions.
How about a more democratic Cabal, i.e. representatives/delegates of the
people?
> That sort of a system works great if those arbitrary decisions agree
> with what you want, and sucks even more than the current system if
> they don't.
political subdivision might tie a rope to it. The best of both worlds?
[*dead* *nuts!* rant deleted]
> I'd like to point out that, now that you have a moderated newsgroup,
> there's nothing at all preventing you from collectively deciding that
> the moderation rules were stupid and you need to do something more
> aggressive.
What a breath of fresh air
> This was pointed out during the RFD discussion as a potential drawback
> (the moderators can change the rules of the group). Bear in mind that
> it's also a potential benefit (the moderators can, in conjunction with
> discussions with the users of the group, adjust for changing
> circumstances and practical experience and not be stuck with a
> moderation policy that in practice didn't work).
Including users in the formula is very smart
> It's premature at this point to take that approach, but it's something
> to keep in mind.
Yep, in fact, I can see things always in a somewhat fluid state, that's
why I'm such staunch proponent of amending charters. It gives the group a
community unity, to do what's best for the group.
(comm => unity)
> BTW, I flatly disagree with the people who don't consider this thread
> on-topic in news.groups. I plan on continuing to follow and quite
> possibly respond to it, and I cordially invite any news.groups regular
> who doesn't like it to killfile me.
I'm glad you said that, the group participants have so much to add and it
invites interested parties to the discussion, without requiring they read
news.groups
Steve Young
Steve Young
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> if one objects to crossposts, one could test the Newsgroups header
>>for the presence of a comma, or the presence of the name of the specific
>>crossposted newsgroup one objects to.
> You obviously don't "get it." I doubt that you are educable, but
> perhaps someone else reading this is,so I will explain it. Once.
> It is a common misconception that killfiles are something other
> than what they really are; time management tools. Once I identify
> a person to be unlikely to contribute anything of value to the
> discussion. I use a killfile to avoid having that person waste my
> valuable time. I have identified crossposting to news.groups
> when there is no proposal in play as an excellent diagnostic for
> identifying those posters who unlikely to contribute anything of
> value to the discussion. That doesn't mean that I am a robot,
> blindly killfiling all who do that no matter what other data I
> have concerning how likely it is that they will contribute
> something of value in the future, but it is a factor.
> In the present case, two well-respected and valuable posters have
> told me that they disagree with this particular diagnostic. They
> both have a history that leads me to believe that future post by
> them will be of value. Thus no blanket killfile.
how bout a 'me too', to make that 3
beins I'm talkin with the *man* ;)
> In contrast, I just looked at all posts by [ "Adam H. Kerman"
> <a...@chinet.chinet.com> ] in the last 500 posts, and saw nothing
> worth reading.
*Oh* *my*, you do need something to do, if you spend this much valuable
time determining whether to stick you fingers in your ears when I talk ;)
[,,,]
> Bu-bye.
>
> *plonk*
well doggonit
at least you won't be trolling me when I speak <grin>
:)x
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>How about a more democratic Cabal, i.e. representatives/delegates of the
>people?
Cf. Gigi's repeated pleas in news.groups for a "parliament" to replace
the nan-o-mods.
In my view, the proposal is utterly unworkable. It presumes that
Usenet is under central control and can be governed. Both
assumptions are false. Furthermore, it just shifts the problem
of one-vote-per-person to the election of representatives.
Having more elections would just invite more tomfoolerly.
>Yep, in fact, I can see things always in a somewhat fluid state, that's
>why I'm such staunch proponent of amending charters. It gives the group a
>community unity, to do what's best for the group.
>(comm => unity)
Agreed. People will vote with their feet. If they like a group,
they'll make it work. If they don't like it, they'll go elsewhere.
>I'm glad you said that, the group participants have so much to add and it
>invites interested parties to the discussion, without requiring they read
>news.groups
I've replied only in news.groups. I personally don't like
cross-posting except during RFD/CFV periods. YMMV.
Marty
Steve Young
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:45:41 -0500, "Steve Young"
> <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>>How about a more democratic Cabal, i.e. representatives/delegates of the
>>people?
> Cf. Gigi's repeated pleas in news.groups for a "parliament" to replace
> the nan-o-mods.
No, the nan-o-mods would be part of the system
(love the term nan-o-mods, where did it first rise in print?)
But yes, though work it from the grass roots up. Perhaps each desiring
group selects a delegate to speak and vote on its behalf.
> In my view, the proposal is utterly unworkable. It presumes that
> Usenet is under central control and can be governed. Both
> assumptions are false.
That's the problem with it now. People think its central control because
they themselves are impotent to fixing problems they experience in their
groups.
> Furthermore, it just shifts the problem
> of one-vote-per-person to the election of representatives.
> Having more elections would just invite more tomfoolerly.
