RFD: rec.drugs.* expansion

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Gnosis

unread,
Nov 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/1/95
to
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group rec.drugs.announce
unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart

Distribution : World-wide

Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>

Discussion of this proposal should take place in news.groups.
Please keep proposals concerning this RFD in news.groups, and take debates
about the merits of legalisation or the morality of drug-taking to
talk.politics.drugs.

This is *not* a call for votes. Assuming the discussion goes smoothly,
a Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted by an independent third party 21
to 30 days from the date of this posting.

Newsgroups lines:
rec.drugs.announce Announcements about drugs and drug-related issues. (Moderated)
rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.
rec.drugs.smart Smart drugs (nootropics).

RATIONALE: all groups

These new groups are intended to expand the rec.drugs hierarchy so
that the volume of discussion in the existing groups is reduced to a more
manageable level, and so that some remaining alt.drugs.* enclaves can move
over to rec.drugs.*. rec.drugs.announce will provide a way for people
to stay informed about drug issues even if they don't have to time to
browse through the rest of the hierarchy; rec.drugs.chemistry will be the
rec.* version of alt.drugs.chemistry; and rec.drugs.smart is designed to
provide a workable forum for people interested in nootropics, since no
such group (except the very obscurely named alt.psychoactives) exists at
the moment.

Expected arguments against the expansion of rec.drugs

In the hope of preventing needless arguments, we would like to take a
moment to present the case against some fallacious arguments against
the groups that are likely to arise (once again).

* "Drugs are illegal and hence cannot be discussed"

The Internet is a global community and laws vary greatly. For example, the
Netherlands have decriminalized cannabis, and the United States allows the
use of the hallucinogen mescaline in the religious ceremonies of the Native
American Church. And of course, purely theoretical discussion about any
subject is permissible.

* "Use of drugs is morally wrong"

The issue at stake here is whether there _is_ a need for these rec.drugs
groups, not whether there _should_ be one. Given the popularity of
alt.drugs and rec.drugs, we think that there is a clear need. If you must
discuss morality, please take it to talk.politics.drugs.

CHARTER: all groups

Attempts to sell or trade controlled substances in these groups are *not*
permissible. Discussion of the merits of legalization and the morality of
using drugs is off topic and should be conducted in talk.politics.drugs.

END CHARTER.

CHARTER: rec.drugs.announce

A low-volume moderated newsgroup for announcements related to drugs
and drug issues. Possible topics include new versions of drug FAQs;
information about drug legalization conferences, rallies, votes; changes
in drug laws or enforcement. Target volume is 1-2 messages daily.

[NOTE: Additional moderators for this group are needed. The job will not
be very tough, just filter through half a dozen messages daily and
pick the ones that are acceptable.]

END CHARTER.

MODERATOR INFO: rec.drugs.announce

Moderator: Dan Morris <dmo...@cloud9.net>
Moderator: Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>

END MODERATOR INFO.

CHARTER: rec.drugs.chemistry

A newsgroup dedicated to the chemistry of recreational drugs. Possible
topics include the synthesis and extraction of drugs; analogs of
recreational drugs; theoretical discussions and nomenclature; etc.

END CHARTER.

CHARTER: rec.drugs.smart

A newsgroup dedicated to nootropics ("smart drugs"): cognitive enhancers
that claim to boost intelligence, memory or mental stamina. Possible
topics include descriptions of effects; availability of nootropics; etc.
Anabolic steroids are *not* considered an acceptable topic.

END CHARTER.

CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:

If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.

PROCEDURE:

This RFD is being issued in accordance with the guidelines set in the
"How to create a new Usenet newsgroup" FAQ that is regularly posted to
news.announce.newgroups. Its language is based on previously submitted
RFDs.

After a discussion period of 21 to 30 days, if there are no overwhelming
objections to the proposed groups, there will be a Call For Votes (CFV)
posted to the same groups as this RFD. The voting period will be at least
21 days. If the group passes by a 2/3 majority and receives 100 more YES
votes than NO votes, it will be created.

DISTRIBUTION:

Posted to : rec.drugs.* news.announce.newgroups
alt.drugs.chemistry news.groups
alt.psychoactives talk.politics.drugs

-- __
Jani "Gnosis" Poijärvi On the neverending quest /(o\ BRAHMAN
gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi for knowledge by identity. \o)/ +358-0-498797

Russ Allbery

unread,
Nov 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/2/95
to
Matthew Schnierle <py...@grove.iup.edu> writes:
> gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) writes:

>> CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:
>>
>> If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
>> rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
>> be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
>> newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.

> Do us all a real favor: work this out now.

> Let me rephrase:

> TO THOSE IN THE ALT.* GROUPS--GNOSIS JUST SAID HE IS GOING TO RMGROUP THE
> ALT.* GROUPS IF THE REC.* GROUPS PASS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Let's be clear on this from the start this time.

GNOSIS'S STATEMENT IN THE RFD MEANS ABSOLUTELY *NOTHING*.

At best it is a declaration of intent on his part to remove the alt.*
groups. He can issue the rmgroups without such a declaration. It's totally
meaningless.

As far as I'm concerned, this section should be removed from the RFD and CFV
on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of a Big Eight vote. Gnosis can,
of course, issue any rmgroups he feels like whenever he feels like for any
reasons he feels like. Putting a notice to that effect in the RFD changes
absolutely nothing one way or the other.

--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/

gabrielle barkany

unread,
Nov 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/2/95
to gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi

%!PS-Adobe-3.0
%%BoundingBox: (atend)
%%Pages: (atend)
%%PageOrder:
(atend)
%%DocumentFonts: (atend)
%%Creator: Frame 4.0
%%DocumentData:
Clean7Bit
%%EndComments
%%BeginProlog
%
% Frame ps_prolog 4.0, for use
with Frame 4.0 products
% This ps_prolog file is Copyright (c) 1986-1993
Frame Technology
% Corporation. All rights reserved. This ps_prolog
file may be
% freely copied and distributed in conjunction with
documents created
% using FrameMaker, FrameBuilder and FrameViewer as
long as this
% copyright notice is preserved.
%
% Frame products
normally print colors as their true color on a color printer
% or as
shades of gray, based on luminance, on a black-and white printer. The
%
following flag, if set to True, forces all non-white colors to print as
pure
% black. This has no effect on bitmap images.

/FMPrintAllColorsAsBlack false def
%
% Frame products can
either set their own line screens or use a printer's
% default
settings. Three flags below control this separately for no
% separation

Jason Kennerly

unread,
Nov 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/2/95
to
gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) writes:

> rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.

> CHARTER: rec.drugs.chemistry


> A newsgroup dedicated to the chemistry of recreational drugs. Possible
> topics include the synthesis and extraction of drugs; analogs of
> recreational drugs; theoretical discussions and nomenclature; etc.
> END CHARTER.