I disagree, more elections means more exercise in getting it right ;)
And, more reason to make it right.
>>Yep, in fact, I can see things always in a somewhat fluid state, that's
>>why I'm such staunch proponent of amending charters. It gives the group
>>a community unity, to do what's best for the group.
>>(comm => unity)
> Agreed. People will vote with their feet. If they like a group,
> they'll make it work.
They can't make it work, they don't have the tools.
Can't even amend their charter :(
> If they don't like it, they'll go elsewhere.
Elsewhere is likely Yahoo Groups, Google Groups and other forum
competitors :( There are a bunch of them already, why feed their growth?
>>I'm glad you said that, the group participants have so much to add and
>>it invites interested parties to the discussion, without requiring they
>>read news.groups
> I've replied only in news.groups. I personally don't like
> cross-posting except during RFD/CFV periods. YMMV.
Because of the peculiar content, it might have been a better choice for me
to have done the same.
Steve Young
pinknebulous
"Pavlov Macon" explained:
> It is a common misconception that killfiles are something other
> than what they really are; time management tools.
One can easily manage their time reading Usenet by ignoring certain topics
or posters. People who possess little or no will power have over-active
killfiles, a malady commonly referred to as Obsessive Compulsive Killfile
Disorder (OCKD), and announcing a plonk makes those who lack any real power
_feel_ powerful.
Wayne Brown
> "Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote
>
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> if one objects to crossposts, one could test the Newsgroups header
>>>for the presence of a comma, or the presence of the name of the specific
>>>crossposted newsgroup one objects to.
>
>> You obviously don't "get it." I doubt that you are educable, but
>> perhaps someone else reading this is,so I will explain it. Once.
<snip>
>> In contrast, I just looked at all posts by [ "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <a...@chinet.chinet.com> ] in the last 500 posts, and saw nothing
>> worth reading.
>
> *Oh* *my*, you do need something to do, if you spend this much valuable
> time determining whether to stick you fingers in your ears when I talk ;)
>
> [,,,]
>
>> Bu-bye.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
> well doggonit
> at least you won't be trolling me when I speak <grin>
Hmmm... Steve Young answers an article addressed to Adam H. Kerman,
and responds to Guy's comments as if they were addressed to himself.
Interesting... but not really a surprise.
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>if one objects to crossposts, one could test the Newsgroups header
>>for the presence of a comma, or the presence of the name of the specific
>>crossposted newsgroup one objects to.
>You obviously don't "get it."
Of course I do. You're a drama queen. You assured me that I was in your
kill file, but here you are posting a followup. Such an attention-getter.
>I doubt that you are educable, but perhaps someone else reading this
>is,so I will explain it. Once.
>It is a common misconception that killfiles are something other
>than what they really are; time management tools. . . .
Did it ever occur to you that if you didn't post a meaningless followup to
almost every single news.groups subthread every single day you'd have a
great deal more time?
>Bu-bye.
>*plonk*
Stay tuned to our next exciting episode of "As the Stomach Churns" in
which we find Guy, once again, seething at his screen and drooling on his
keyboard plotting followups to all those authors he claims to have
killfiled.
David Bostwick
>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:45:41 -0500, "Steve Young"
>> <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>
>>>How about a more democratic Cabal, i.e. representatives/delegates of the
>>>people?
>
>> Cf. Gigi's repeated pleas in news.groups for a "parliament" to replace
>> the nan-o-mods.
>
>No, the nan-o-mods would be part of the system
>(love the term nan-o-mods, where did it first rise in print?)
>
>But yes, though work it from the grass roots up. Perhaps each desiring
>group selects a delegate to speak and vote on its behalf.
>
>> In my view, the proposal is utterly unworkable. It presumes that
>> Usenet is under central control and can be governed. Both
>> assumptions are false.
>
>That's the problem with it now. People think its central control because
>they themselves are impotent to fixing problems they experience in their
>groups.
And that will always be the status of Usenet. Each news admin decides how his
or her system will be run. There will not be central control unless you're
willing and able to enforce the "will of the majority" on every admin. I hope
that day never comes.
Until then, learn and disseminate - Usenet is a cooperative effort. It is not
a government. Its "rules" are really guidelines, which work pretty well,
considering how many nut cases (everyone but me) are involved. It is neither
a democracy nor a republic. Others have described it as an anarchy, but I'm
not sure it's quite that unordered.
Now, how about requiring that no one be allowed to post until they've learned
the history of Usenet, and have read news.groups for at least 3 months? There
could be a whitelist of new applicants, all news admins would be required to
check that list for allowed posters, violaters would be UDP'd, cancel squads
would roam the Net, ...
Alan Brooks
Thanks for the moderation advice, Ru & Bob. We're still not inclined to
change the moderation policy, at least not immediately. Instead we'll
promote the use of killfiles and other Standard Advice, and see if the
troll loses interest or, perhaps, dies choking on his own bile. If none
of this works, I guess we'll explore other options.
Alan Brooks
MWSM Moderator
chips at panix dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Important MWSM Documents ------------------
The MWS FAQ: http://www.online-communicator.com/faqs.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jimi
> we'll promote the use of killfiles and other Standard Advice, and see
> if the troll loses interest or, perhaps, dies choking on his own
> bile.
Wasnt this suggested for the trolls/etc on MWS before MWSM was created?
Seems to me that you are ignoring the situation that was a direct cause for
the creation of MWSM.
> If none of this works, I guess we'll explore other options.
misc.writing.screeplays.moderated.moderated??
Jimi
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>> Cf. Gigi's repeated pleas in news.groups for a "parliament" to replace
>> the nan-o-mods.
>No, the nan-o-mods would be part of the system
>(love the term nan-o-mods, where did it first rise in print?) ...
Relatively recently. I've given up on "troika." It just didn't sell.
>> In my view, the proposal is utterly unworkable. It presumes that
>> Usenet is under central control and can be governed. Both
>> assumptions are false.
>That's the problem with it now. People think it's central control because
>they themselves are impotent to fix problems they experience in their
>groups.
The remedy--or non-remedy, depending on your point of view--is
acceptance. A classic line from the Big Book of AA says "acceptance
is the answer to all my problems today" (3rd edition, 449). The
problems, such as they are, are endemic to open discussions hosted
by an indefinitely large number of news systems around the world.
If we could "fix" the human condition, we could solve not only the
problems of Usenet but all other social ills as well. It reminds me
of the old joke about tiger stew. The first problem with the
recipe is to get a tiger. The advice given is to catch two and
let one go. :o(
>> Furthermore, it just shifts the problem
>> of one-vote-per-person to the election of representatives.
>> Having more elections would just invite more tomfoolerly.
>I disagree, more elections means more exercise in getting it right ;)
>And, more reason to make it right.
OK. You're more optimistic than I am. I respect your right to
disagree with me. I often disagree with myself anyway. ;o)
>> Agreed. People will vote with their feet. If they like a group,
>> they'll make it work.
>They can't make it work, they don't have the tools.
>Can't even amend their charter :(
All the group has to do is to agree that the charter on file
is no longer their charter. ("Catch two tigers and let
one go.") news.groups does NOT function as a charter
cop. That means that no one will stop a group from
saying, "Our charter (our consensus or "group
conscience") is now thus-and-such." And no one in
news.groups can stop a group from naming a delegate
to a new representative body.
Giovanni Greco (whom I called "Gigi" ran an RFD for
news.admin.parliament. I voted against it, but I learned that I
shouldn't have. I had only philosophical disagreements with the
group, not technical disagreements. The whole point of
Usenet is to let all and sundry say what they think. If the
RFD comes up again, I will ostentatiously abstain from
voting on the proposal.
No one can stop you or G.G. from building a group of
delegates from newsgroups that want a parliament.
You may, perhaps, be laying the foundation for the future
of newsgroups in doing so.
>> If they don't like it, they'll go elsewhere.
>Elsewhere is likely Yahoo Groups, Google Groups and other forum
>competitors :(
Right. It's a pretty big "elsewhere."
>There are a bunch of them already, why feed their growth?
They serve "needs," real or imaginary. I have created seven
yahoo groups and am registered in four others. I take care
of a mailing list for another group. These are tools that I
use for different purposes. If I had my own news server,
I might host all the groups in my own hierarchy. :-O
I like Usenet. I'm immensely grateful to the people who invented it
and who sustain it today. I understand that it's not to everyone's
taste. I'd hate to see it turned into a closed system under central
control. That means I accept the background noise that comes
from the juvenile delinquents. It's the price we pay for an open,
decentralized system.
>>>I'm glad you said that, the group participants have so much to add and
>>>it invites interested parties to the discussion, without requiring they
>>>read news.groups
>> I've replied only in news.groups. I personally don't like
>> cross-posting except during RFD/CFV periods. YMMV.
>Because of the peculiar content, it might have been a better choice for me
>to have done the same.
Theorizing about Usenet seems to be on-topic here--or at least not
too terribly off-topic. I was very impressed by Russ Allbery's
comments in this thread. He's got an open mind. But I don't think
my speculations belong in mwsm.
Marty
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
(David Bostwick) wrote:
> ... Usenet is a cooperative effort. It is not
>a government. Its "rules" are really guidelines, which work pretty well,
>considering how many nut cases (everyone but me) are involved. It is neither
>a democracy nor a republic. Others have described it as an anarchy, but I'm
>not sure it's quite that unordered. ...
Agreed.
When and if the term becomes depoliticized, we could call it a
"coalition of the willing." ;o)
Marty
Steve Young
> ... Steve Young answers an article addressed to Adam H. Kerman,
> and responds to Guy's comments as if they were addressed to himself.