The creation of rec.drugs.chemistry is inappropriate because:

1. A number of topics COMPLETELY unrelated to recreational drugs are
discussed in a.d.c.
For example: SSRI chemistry and other antidepressant related subjects,
"smart" drugs (usually against, sometimes for)
a number of things you wouldn't expect (shampoo chemistry?
that would be missed in a "rec" group)

2. SNL would actually be worse in a rec group
3. Despite what you might believe about propagation, _none_ of the rec.drugs
groups appear at my site, while all of the alt.drugs sites except
alt.drugs.hard are here...


--
____ ______ ________ _____
/ \ | \| /\ | \ jke...@cello.gina.calstate.edu
/ \| _ \ \/ | _ \
/___/\ \___|> > |__|> > BORN TO BE WIRED...
/ | / /\ | / All the sugar and twice the
\_________|______/|___\/__|______/ caffeine of regular netusers!
finger me and make a pgp key come.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Nov 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/4/95
to
In article <47f3s6$q...@southern.co.nz>,
Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>Isn't it funny how these Usenet RFDs containing Alt.* rmgroup
>statements keep getting officially approved and issued when
>_everyone_ knows that Usenet RFD/CFV documents have no jurisdiction
>or influence on newsgroups in the Alt.* hierarchy ?

"officially"?

Nothing's official here.

Colin Douthwaite

unread,
Nov 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/4/95
to
Matthew Schnierle (py...@grove.iup.edu) wrote:
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
:
: In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>, gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) writes:
: > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

: > moderated group rec.drugs.announce
: > unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
: > unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
:
: [snip]
:
: >CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:

: >
: >If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
: >rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
: >be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
: >newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.
:
: Do us all a real favor: work this out now.

:
: Let me rephrase:
:
: TO THOSE IN THE ALT.* GROUPS--GNOSIS JUST SAID HE IS GOING TO RMGROUP THE
: ALT.* GROUPS IF THE REC.* GROUPS PASS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
:
: If you all recall, the same type of plan, which Gnosis tried to implement on
: on the first alt to rec.drugs.* migration was bitterly fought when the actual
: rmgroups went out. In fact, the flamewar still inhabits news.groups today (in
: several threads--notably anything with John Grubor involoved).
:
: Also, it might be a Good Idea [tm] to include mention of the rmgroups in the
: CFV.
:


Isn't it funny how these Usenet RFDs containing Alt.* rmgroup
statements keep getting officially approved and issued when
_everyone_ knows that Usenet RFD/CFV documents have no jurisdiction
or influence on newsgroups in the Alt.* hierarchy ?


As for warning the Alt.* readers...they will probably not have seen
the alt.* rmgroup proposals because the RFD was only posted to just
two Alt.* newsgroups of moderate to low traffic:


Articles posted in
RFD posted to: September 1995

rec.drugs.cannabis 2097
rec.drugs.misc 1467
rec.drugs.psychedelic 1188
talk.politics.drugs 2780
alt.drugs.chemistry 1102
alt.psychoactives 285

The RFD was _NOT_ posted to the following newsgroups although the
RFD contains proposals to rmgroup alt.drugs.* newsgroups:


Articles posted in
September 1995

alt.config 2647
alt.drugs 3091
alt.drugs.pot 2702
alt.drugs.psychedelics 1063
alt.drugs.culture 1098
alt.drugs.hard 887
alt.drugs.caffeine 400
alt.drugs.pot.cultivation 269
alt.drugs.leri 260
alt.drugs.usenet 54

[ Statistics from NZ summary of newsgroup traffic for Sep 1995 ]


The omission of these newsgroups was possibly due to the fact that
the "Newsgroups:" line in the RFD would have exceeded 200 characters
if all these groups, plus news.announce.newgroups and news.groups,
had been put in the RFD circulation list.


The RFD also states that:

> After a discussion period of 21 to 30 days, if there are no
> overwhelming objections to the proposed groups, there will be a
> Call For Votes (CFV) posted to the same groups as this RFD.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So...provided the discussion is confined to "news.groups" only there
is a good chance the the Alt.* readerships will not know about the
alt.* rmgroups till they actually occur, and they can then make all
protests to "alt.config" because the alt.* rmgroups have nothing
whatever to do with Usenet RFD/CFV procedures, as everyone who knows
already knows that.

Please note: follow-ups should be strictly and exclusively confined
to "news.groups" only because this Usenet RFD and
subsequent CFV have nothing whatsoever to do with
alt.config or other alt.* newsgroups.

Bye,

DrG

unread,
Nov 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/4/95
to
d...@pgh.nauticom.net (Law Doctor) wrote:
>
> Gnosis (gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi) wrote:
> : REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

> : moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> : unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> : unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>
> : Distribution : World-wide
>
> : Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
>
> : Discussion of this proposal should take place in news.groups.
> : Please keep proposals concerning this RFD in news.groups, and take debates
> : about the merits of legalisation or the morality of drug-taking to
> : talk.politics.drugs.
>
> "Recreational Drugs" is an idea that can NOT be tolerated on this UseNet!
> The PROMOTION of IMMORAL and ILLEGAL activities shall NOT be permitted
> on the HEADER of any NewsGroup, because it is an "attractive nuisance"
> to which children will be exposed, ond for which Tale and UUnet will be
> liable.
>
> This proposal seeks to promote the use of "recreational drugs" which is
> wrong, immoral and indecent, and it cannot be allowed to exist on UUnet.
> If these recreational Drugs Groups are allowed to expand, Both UUnet and
> Tale will be sued fro "promoting the use" of HARD DRUGS!
>
> The Gnosis character proposing this idea is a homosexual HARD DRUG
> Promoter from Finland who is trying to push the Idea of "recreational
> drugs" in the USA as a "european political statement."
>
> All Rec.drugs.* groups must be KILLED, for the good of mankind, and I
> suggest we have a CFV on KILLING the entire rec.drugs.* hierarchy because
> of the TERRIBLE IDEA that UUnet and Tale are promoting if they allow the
> rec.drugs.* hierarchy to continue.
>
> Recreational Drugs KILL people, because crack, smack and cocaine are all
> included in the category of "recreational drugs."
>
> We as respectable netizens can NOT ALLOW the concept of "recreational
> drug usage" to invade and corrupt the minds of our children.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> DrG
>
>
>
> --
> John M. Grubor, J.D. INTERNET LAW SYSTEMS
> Lawyer Systems Analyst P.O. BOX 114
> Law Office Operation, Management E. McKEESPORT, PA. 15035
> And Trial Preparation Systems (412) 829-7853

The Idea of Promoting the "recreational drug" concept came from
The Bob(c) and the Gnosis and Hoss Drugheads. But Who else in this
USA voted for this concept?!

Does Tale want "recreational drugs?"
Does UUnet want "recreational drugs?"

I hope not.

What about you Furr?
boursey?
delaney?

why the fuck did you guys let this "recreational drug"
concept happen in the first place?!

don't you guys give a fuck about the world?

DrG

unread,
Nov 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/4/95
to
d...@pgh.nauticom.net (Law Doctor) wrote:
>
> Gnosis (gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi) wrote:
> : REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

> : moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> : unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> : unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>
> : Distribution : World-wide
>
> : Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
>
> : Discussion of this proposal should take place in news.groups.
> : Please keep proposals concerning this RFD in news.groups, and take debates
> : about the merits of legalisation or the morality of drug-taking to
> : talk.politics.drugs.
>

I hope not.

the hierarchy of RECREATIONAL.drugs must NEVER be
allowed on this UseNet, because it KILLS our kids
to have that hierarchy in EXISTANCE!

KILL rec.drugs.* -- and get some fucking RESPECT
for this UseNet!

DrG

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
shi...@tembel.org (Michael Shields) wrote:
>
> In article <DHIM0...@pgh.nauticom.net>,

> Law Doctor <d...@pgh.nauticom.net> wrote:
> > All Rec.drugs.* groups must be KILLED, for the good of mankind, and I
> > suggest we have a CFV on KILLING the entire rec.drugs.* hierarchy because
> > of the TERRIBLE IDEA that UUnet and Tale are promoting if they allow the
> > rec.drugs.* hierarchy to continue.
>
> Ok, write it up.
> --
> Shields.

You know, I am a dummy about how to do these things,
but I know a real genius called Matt, and he goes to
school here in Pennsylvania, and he seems like a good
dude, and he is against hard drugs, and he seems to know
his way around this net, because he is a professional
spammer-hunter and spammer killer, but I don't remember
his whole last name. I go through over 200 emails and postings
a day here, and it is hard for me to remember right off
hand, but I will look it up. It was a Matt Schind* or
something. I mean I even read the kids web page, but I
can NOT remember names here. Maybe he flamed me in the
past and my brain just did an auto reject on his whole
name. Fuck! I am really getting fast at this keyboard any
more -- I am bullshitting too much here.

KILL HARD DRUGS by Killing rec,drugs.* hierarchy on UseNET!

If you know who you are here Matt Sch* - well, follow up if you can.

Seek Tao,

Shalom,

DrG

Peter da Silva

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <47ijfr$i...@hudson.lm.com>, DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>You know, I am a dummy about how to do these things,

We know. Give my warm regards to Liz.

Peter Seebach

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <47jkos$5...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
Christopher B. Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>I did indeed send the above message to "DrG," but I also told him that his
>use of profanity was inappropriate in news.groups, and that a less
>strident approach would be more effective. The goal of keeping groups
>devoted to substance abuse out of the Big 8 is admirable, but his methods
>leave much to be desired.

I think the first thing you'd have to do is find a way to distinguish,
say, social drinking, or the use of Advil for headaches, from "substance
abuse". If you can't come up with a reliable way of making it clear that the
only legitimate traffic in such a group would be about abuse of substances,
you'd be forced to take a giant step back. I am all for this; I don't see
anything wrong with a rec.drugs, any more than I see something wrong with
comp.os.msdos.programmer. Is it bad? Possibly. Is it stupid? Quite often.
Is it our job to prevent it? Hell no.

(This applies about equally well to both.)

>I also note that the proponents of the first RFD insisted, over and over
>again, that a group for marijuana would in no way encourage people to
>experiment with more serious drugs. Obviously their call for an expanded
>hierarchy gives lie to that supposition.

I think you fail to distinguish between "encourage to expiriment with",
"encourage to abuse", "cause to abuse", and "give a forum for learning
about before trying anything". And a few others.

>I hope to avoid getting embroiled in a huge flamewar over this RFD, so I
>am going to minimize any followups to this post. I do call upon the
>proponents of this group to post their CFV to the parenting groups, as
>such a move is the responsible thing to do.

This, I'd actually advocate.

Just for the record, I'm a hacker; I don't touch anything stronger than
Advil regularly. I consider alcohol a Bad Thing, and cigarettes a
vile nuisance.

But I'm all for people discussing drugs openly, publically, and frankly.
It's better than the lies spread by the Partnership For A Drug Free America
and co.

-s
--
Peter Seebach - se...@solon.com || se...@intran.xerox.com --
C/Unix proto-wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help. No, really!
Copyright 1995 Peter Seebach. -- High energy particle theology
The *other* C FAQ - ftp taniemarie.solon.com /pub/c/afq

Lintilla the Warlock

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <47ih0s$e...@hudson.lm.com> ma...@telerama.lm.com "DrG" writes:

> HEY you Fucking European BASTARDS! You are NOT going to promote
> your crazy fucking Idea to the USA that "recreational drugs"
> is an acceptable concept. NO WAY!
>
> The Recreational.drugs hierarchy must be KILLED!
> because just the Idea of promoting Hard Drud Usage
> is foreign to the USA.

I seem to remember a similar argument in Europe concerning Win95.

Michael Shields

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>,

Gnosis <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi> wrote:
> rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.

I'm tempted to suggest sci.chem.recreational.

> rec.drugs.smart Smart drugs (nootropics).

Could we call it rec.drugs.nootropics? I don't think rec.drugs.smart
is a good name; it's quasislang, like rec.drugs.marijuana.
--
Shields.

Michael Shields

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <47ca17$f...@cello.gina.calstate.edu>,

Jason Kennerly <jke...@cello.gina.calstate.edu> wrote:
> 3. Despite what you might believe about propagation, _none_ of the rec.drugs
> groups appear at my site, while all of the alt.drugs sites except
> alt.drugs.hard are here...

Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
--
Shields.

Michael Shields

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to

DrG

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Christopher B. Stone wrote:

> I agree with you -- recreational drug use is not an approrpiate topic for
> a mainstream hierarchy. When they first posted the RFD, I brought up
> these objections. Unfortunately, I wasn't around for the CFV, so I
> couldn't campaign against it; I had hoped someone would bring this to the
> attention of the parenting newsgroups. The group acquired a 2/3
> supermajority only barely, and had an active campaign against it been
> waged, it woul
d have failed IMHO.
>
Well thank you for your opinion, but do not be so humble.

This Hierarchy can now be KILLED by a VOTE because it has been in
existence for over Three months, and it now MUST be KILLED!

If UseNet and Tale allows this kind of Hierarchy to EXIST on this UseNet,
than he should be sued for INDECENCY!

I have eight children in this world, and I will not STAND for them
opening up a UseNet list and seeing "recreational drugs" as a
Hierarchical topic, because that has a current connotative social meaning
which includes the Use of HARD DRUGS for recreation.

This RFD can produce a CFV to KILL the hierarchy also, can it not?

John M. Grubor
Doctor Of Law
Father of 8 Kids

lawsy...@aol.com

DrG

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
vhak...@butler.cc.tut.fi (Hakulinen Ville) wrote:
>
> In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>,
> Gnosis <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi> wrote:
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> > unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> > unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>
> The creation of these groups seems to me to be a good idea, but
> I'd still like to have a separate group for mdma and related compounds,
> for example rec.drugs.ecstasy.
> --
> Alt.atheism faqs : http://www.mantis.co.uk/atheism/
> Rec.drugs.* archives: http://hyperreal.com/drugs/
> Vegetarian pages : http://www.veg.org/veg/

HEY you Fucking European BASTARDS! You are NOT going to promote
your crazy fucking Idea to the USA that "recreational drugs"
is an acceptable concept. NO WAY!