> Interesting... but not really a surprise.
Perhaps the point missed, is that Guy had killfiled me some time ago.
It was his bouncing basketball plonk he used on me, the one that goes:
plonk plonk plonk plonk plonkity plonk plonk plonk plonk
or some such sort :)))
Wayne Brown
>
> Until then, learn and disseminate - Usenet is a cooperative effort. It is not
> a government. Its "rules" are really guidelines, which work pretty well,
> considering how many nut cases (everyone but me) are involved. It is neither
> a democracy nor a republic. Others have described it as an anarchy, but I'm
> not sure it's quite that unordered.
I've always thought of USENET as a feudal system, with most of us filling
the role of serfs, and the news admins as feudal lords. That would
cast the NAN mods as nominal "kings" who will continue to rule only
as long as they keep the good will and cooperation of the nobles who
rule the neighboring estates. The serfs can make petitions, but have
no power to force anyone to listen... and if the "kings" get too pushy,
the nobles can withdraw to their own castles and do as they please.
Guy Macon
Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
>
>"Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>
>>> Cf. Gigi's repeated pleas in news.groups for a "parliament" to replace
>>> the nan-o-mods.
>
>>No, the nan-o-mods would be part of the system
>>(love the term nan-o-mods, where did it first rise in print?) ...
>
>Relatively recently. I've given up on "troika." It just didn't sell.
Gang of Three?
Ubergrupenfuhrers?
(I would welcome someone who speaks German to give me the correct
terms for "leaders over groups" and "leader over group," It is
likely that I mangled the syntax.)
Guy Macon
Wayne Brown wrote:
>Steve Young <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>>> *plonk*
>>
>> well doggonit
>> at least you won't be trolling me when I speak <grin>
>
>Hmmm... Steve Young answers an article addressed to Adam H. Kerman,
>and responds to Guy's comments as if they were addressed to himself.
>Interesting... but not really a surprise.
Like I said, it's all about identifying those who are likely to
waste my time and unlikely to post something worth reading, then
filtering out those individuals. The above is an interestng data
point for use in making such decisions.
Guy Macon
I just searched my killfile, my posting log and Google Groups for
any evidence that I killfiled you. All I found was you claiming
that I killfiled you and a sock puppet (yours?) going by the name
"Ayaff Noclu" posting in alt.culture.usenet claiming that I
killfiled you.
It is certainly possible that I killfiled you without any evidence
showing up in these three places, but I rather suspect that the
real answer is that you were posting under another identity when
I killfiled you and that you got confused over which of your
identities you were posting under. An alternative explanation is
that you are claiming that I killfiled you and then continued to
reply as a trolling technique, hoping that I will rise to the bait.
As far as I can tell, your assertion is false. I am, of course,
open to any evidence that you may have that I plonked you. If I
did, please show me evidence of same and I will apologize for
whatever error kept you out of my killfile and correct that error.
I would be very interested in identifying the flaw in my system
that allowed such a thing o happen - if indeed it did happen.
I am pondering whether I should publicly plonk you simply because
you have made repeated false accusations that I publicly plonked
you at some time in the past. I am not sure whether that alone is
a good predictor of you being a time waster in the future. On the
other hand, you did manage to make me waste a few minutes searching
for evidence that I had killfiled you, so maybe you are a time waster
who should be killfiled. Let me think about that for a while.
Adam H. Kerman
Guy, once again, proves he is the master of using his time productively.
Alan Brooks
>> Instead
>> we'll promote the use of killfiles and other Standard Advice, and see
>> if the troll loses interest or, perhaps, dies choking on his own
>> bile.
>
> Wasnt this suggested for the trolls/etc on MWS before MWSM was
> created? Seems to me that you are ignoring the situation that was a
> direct cause for the creation of MWSM.
Well, so far our moderation policy *has* solved the problem we wanted it
to solve. It also uncovered a bit of latent troll-potential; a possible
aspect of all changes. There are other ways we can deal with the
current/new MWSM troll.
>> If none of this works, I guess we'll explore other options.
>
> misc.writing.screeplays.moderated.moderated??
You took the words right out of my RFD. The last one was so much fun,
who wouldn't want to do it all over again?
Guy Macon
Guy Macon wrote:
>I just searched my killfile, my posting log and Google Groups for
>any evidence that I killfiled you. All I found was you claiming
>that I killfiled you and a sock puppet (yours?) going by the name
>"Ayaff Noclu" posting in alt.culture.usenet claiming that I
>killfiled you.
>
>It is certainly possible that I killfiled you without any evidence
>showing up in these three places,
>I am, of course,
>open to any evidence that you may have that I plonked you. If I
>did, please show me evidence of same and I will apologize for
>whatever error kept you out of my killfile and correct that error.