The Recreational.drugs hierarchy must be KILLED!
because just the Idea of promoting Hard Drud Usage
is foreign to the USA.

Now we do not EXPAND rec.drugs, but we KILL IT.

You have all of the alt.drugs.* newsgroups that you
need and you are NOT going to promote this behavior
in a Hierarchy NAME!

I will sue the fuck out of Tale for this!

DrG

DrG

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Matthew Schnierle <py...@grove.iup.edu> writes:
> > gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) writes:
>
> >> CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:
> >>
> >> If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
> >> rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
> >> be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
> >> newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.
>
> > Do us all a real favor: work this out now.
>
> > Let me rephrase:
>
> > TO THOSE IN THE ALT.* GROUPS--GNOSIS JUST SAID HE IS GOING TO RMGROUP THE
> > ALT.* GROUPS IF THE REC.* GROUPS PASS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
>
> Let's be clear on this from the start this time.
>
> GNOSIS'S STATEMENT IN THE RFD MEANS ABSOLUTELY *NOTHING*.
>
> At best it is a declaration of intent on his part to remove the alt.*
> groups. He can issue the rmgroups without such a declaration. It's totally
> meaningless.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, this section should be removed from the RFD and CFV
> on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of a Big Eight vote. Gnosis can,
> of course, issue any rmgroups he feels like whenever he feels like for any
> reasons he feels like. Putting a notice to that effect in the RFD changes

You sound like a co-conspirator to promote hard drug usage in the USA.


> absolutely nothing one way or the other.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/

Hey Russel: If you let this fucking Finn promote
hard drugs in this Country, you are despicable!

"Recreational drugs" means the recreational use of HARD DRUGS
and UseNet itself, as well as your ass, will get the shit sued
out of them if the rec.drugs hierarchy si not KILLED.

You are a fuck-up for letting this happen!
Do you have no children?!

Are you a cokehead?!

you better write to me by e-mail right now.

DrG

DrG

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
jke...@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Jason Kennerly) wrote:


> 2. SNL would actually be worse in a rec group

> 3. Despite what you might believe about propagation, _none_ of the rec.drugs
> groups appear at my site, while all of the alt.drugs sites except
> alt.drugs.hard are here...

Exactly, NO decent ISP is EVER going to accept the idea that
a "recreational.drug" hierarchy is fitting for their server.

Recreational drugs, meaning all drugs, are a BAD IDEA!

This RFD must include KILL rec.drugs.* as an option in
the CFV, since it is over 3 months, and the fraud in the
creation has been shown.

RETURN ALL drug talk to the alt.drugs.* area!

DrG

DrG

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
shi...@tembel.org (Michael Shields) wrote:
>
> In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>,
> Gnosis <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi> wrote:
> > rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.
>
> I'm tempted to suggest sci.chem.recreational.
>
> > rec.drugs.smart Smart drugs (nootropics).
>
> Could we call it rec.drugs.nootropics? I don't think rec.drugs.smart
> is a good name; it's quasislang, like rec.drugs.marijuana.
> --
> Shields.

Marijuana is primarily a medicine that has been used for
over 5,000 years.

Marijuana is an herb, not a drug, because it has not been
through any laboratory.

Cannabis is not the correct name -- MJ is spanish.

Cannabis must be legalized for "Medical, Necessary and Industrial"
purposes.

The argument as to whether "recreational therapy" is a
"necessity" is off-topic & irrelevant and any consideration
of that argument dilites the real issue here, which is:

rec.drugs.* has a conotation meaning the "recreational use
of ALL drugs," including "Hard Drugs," and this concept can not
be allowed to exist in a hierarchy on this UseNet.

I have eight KIDS and I DEMAND, as a Father who must
clean up this filthy usenet, that REC.DRUGS.* be KILLED!

DrG

DrG

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) wrote:
>Path: hudson.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!CTCnet!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!bounce-back
>From: gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis)
>Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.drugs.cannabis,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,alt.drugs.chemistry,alt.psychoactives,talk.politics.drugs
>Subject: RFD: rec.drugs.* expansion
>Followup-To: news.groups
>Date: 1 Nov 1995 22:26:51 -0000
>Organization: .
>Lines: 131
>Sender: ta...@uunet.uu.net
>Approved: newgroup...@uunet.uu.net
>Message-ID: <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
>Archive-Name: rec.drugs.announce
>Xref: hudson.lm.com news.announce.newgroups:7730 news.groups:170343 rec.drugs.cannabis:7202 rec.drugs.psychedelic:4306 rec.drugs.misc:4375 alt.drugs.chemistry:8450 alt.psychoactives:12733 talk.politics.drugs:55046

>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>
>Distribution : World-wide
>
>Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>

This Gnosis is a dirty filthy underhanded bastard in the way he
handles this matter -- making replies go to only the news.group
UseNet Group. Gnosis is being a back-stabber. GO TO
news.groups to see how rec.drugs.* is being KILLED!

All return to alt.drugs.*

DrG

KILL the rec.drugs.* hierarchy for the GOOD OF MANKIND!

Colin Douthwaite

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
Peter da Silva (pe...@bonkers.taronga.com) wrote:
: In article <47f3s6$q...@southern.co.nz>,
: Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
: >Isn't it funny how these Usenet RFDs containing Alt.* rmgroup
: >statements keep getting officially approved and issued when
: >_everyone_ knows that Usenet RFD/CFV documents have no jurisdiction
: >or influence on newsgroups in the Alt.* hierarchy ?
:
: "officially"?
:
: Nothing's official here.


If the term "official" worries you then substitute "de facto".

" It is a "de facto" standard, whether it is written down
somewhere or not." -- Colin R. Leech 25/10/95

Bye,

albert the panther

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to

d...@pgh.nauticom.net (Law Doctor) writes:

>All Rec.drugs.* groups must be KILLED, for the good of mankind, and I
>suggest we have a CFV on KILLING the entire rec.drugs.* hierarchy because
>of the TERRIBLE IDEA that UUnet and Tale are promoting if they allow the
>rec.drugs.* hierarchy to continue.

Great post, but a little early. Should've waited till April 1st like all
the other jokers.

Stephan Schulz

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <47im9u$e...@hudson.lm.com>, DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) wrote:

[Irrelevant Header deleted]

>>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group rec.drugs.announce
>> unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
>> unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>>
>>Distribution : World-wide
>>
>>Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
>

>This Gnosis is a dirty filthy underhanded bastard in the way he
> handles this matter -- making replies go to only the news.group

> UseNet Group. [...]

And yet again "DrG" shows us his intimate knowledge of Usenet...