>I would be very interested in identifying the flaw in my system
>that allowed such a thing o happen - if indeed it did happen.
This one has been bothering me all day, so I searched my backup
CDs and found that I had indeed made an error. It urns out that
I had killfiled Steve Young in a group that I don't read
(soc.culture.usenet) and later, during an upgrade, only transferred
my killfile setting for groups that I read. It wouldn't have made
any difference if I had transferred it, though - it wasn't set to
apply in news.groups. D'oh!
Here is the post:
| Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:46:08 -0700
|
| Steve Young <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> says...
| >It's been suggested there isn't an appropriate group
| >and it too has been stated that this group is reasonably
| >troll resistant.
| >I personally believe it contains the right audience
| Have fun. Go to town. Post all the off-topic articles you wish.
| We are used to it, and are happy to killfile you. I obviously
| should have done so from the start, but your reasonable tone
| fooled me into thinking that you just didn't know that NEWS.GROUPS
| IS FOR DISCUSSING BIG-8 NEWSGROUP CREATION. Have fun shouting into
| an empty hall.
|
| *plonk......plonk.....plonk....plonk...plonk..plonk.plonkplonklonkonknkk*
| Hey! That one bounced! Must be *really* ripe...
I apologize to Steve Young for reading and replying to his posts after
he showed himself to be willing to post the inappropriate newsgroups
simply because they are "reasonably troll resistant." I thank Mr.
Young for being so kind as to self-identify as a Troll, and I have now
fixed the error in my killfile so that I will never again see his posts.
Again, the error was mine and I offer my sincere apology for it.
I need to take extra care with the extra ripe ones that bounce when
they hit the bit bucket. It is embarrassing when one of them bounces
out... :(
Bye-bye, Steve.
*plonk*
Guy Macon
(Typo alert: I wrote "soc" instead of "alt" in my last post.)
Guy Macon wrote:
>I had indeed made an error. It turns out that
>I had killfiled Steve Young in a group that I don't read
>(alt.culture.usenet) and later, during an upgrade, only transferred
>my killfile setting for groups that I read. It wouldn't have made
>any difference if I had transferred it, though - it wasn't set to
>apply in news.groups. D'oh!
On the other hand, perhaps on Steve Young should have mentioned that
this public plonking that he was crowing about me not applying was
done in another newsgroup. If he had I would have found it much
quicker. I assumed that someone who is a pest in news.groups, who
is replying to a news.groups regular and who is posting to news.groups
was going on about something that happened in news.groups, not in
alt.culture.usenet.
Adie
Guy I agree, there are so many ME TOO idiots in news.groups that I couldnt
agree more!
edward ohare
wrote:
>Well, so far our moderation policy *has* solved the problem we wanted it
>to solve. It also uncovered a bit of latent troll-potential; a possible
>aspect of all changes. There are other ways we can deal with the
>current/new MWSM troll.
Why? You've paid the price, through the RFD process, to get the
infrastructure in place to deal effectively with the current problem.
Steve Young
> In article <TfOdndtR38A...@bright.net>, "Steve Young"
> <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote
>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:45:41 -0500, "Steve Young"
>>> <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>>>>How about a more democratic Cabal, i.e. representatives/delegates of
>>>>the people?
>>> Cf. Gigi's repeated pleas in news.groups for a "parliament" to replace
>>> the nan-o-mods.
>>No, the nan-o-mods would be part of the system
>>(love the term nan-o-mods, where did it first rise in print?)
>>But yes, though work it from the grass roots up. Perhaps each desiring
>>group selects a delegate to speak and vote on its behalf.
>>> In my view, the proposal is utterly unworkable. It presumes that
>>> Usenet is under central control and can be governed. Both
>>> assumptions are false.
>>That's the problem with it now. People think its central control because
>>they themselves are impotent to fixing problems they experience in their
>>groups.
> And that will always be the status of Usenet. Each news admin decides
> how his or her system will be run. There will not be central control
> unless you're willing and able to enforce the "will of the majority" on
> every admin. I hope that day never comes.
Do you respond to user complaints?
I think it's safe to assume that a majority of the users find this
offensive, would you agree?:
From: "robert....@verizon.net" <robert....@verizon.zzn.com>
Msg-ID: 1105552577.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.asshole.lisa-horton
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:56 PM EST
Subject: Lisa Horton SUCKS BLACK NIGGER COCK
From: "Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.com>" <cont...@hackernetwork.com>
Msg-ID: 1105957253.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:20 AM EST
Subject: BLACK PEOPLE are NIGGERS, COONS, and SPOOKS
From: "Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.com>" <cont...@hackernetwork.com>
Msg-ID: 1105957383.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:23 AM EST
Subject: COCKSUCKING NIGGER BITCHES SUCK WHITE PENIS and DRINK CUM
From: "Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.com>" <cont...@hackernetwork.com>
Msg-ID: 1105957627.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:27 AM EST
Subject: CUM-SWALLOWING NIGGER SLUTS are CRACKHEAD WHORES
From: "Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.com>" <cont...@hackernetwork.com>
Msg-ID: <1105957704.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:28 AM EST
Subject: NIGGERS SMOKE CRACK and STEAL MONEY
From: "Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.com>" <cont...@hackernetwork.com>
Msg-ID: <1105957763.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:29 AM EST
Subject: FUCKING NIGGERS are PORCH MONKEYS
From: "Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.com>" <cont...@hackernetwork.com>
Msg-ID: 1105957991.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:33 AM EST
Subject: NIGGERS have BIG DICKS and SMALL BRAINS ...