RFD's _always_ have the Follow-Up set to news.groups only, for the
simple reason that the discussion about new newsgroups is off-topic in
most groups.


Stephan (yet another "European bastard" who does not care who puts
what into which parts of his body, as long as no uninvolved
third party is harmed...and who can distinguish between
"discussion of" and "promotion of".)

-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
Please email me as sch...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew T. Russotto

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <DHIM0...@pgh.nauticom.net>,
Law Doctor <d...@pgh.nauticom.net> wrote:
}Gnosis (gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi) wrote:
}: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

}: moderated group rec.drugs.announce
}: unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
}: unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
}
[...]

}"Recreational Drugs" is an idea that can NOT be tolerated on this UseNet!
}The PROMOTION of IMMORAL and ILLEGAL activities shall NOT be permitted
}on the HEADER of any NewsGroup, because it is an "attractive nuisance"
[...]

}We as respectable netizens can NOT ALLOW the concept of "recreational
}drug usage" to invade and corrupt the minds of our children.
}
}Respectfully Submitted,
}
}DrG

}--
}John M. Grubor, J.D. INTERNET LAW SYSTEMS
}Lawyer Systems Analyst P.O. BOX 114
}Law Office Operation, Management E. McKEESPORT, PA. 15035
}And Trial Preparation Systems (412) 829-7853

You neglected to indicate that you were short, hairy, and live under a
bridge.

--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com russ...@his.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

Peter da Silva

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <47ik8i$i...@hudson.lm.com>, DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>I have eight KIDS and I DEMAND, as a Father who must
>clean up this filthy usenet, that REC.DRUGS.* be KILLED!

Yeh?

I *demand* you get a vasectomy.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <47htpi$v...@yage.tembel.org>,

Michael Shields <shi...@tembel.org> wrote:
>Could we call it rec.drugs.nootropics?

Newsgroup names should be recognised by people not in the "in group", as
well as cognoscenti. "Smart" is clearer.

On the other hand, is it accurate?

It'd help if you had a non-etymological reason for preferring an obscure
term.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <47irrs$2...@southern.co.nz>,

Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>Peter da Silva (pe...@bonkers.taronga.com) wrote:
>: In article <47f3s6$q...@southern.co.nz>,
>: Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>: >Isn't it funny how these Usenet RFDs containing Alt.* rmgroup
>: >statements keep getting officially approved and issued when
>: >_everyone_ knows that Usenet RFD/CFV documents have no jurisdiction
>: >or influence on newsgroups in the Alt.* hierarchy ?

>: "officially"?

>: Nothing's official here.

>If the term "official" worries you then substitute "de facto".

No problem, except it doesn't parse.

The point is that "official approval" implies a lot of stuff that doesn't
pertain to Usenet. Including things like "jurisdiction".

RFDs are not proofread for political correctness. Maybe they should be.
But as it is having something in an RFD doesn't mean anyone official or
not supports it. It just means the RFD had the correct form.

If you want to volunteer to join the cabal I'm sure they'll be happy
to take your recommendations with all the consideration they deserve.

ka...@rci.ripco.com

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
> DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> writes:
>
> The Recreational.drugs hierarchy must be KILLED!
> because just the Idea of promoting Hard Drud Usage
> is foreign to the USA.
>
> Now we do not EXPAND rec.drugs, but we KILL IT.
>
> You have all of the alt.drugs.* newsgroups that you
> need and you are NOT going to promote this behavior
> in a Hierarchy NAME!
>
> I will sue the fuck out of Tale for this!

So I guess free speech is permitted unless you don't like the content. Why don't you dry up and go away you hypacritical net nuisance. While actual drug use may be
illegal in this country, talking about it certainly isn't. Quite honestly I don't care how many kids you have. If you give them modem access then it's up to you to see that
they don't subscribe to inappropriate groups. Of course with your theory of being able to post about any topic in any group it would serve you right if somebody posted
nasty stuff in whatever groups they were reading. Go ahead and threaten to sue me you little wart. I'll take you on and leave you broke and homeless along with your
brats.

ka...@rci.ripco.com

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to

James J. Romanowski

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
As the mainstream population joins the Internet, it is going to become ever
more difficult to add controversial groups. I'm not sure the current
USENET hierarchy can accommodate everyone.

Do we perhaps need a 'rating' system for newsgroups akin to a movie rating
system? In the long run, I don't see how the Net will be able to avoid
being treated like other media.

If the rec.drugs supporters want to be left alone, maybe they should
consider a 'listserv' setup instead.

Just adding my 2 cents...

- Jim

Christopher B. Stone

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <47htpi$v...@yage.tembel.org>,
Michael Shields <shi...@tembel.org> wrote:
>In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>,
>Gnosis <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi> wrote:

>> rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.

>I'm tempted to suggest sci.chem.recreational.

No, thank you. Sci.* is a hierarchy in which *real work* gets done,
rather than idle chatter about how best to make recreational drugs.
--
Chris Stone
cbs...@phoenix.princeton.edu * http://www.princeton.edu/~cbstone
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King

DrG

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
py...@grove.iup.edu (Matthew Schnierle) wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>
> In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>, gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) writes:
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> > unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> > unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>
> [snip]

>
> >CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:
> >
> >If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
> >rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
> >be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
> >newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.
>
> Do us all a real favor: work this out now.
>
> Let me rephrase:
>
> TO THOSE IN THE ALT.* GROUPS--GNOSIS JUST SAID HE IS GOING TO RMGROUP THE
> ALT.* GROUPS IF THE REC.* GROUPS PASS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
>
> If you all recall, the same type of plan, which Gnosis tried to implement on
> on the first alt to rec.drugs.* migration was bitterly fought when the actual
> rmgroups went out. In fact, the flamewar still inhabits news.groups today (in
> several threads--notably anything with John Grubor involoved).

YES, I saw this CONSPIRACY to promote the concept of "recreational
drug usage" in the USA and I stopped it there!

"Recreational drugs" means the recreational use of HARD DRUGS

and we will not let our KIDS see that shit on this UseNet!

New voting system from now on!
You get as many votes as your AGE!

__________________________________________________________
> Matthew Schnierle py...@oak.grove.iup.edu http://www.ma.iup.edu/~pyld/
> WWW or keyserver for PGP key. These views are mine, not IUP's (I hope)
> "Maybe we should have a new .cool domain, only for people that are cool enough
> to know about it." --Paul Phillips in news.admin.net-abuse.misc

make you into a lawyer, dude.

John Grubor
Doctor Of Law


William E. White

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
In article <47iie9$e...@hudson.lm.com>, DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>Exactly, NO decent ISP is EVER going to accept the idea that
>a "recreational.drug" hierarchy is fitting for their server.

You obviously have no fucking clue what exactly an ISP does.

Let me give you a hint. ISP's are businesses. They are in business to
make money. If people want to read about recreational drugs, they
will go to the ISP that offers the rec.drugs.* groups.