From: "Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.com>" <cont...@hackernetwork.com>
Msg-ID: 1105958119.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:35 AM EST
Subject: AFRICAN-AMERICANS are NIGGERS, SPOOKS, and JIGGABOOS
From: "Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.com>" <cont...@hackernetwork.com>
Msg-ID: 1105958252.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:37 AM EST
Subject: ASIAN PEOPLE are GOOKS and DOG-EATERS
From: "Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.com>" <cont...@hackernetwork.com>
Msg-ID: 1105958528.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:42 AM EST
Subject: NIGGER-FUCKING WHITE SLUTS are COAL-BURNING WHORES
From: "Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.com>" <cont...@hackernetwork.com>
Msg-ID: <1105958653....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:44 AM EST
Subject: HISPANICS are SPICK WETBACK COCKROACHES
If this poster used your facilities, would you react to a complaint?
> Until then, learn and disseminate - Usenet is a cooperative effort. It
> is not a government. Its "rules" are really guidelines, which work
> pretty well, considering how many nut cases (everyone but me) are
> involved. It is neither a democracy nor a republic. Others have
> described it as an anarchy, but I'm not sure it's quite that unordered.
So, if they're a nutcase, they're ok?
> Now, how about requiring that no one be allowed to post until they've
> learned the history of Usenet, and have read news.groups for at least 3
> months? There could be a whitelist of new applicants, all news admins
> would be required to check that list for allowed posters, violaters
> would be UDP'd, cancel squads would roam the Net, ...
Is this what you recommend?
Honestly, I don't think it's workable, I had something quite different in
mind.
Steve Young
Russ Allbery
> Why? You've paid the price, through the RFD process, to get the
> infrastructure in place to deal effectively with the current problem.
I think taking a wait and see attitude and not being in too much of a
hurry to change things is a good skill in most situations, most definitely
including Usenet newsgroup moderation. The group will still be there for
plenty of time to come, and while people will make a lot of noise about it
not being perfect right away, they'll forget all about that eventually.
It's worthwhile taking the time to gather a little data and be able to
make a more informed decision.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Robert McClenon
Guy: You are wasting electrons. Keep an electronic diary, and
publish it after review if you think it is useful.
- - Bob McClenon
Robert McClenon
<_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>
>Steve Young wrote:
>>
[snip, because he does not exist]
Guy: You are using a lot of bandwidth to say very little.
You appear to be at risk of boguing out. Take a 24-hour break from
Usenet.
- - Bob McClenon
edward ohare
wrote:
I agree with all this, but perceived, perhaps incorrectly, that Alan
had shut the door on any additional moderation criteria.
Alan Brooks
Not at all. Russ summed up my feelings on the subject nicely.
And see... if I drag my feet long enough, some more articulate person
does all the typing for me...
Wayne Brown
Another interesting point: After I posted the article above, several
forged articles were posted in my name -- something which, AFAIK,
has not happened to me before. It doesn't really *prove* anything,
but the timing is... interesting.
Guy Macon
Wayne Brown wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>>
>> Wayne Brown wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Young <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>>
>>>>> *plonk*
>>>>
>>>> well doggonit
>>>> at least you won't be trolling me when I speak <grin>
>>>
>>>Hmmm... Steve Young answers an article addressed to Adam H. Kerman,
>>>and responds to Guy's comments as if they were addressed to himself.
>>>Interesting... but not really a surprise.
>>
>> Like I said, it's all about identifying those who are likely to
>> waste my time and unlikely to post something worth reading, then
>> filtering out those individuals. The above is an interestng data
>> point for use in making such decisions.
>
>Another interesting point: After I posted the article above, several
>forged articles were posted in my name -- something which, AFAIK,
>has not happened to me before. It doesn't really *prove* anything,
>but the timing is... interesting.
That *is* interesting. (Spends a few minutes looking at mws and mwsm)
Another interesting tidbit; after I replied to you, somone posted a
couple of articles under a fake name that copied my style and the sort
of advice I give, then jumped back to the abuser's identity and flamed
me for supposedly posting them. Yeah, right. I am trying reeeeal hard
to hide the fact that I advocate following the Standard Advice.