Besides, weren't you the one foaming at the mouth about how you
should be allowed to say any damned thing you want in rec.nude and
anyone complaining to your ISP about how utterly fucking annoying
you are is really engaging in some sort of criminal conspiracy?

Sorry, but you're losing credibility really fast, dude. Maybe you
should give Usenet a break for awhile and interact with the real world.
Or have you lost too much credibility there as well?

--
| Bill White +1-614-594-3434 bwh...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu |
| http://oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu/personal/bwhite.html (check it out!) |
| If I have a CVA, shoot me up with Special K |

Christopher B. Stone

unread,
Nov 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/6/95
to postm...@telerama.lm.com
In article <Pine.BSD.3.91.95110...@pink.lm.com>,

DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Christopher B. Stone wrote:
>
>> I agree with you -- recreational drug use is not an approrpiate topic for
>> a mainstream hierarchy. When they first posted the RFD, I brought up
>> these objections. Unfortunately, I wasn't around for the CFV, so I
>> couldn't campaign against it; I had hoped someone would bring this to the
>> attention of the parenting newsgroups. The group acquired a 2/3
>> supermajority only barely, and had an active campaign against it been
>> waged, it would have failed IMHO.

>Well thank you for your opinion, but do not be so humble.
>This Hierarchy can now be KILLED by a VOTE because it has been in
>existence for over Three months, and it now MUST be KILLED!

First off, it is extremely rude to post private e-mail to Usenet.

Secondly, if you are going to post private e-mail, please post *ALL* of
what I wrote, rather than a mere excerpt.

I did indeed send the above message to "DrG," but I also told him that his
use of profanity was inappropriate in news.groups, and that a less
strident approach would be more effective. The goal of keeping groups
devoted to substance abuse out of the Big 8 is admirable, but his methods
leave much to be desired.

Now, as to the question of rmgrouping the existing rec.drugs.* groups, I
lean against it, for two reasons. First, I don't think it would be
feasible, as there are no established procedures for RFD seeking to
remove a given group. It would also incite a flamewar on news.groups.

Secondly, rmgrouping does smack of prior restraint. It would not have
been censorship to keep rec.drugs.* out of the Big 8 in the first place.
However, removing them once they are here is more problematic. More
importantly, even if I were convinced that rmgrouping rec.drugs.* were a
Good Thing, it would set a precedent about rmgrouping controversial groups.

I think that reasonable people should settle for a NO vote on the
proposals to expand rec.drugs.*. My analysis of the rec.drugs.* vote
above was correct: it barely acquired a 2/3 supermajority, and had the
CFV been posted to the parenting newsgroups, I suspect it would not have
passed.

I also note that the proponents of the first RFD insisted, over and over
again, that a group for marijuana would in no way encourage people to
experiment with more serious drugs. Obviously their call for an expanded
hierarchy gives lie to that supposition.

I hope to avoid getting embroiled in a huge flamewar over this RFD, so I

am going to minimize any followups to this post. I do call upon the
proponents of this group to post their CFV to the parenting groups, as
such a move is the responsible thing to do.

Temple

unread,
Nov 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/6/95
to
For some reason I have been unable to find the original RFD post for this.

In any case, I would like to express my disagreement with the intent to
rmgroup the groups alt.drugs.chemistry and alt.psychoactives, or any
other groups.

Also, I would prefer to see any new groups to be in either the sci.* or
talk.* hierarchies rather than rec.*

(Note: follow-ups are set to be posted only to the news.groups newsgroup
so if you post a reply from alt.drugs.chemistry, or alt.psychoactives it
wouldn't appear in those groups.)

Della Noche

unread,
Nov 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/6/95
to
Gnosis actually makes some sense here. He wants tomoderate his own
newsgroup - Great!!

However, once again he is quite incorrectly suggesting in THIS Request
for Discussion the removing of the now-extant groups he wants to
"replace" with his own.

Again - if Gnosis wants to form new groups and it's okay with the usual
cabal, then fine. If Gnosis wants to end groups that hundreds of other
people are actively reading and posting too, then no - forget it.

Why has Gnosis included the "killing" of active newsgroups in this RFD?

I don't know. It's as if he's going out of his way to alienate alt.
users from the new groups he wants to establish. Very strange.

Some highlights from the RFD follow:

gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>

>Distribution : World-wide
>
>Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
>

>Discussion of this proposal should take place in news.groups.
>Please keep proposals concerning this RFD in news.groups,

Golly, we sure wouldn't want any of those pesky alt.drug people
discussing this.

and take debates
>about the merits of legalisation or the morality of drug-taking to
>talk.politics.drugs.

No, the morality has to do with the same old issue of "Can Gnossis remove
groups that hundred post to and read?" The answer has been a resounding
"NO"! Therefore we have to question the judgement of a person who would
try the same action so soon after the first defeat.
>
>This is *not* a call for votes. Assuming the discussion goes smoothly,
>a Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted by an independent third party 21
>to 30 days from the date of this posting.
>
>Newsgroups lines:
>rec.drugs.announce Announcements about drugs and drug-related issues. (Moderated)


>rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.

>rec.drugs.smart Smart drugs (nootropics).
>
>RATIONALE: all groups
>
>These new groups are intended to expand the rec.drugs hierarchy so
>that the volume of discussion in the existing groups is reduced to a more
>manageable level, and so that some remaining alt.drugs.* enclaves can move
>over to rec.drugs.*.

*IF* they choose to do so.


rec.drugs.announce will provide a way for people
>to stay informed about drug issues even if they don't have to time to
>browse through the rest of the hierarchy; rec.drugs.chemistry will be the
>rec.* version of alt.drugs.chemistry; and rec.drugs.smart is designed to
>provide a workable forum for people interested in nootropics, since no
>such group (except the very obscurely named alt.psychoactives) exists at
>the moment.
>
>Expected arguments against the expansion of rec.drugs
>
>In the hope of preventing needless arguments, we would like to take a
>moment to present the case against some fallacious arguments against
>the groups that are likely to arise (once again).

snip bogus strawmen:
Interestingly, Gnosis did not address the issues that came up with his
attempts to remove alt.drugs groups over much protest.

>CHARTER: all groups
>
>Attempts to sell or trade controlled substances in these groups are *not*
>permissible. Discussion of the merits of legalization and the morality of
>using drugs is off topic and should be conducted in talk.politics.drugs.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>CHARTER: rec.drugs.announce
>
>A low-volume moderated newsgroup for announcements related to drugs
>and drug issues. Possible topics include new versions of drug FAQs;
>information about drug legalization conferences, rallies, votes; changes
>in drug laws or enforcement. Target volume is 1-2 messages daily.
>
>[NOTE: Additional moderators for this group are needed. The job will not
> be very tough, just filter through half a dozen messages daily and
> pick the ones that are acceptable.]
>
>END CHARTER.

This sounds great!
>
>MODERATOR INFO: rec.drugs.announce
>
>Moderator: Dan Morris <dmo...@cloud9.net>
>Moderator: Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
>
>END MODERATOR INFO.
>
>CHARTER: rec.drugs.chemistry
>
>A newsgroup dedicated to the chemistry of recreational drugs. Possible
>topics include the synthesis and extraction of drugs; analogs of
>recreational drugs; theoretical discussions and nomenclature; etc.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>CHARTER: rec.drugs.smart
>
>A newsgroup dedicated to nootropics ("smart drugs"): cognitive enhancers
>that claim to boost intelligence, memory or mental stamina. Possible
>topics include descriptions of effects; availability of nootropics; etc.
>Anabolic steroids are *not* considered an acceptable topic.
>
>END CHARTER.

He's right - the name is misleading.


>
>CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:
>
>If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
>rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
>be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
>newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.

NOW HERE'S THE USUAL GNOSIS PROBLEM.

THERE *ARE* NO CONSEQUENCES FOR ALT. GROUPS!!!


>Posted to : rec.drugs.* news.announce.newgroups
> alt.drugs.chemistry news.groups
> alt.psychoactives talk.politics.drugs
>
>-- __
>Jani "Gnosis" Poijärvi On the neverending quest /(o\ BRAHMAN
>gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi for knowledge by identity. \o)/ +358-0-498797

Let's not post to alt.drugs, where they know Gnosis' style and what to
look out for.

Della Noche


D...@manus.org

unread,
Nov 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/6/95
to
DrG (ma...@telerama.lm.com) wrote:

> vhak...@butler.cc.tut.fi (Hakulinen Ville) wrote:
> >
> > In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>,
> > Gnosis <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi> wrote:
> > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > > moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> > > unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> > > unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
> >
> > The creation of these groups seems to me to be a good idea, but
> > I'd still like to have a separate group for mdma and related compounds,
> > for example rec.drugs.ecstasy.
> > --
> > Alt.atheism faqs : http://www.mantis.co.uk/atheism/
> > Rec.drugs.* archives: http://hyperreal.com/drugs/
> > Vegetarian pages : http://www.veg.org/veg/

> HEY you Fucking European BASTARDS! You are NOT going to promote
> your crazy fucking Idea to the USA that "recreational drugs"
> is an acceptable concept. NO WAY!

> The Recreational.drugs hierarchy must be KILLED!


> because just the Idea of promoting Hard Drud Usage
> is foreign to the USA.

> Now we do not EXPAND rec.drugs, but we KILL IT.

> You have all of the alt.drugs.* newsgroups that you
> need and you are NOT going to promote this behavior
> in a Hierarchy NAME!

> I will sue the fuck out of Tale for this!

> DrG

Not just Tale, but Everybody in authority should be ashamed
of themselves for letting this "recreational drug" idea get
started on this UseNet. It seem slike Gnosis "bought off" people
and they looked the other way.

I mean in the alts, O.K. -- but not on the big 7.
"recreational drugs? -- like meaning hard drugs, too?
i was too busy with those other Hard Drug Pushers on that
Borden mailing list, to really see this CFV for rec.drugs.*
happening, and I appologize for my negligence.

But you other Fathers and parents also should ahve paid some attention
to this. It is time to kill this rec.drugs.* hierarchy.

DrG
--
Manus, Inc.
D...@manus.org

DrG

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
Della Noche <dno...@mail.wco.com> wrote:
>Path: hudson.lm.com!hookup!news.caren.net!news.join.ad.jp!news.imnet.ad.jp!usenet.seri.re.kr!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!miwok!news.wco.com!news
>From: Della Noche <dno...@mail.wco.com>
>Newsgroups: news.groups,new.announce.newgroups,alt.drugs,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.chemistry,alt.drugs.psychoactives,talk.politics.drugs,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.cannabis
>Subject: Let's Add Some Truth to the RFD On rec.drugs.* expansion
>Date: 6 Nov 1995 20:22:35 GMT
>Organization: benignly impaired
>Lines: 156
>Message-ID: <47lqqb$3...@news.wco.com>
>References: <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury24.calon.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2 (Windows; U; 16bit)
>Xref: hudson.lm.com news.groups:170966 alt.drugs:158855 alt.drugs.pot:32320 alt.drugs.chemistry:8634 talk.politics.drugs:55774 rec.drugs.misc:4637 rec.drugs.cannabis:7598

AND THE TRUTH IS: That Gnosis did NOT create the rec.drugs.* hierarchy
with the proper notice to the parties involved. That must be posted to the
parent's groups also.

A RFD for the KILLING of the rec.drugs.* hierarchy will be presented soon,
Everyone here agrees that the concept of "recreational Drugs" must not be
allowed to exist within the big-7. So they can go back to the alt.drugs.* groups
where they came from and where they belong.

>Let's not post to alt.drugs, where they know Gnosis' style and what to
>look out for.
>
>Della Noche
>

Keep at him, Della -- we will NOT let a rec.drugs.* hierarchy
stand on the big-7.

I've been told that Tale is against recreational hard drugs, so
the case is pretty well closed. NO MORE rec.drugs.* hierarchy on
the big 7!

D...@manus.org
InterNet LawSystems
"morality is the only rule"

Peter da Silva

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
In article <47nchj$k...@coli-gate.coli.uni-sb.de>,
Peter G. Bouillon <boui...@sol.cs.uni-sb.de> wrote:
>>>> Manus flames <<<
>As you can see for yourself, this is a discussion about newsgroup creation
>and (perhaps) drug abuse support.

Actually, no. Doctor G is a college kid who heard about Rob Pike's attack
on net.suicide as "Elizabeth Bimmler" and has created the persona of "Manus"
as a sort of copycat-crime thing. Unfortunately, he's not nearly as bright
as Pike, so "Manus" is a lot less entertaining.

It has nothing to do with Usenet, and everything to do with story writing.
It's a piece of performance art, if you will.

So please take "news.groups" out of your subject line.

Thank you.

DrG

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to

Yes, that would be fine, Jim.
But we also must remember that there are already
NINE alt.drugs.* groups, and there is PLENTY of Space
for all talk of "recreational drug" usage right there.


DrG

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
se...@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>In article <47jkos$5...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,

>Christopher B. Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>I did indeed send the above message to "DrG," but I also told him that his
>>use of profanity was inappropriate in news.groups, and that a less
>>strident approach would be more effective. The goal of keeping groups
>>devoted to substance abuse out of the Big 8 is admirable, but his methods
>>leave much to be desired.
>
Your criticizm is accepted Peter, we thank you for the compliment, however.
You must realize that "profanity" is sometimes necessary to bring a real problem
to the attention of the body.politic. I do not always use Profanity, but I surely do not
want to give up any of the valid tools of prose, which include profanity, blasphemy,
vulgarity, obscenity, satire, wit, skit, parody and Avante-Guarde Risque prose.

In some cases the ends DO justify the means. And I see hard drugs, and gangs,
and violence and guns and domestic abuse as diseases of our society that I
can FIX, if they just listen. So a fuck or two here and there is worth it.
I do not talk that way on court, but in this forum, it is more of a public
"non-captive audience" so the rules are far different here.