That doesn't really prove anything either, but but the timing is
equally interesting.
This to is now filtered away...
edward ohare
wrote:
>edward ohare wrote:
>> I agree with all this, but perceived, perhaps incorrectly, that Alan
>> had shut the door on any additional moderation criteria.
>
>Not at all. Russ summed up my feelings on the subject nicely.
Cool.
>And see... if I drag my feet long enough, some more articulate person
>does all the typing for me...
<G>
Alan Brooks
> Another interesting point: After I posted the article above, several
> forged articles were posted in my name -- something which, AFAIK,
> has not happened to me before. It doesn't really *prove* anything,
> but the timing is... interesting.
I've also noticed a few scam posts on MWSM this week where the troll
used a regular MWSM contributor's external e-mail address (MWSReader)
but used your internal address. Guess he was sort of half-way between
trolling us and trolling news.groups.
Here's the headers, if you're interested:
Path: reader2.panix.com!reader1.panix.com!panix!not-for-mail
From: "MwsR...@aol.com" <fwbro...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.writing.screenplays.moderated
Subject: Re: Email your complaints to groups...@google.com
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:41:59 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 7
Approved: MWSM Moderators <mw...@panix.com>
Message-ID: <cslo37$79h$1...@reader2.panix.com>
References: <cslb8n$3pl$1...@reader2.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1106142119 7473 166.84.1.6 (19 Jan 2005
13:41:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:41:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-MWSM-Policy: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/policy.html
X-MWSM-Info-1: Send submissions to mw...@panix.com
X-MSWM-Orig-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:41:58 CST
X-Original-To: mw...@panix.com
X-MSWM-Orig-Message-ID:
<1106142051.3...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
X-MSWM-Orig-Trace: posting.google.com 1106142055 13311 127.0.0.1 (19 Jan
2005 13:40:55 GMT)
X-MSWM-X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
X-MSWM-Orig-NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:40:55 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=193.188.105.17;
posting-account=Mu-w2w0AAAD0evia3-pwpxQ-PbqAVJu6
X-Spamscanner: mailbox4.ucsd.edu (v1.5 Dec 3 2004 17:34:44, -1.2/5.0
3.0.0)
X-Spam-Level: Level
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 6488 j0JDetib015656 mailbox4.ucsd.edu)
Xref: panix misc.writing.screenplays.moderated:722
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"pinknebulous" <pi...@irregular.com> posted:
>
> "Pavlov Macon" explained:
>
>> It is a common misconception that killfiles are something other
>> than what they really are; time management tools.
>
> One can easily manage their time reading Usenet by ignoring certain topics
> or posters. People who possess little or no will power have over-active
> killfiles, a malady commonly referred to as Obsessive Compulsive Killfile
> Disorder (OCKD), and announcing a plonk makes those who lack any real power
> _feel_ powerful.
That's a valid observation.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Guy Macon
Rebecca Ore wrote:
>Killfile on message ID databasix
Done. Thanks!
Guy Macon
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
(Crosspost to news.groups, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, misc.writing.screenplays)
I just set up a filter to reject anything with "jai", "maharaj" or
"mantra" in the name, email address, newsgroups, followup-to or
organization, thus making these crossposts and any replies to them
invisible. I advise other to do the same.
*plonk*
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Adam H. Kerman
>I just set up a filter to reject anything with "jai", "maharaj" or
>"mantra" in the name, email address, newsgroups, followup-to or
>organization, thus making these crossposts and any replies to them
>invisible. I advise other to do the same.
>*plonk*
Can we all work together to help Guy cease and desist from posting off
topic to news.groups?
Should Guy be posting these notices to news.important, given their great
weight?
Would Guy get the help he desperately needs if the newsgroup
alt.recovery.obsessed-with-posting-killfile-addition-announcements
existed? How about alt.support.drama-queen?
Steve Young
> David Bostwick <david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> Until then, learn and disseminate - Usenet is a cooperative effort. It
>> is not a government.
No, but the people (users, content providers, performing artists), should
govern it, by congealing the efforts and wishes of the *whole* community.
>> Its "rules" are really guidelines, which work pretty well,
>> considering how many nut cases (everyone but me) are involved.
It could work a thousand times better, if most everyone felt a part of it.
And even the k00kiest trolls have a code of ethics.
*Clubs* they belong to.
>> It is neither a democracy nor a republic.
>> Others have described it as an anarchy, but I'm
>> not sure it's quite that unordered.
No it's not completely unordered,
but there is so much difference that could be had by defining an order
and structure which can harmoniously get things done.
> I've always thought of USENET as a feudal system, with most of us
> filling the role of serfs, and the news admins as feudal lords. That
> would cast the NAN mods as nominal "kings" who will continue to
> rule only as long as they keep the good will and cooperation of the
> nobles who rule the neighboring estates. The serfs can make petitions,
> but have no power to force anyone to listen... and if the "kings" get
> too pushy, the nobles can withdraw to their own castles and do as
> they please.
yep, I think it'd be *fun* *like crazy!*
:)x
Guy Macon
Rebecca Ore wrote:
> [Deleted - because I can't see what it posts] wrote:
>
>> Can we all work together to help Guy cease and desist from
>> posting off topic to news.groups?
Just use a killfile, Troll. A simple filter will make it so that
you don't see anything I post. Remember, the Standard Advice
applies to me just like it applies to anyone else; if you wish
to see fewer posts by me on a particular subject, ignore them.
You *DO* realize that I don't see your posts and would not be able
to answer had Rebecca Ore not given you the attention that you so
desperately crave, don't you? Can even a killfiled Troll be that
clueless?
>Most of the time here, the plonkees are hard-core deliberate troll
>folks, and just quietly filtering them is better, but I think Guy's
>already been told this once.
It is an interesting question. On the one end we have the great
majority who (theory based on sudden lack of response to certain
posters) simple killfile silently, on the other end we have the
Great Tim Skirvin, who not only publicly plonks the hard-core
deliberate trolls but writes webpages about them at his website,
killfile.org - a very popular and entertaining site. I am
somewhere in the middle.
You can, of course use a filter so that you don't see the posts,
- rejecting anything with the string "*plonk" in the body will
do it - but I think Rebecca has already been told this once.
If I notice that the rather odd interest that so many folks have
on the subject of my killfile is waning, I will be inclined to
silently plonk, but as of now it appears to be a topic that
fascinates many people. Why, I don't know.
"Usenet being what it is, if you participate in newsgroups
at all over a period if time you have the possibility of
attracting your own personal lunatic, who considers any
disagreement a personal affront, and considers it their
duty and obligation to "expose" the person they fixate on.
It's kind of pathetic, but they can't quite seem to figure
out why no one else sees their actions as heroic."
-Richard Ward
Robert McClenon
<_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>
>Rebecca Ore quoted someone whom Guy Macon considers a troll as writing:
>
>> [Deleted - because I can't see what it posts] wrote:
>>
>>> Can we all work together to help Guy cease and desist from
>>> posting off topic to news.groups?
>
[snip]
>
>You *DO* realize that I don't see your posts and would not be able
>to answer had Rebecca Ore not given you the attention that you so
>desperately crave, don't you? Can even a killfiled Troll be that
>clueless?
>
Your attribution is confusing. You are not quoting anything that
Rebecca Ore wrote. You are quoting her response to an invisible
bogeyman. I have fixed the attribution in quoting it.
- - Bob McClenon
Klaas
> Steve Young <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
> > "Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote
> >> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
<>
> Hmmm... Steve Young answers an article addressed to Adam H. Kerman,
> and responds to Guy's comments as if they were addressed to himself.
> Interesting... but not really a surprise.
If Adam is a Steve Young sock, then I am hipcrime.
-Mike
Adie
Klaas, did you really have a face like a smacked arse when you were a kid?
You cuteypie!
Brian Mailman
> At 4:46am -0000, 01/20/05, Guy Macon
> <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>
>> I just set up a filter to reject anything with "jai", "maharaj" or
>> "mantra" in the name, email address, newsgroups, followup-to or
>> organization, thus making these crossposts and any replies to them
>> invisible. I advise other to do the same.
>
>> *plonk*
>
> Can we all work together to help Guy cease and desist from posting
> off topic to news.groups?
You mean like an intervention? Have to be careful with the blanket,
there were a few smotherings last year if I recall. Oh, wait, that's
exorcism...
> Should Guy be posting these notices to news.important, given their
> great weight?
ITYM news.announce.important. I think supernews.announce has more readers.
> Would Guy get the help he desperately needs if the newsgroup
> alt.recovery.obsessed-with-posting-killfile-addition-announcements
> existed? How about alt.support.drama-queen?
Now, now. You'd be the first to lambast whomever with new hierarchies
in alt, not to mention alt.* group formation is offtopic in news.groups.
B/
Brian Mailman
> Rebecca Ore wrote:
>
>> [Deleted - because I can't see what it posts] wrote:
That's rather silly.
> Just use a killfile, Troll. ... You *DO* realize that I don't see
> your posts and would not be able to answer had Rebecca Ore not given
> you the attention...
He's testing to see if you're playing peek-a-boo.
B/
Guy Macon
Robert McClenon wrote:
>Your attribution is confusing. You are not quoting anything that
>Rebecca Ore wrote.
What are you talking about? Rebecca Ore wrote "Most of the time
here, the plonkees are hard-core deliberate troll folks, and just
quietly filtering them is better, but I think Guy's already been
told this once." and I quoted it - correctly.
>I have fixed the attribution in quoting it.
Please refrain from "fixing" things that are not broken.