>>I also note that the proponents of the first RFD insisted, over and over
>>again, that a group for marijuana would in no way encourage people to
>>experiment with more serious drugs. Obviously their call for an expanded
>>hierarchy gives lie to that supposition.

There is no group for "marijuana." You are using the wrong words.
we have alt.drugs.pot and rec.drugs.cannabis now, that's it.

>I think you fail to distinguish between "encourage to expiriment with",
>"encourage to abuse", "cause to abuse", and "give a forum for learning
>about before trying anything". And a few others.
>
LOOK. We are talking about the CONCEPT of using hard drugs for
a "recreational purpose" and that is WRONG!

>>I hope to avoid getting embroiled in a huge flamewar over this RFD, so I
>>am going to minimize any followups to this post. I do call upon the
>>proponents of this group to post their CFV to the parenting groups, as
>>such a move is the responsible thing to do.
>

You had better do this yourself. Gnosis, the man behind all of this,
is a Hard Drug Promoter and a dirty-dealer on this UseNet.

KILL rec.drugs.* HIerarchy for the GOOD OF MANKIND!

DrG

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
psyc...@mindvox.phantom.com (Temple) wrote:

>In any case, I would like to express my disagreement with the intent to
>rmgroup the groups alt.drugs.chemistry and alt.psychoactives, or any
>other groups.

Exactly, NONE of the ALTS should Ever be removed!
We remove only from the big 7/8 groups -- alts die naturally.

>Also, I would prefer to see any new groups to be in either the sci.* or
>talk.* hierarchies rather than rec.*

This is also a good point. As soon al all of the rec.drug.* groups are killed,
everything will go right back to the way it was, before Gnosis tried this fraud.
We still have the original NINE alt.drugs.* groups and that is PLENTY!

Then, the people in the alt.drugs.* groups can have a valid place to discuss
where to present new group proposals within the UUnet 7/8.

Incidentially, to show how this NATURAL FLOW of UseNet is SUPPOSED
to happen, we will create a new soc.cannabis sci.cannabis or talk.cannabis
7/8 group, and you will SEE how this is going to work. A few monts after the
creation of a talk.cannabis group, the remaining alt.drugs.pot group will die
a NATURAL death

DrG

DrG

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone) wrote:
>In article <Pine.BSD.3.91.95110...@pink.lm.com>,
>DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Christopher B. Stone wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with you -- recreational drug use is not an approrpiate topic for
>>> a mainstream hierarchy. When they first posted the RFD, I brought up
>>> these objections. Unfortunately, I wasn't around for the CFV, so I
>>> couldn't campaign against it; I had hoped someone would bring this to the

>>> attention of the parenting newsgroups. The group acquired a 2/3
>>> supermajority only barely, and had an active campaign against it been
>>> waged, it would have failed IMHO.
>
>>Well thank you for your opinion, but do not be so humble.
>>This Hierarchy can now be KILLED by a VOTE because it has been in
>>existence for over Three months, and it now MUST be KILLED!
>
>First off, it is extremely rude to post private e-mail to Usenet.

That was NOT private e-mail Chris, It came from your useNet posting
and had the newsgroups built into the reply.

>I did indeed send the above message to "DrG," but I also told him that his
>use of profanity was inappropriate in news.groups, and that a less
>strident approach would be more effective. The goal of keeping groups
>devoted to substance abuse out of the Big 8 is admirable, but his methods
>leave much to be desired.

<see the previous posting for the answer to the above>

>Now, as to the question of rmgrouping the existing rec.drugs.* groups, I
>lean against it, for two reasons. First, I don't think it would be
>feasible, as there are no established procedures for RFD seeking to
>remove a given group. It would also incite a flamewar on news.groups.
>

Well, THAT'S TOUGH SHIT! You will NOT have a rec.drugs.* hierarchy on
this UseNet, and I will sue the fuck out of Tale, et.al if it is nit KILLED!

>Secondly, rmgrouping does smack of prior restraint. It would not have
>been censorship to keep rec.drugs.* out of the Big 8 in the first place.
>However, removing them once they are here is more problematic. More
>importantly, even if I were convinced that rmgrouping rec.drugs.* were a
>Good Thing, it would set a precedent about rmgrouping controversial groups.

Well TOUGH SHIT AGAIN! Recreational DRUGS.* means the use of
"any kind of drug for recreational purposes" and that shall NOT be allowed
to exist on this fucking UseNet. PERIOD! I will spend thousands of dollars
and send hundreds of lawyers to sue every fucking person that votes for it,
if I have to! NO "recreational drugs.* hierarchy will be allowed on the big 7/8.
A precedent NEEDS TO BE SET here if UUnet is ever going to maintain
ANY credibility or respectability!

>I think that reasonable people should settle for a NO vote on the
>proposals to expand rec.drugs.*. My analysis of the rec.drugs.* vote
>above was correct: it barely acquired a 2/3 supermajority, and had the
>CFV been posted to the parenting newsgroups, I suspect it would not have
>passed.
>

Well, the whole thing was FIXED by that filthy Gnosis and that slob Hoss from
Cambridge. And Fucking Tale should have known better.
And TheBob(c) will vote to KILL the rec,drugs.hierarchy, too.
I think he realizes that he does not want to be burdened by the
DEATH of CHILDREN that will come if this rec.drugs.* NewsGroup is
allowed to continue.

If it is not Killed, I am going to go get 60 minutes and jump on
Tale's ass like a fly on shit! And sue the fucker for causing DEATH
to children VIA the UseNet UUnet system!

NO MORE rec.drugs.* hierarchy on the BIG SEVEN/8!


Alan Harder

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
>>>>> " " == DrG <D...@manus.org> writes:

In article <47o19g$e...@hudson.lm.com> D...@manus.org (DrG) writes:


>> Now, as to the question of rmgrouping the existing rec.drugs.*
>> groups, I lean against it, for two reasons. First, I don't think
>> it would be feasible, as there are no established procedures for
>> RFD seeking to remove a given group. It would also incite a
>> flamewar on news.groups.
>>
> Well, THAT'S TOUGH SHIT! You will NOT have a rec.drugs.* hierarchy
> on this UseNet, and I will sue the fuck out of Tale, et.al if it is
> nit KILLED!

All talk, no action. I have yet to see you carry out any of the
thousands of blustering threats that you have made. The rec groups
will still be around, and no lawsuit will exist. You remind me of a
gopher snake, that vibrates its tail and puffs itself up to look more
threatening. But all of the bravado it can muster dosen't change the
fact that it is really harmless.

> Well TOUGH SHIT AGAIN! Recreational DRUGS.* means the use of "any
> kind of drug for recreational purposes" and that shall NOT be
> allowed to exist on this fucking UseNet. PERIOD!

Not allowed by who? You don't own usenet, you can't dictate what is
on usenet, and you can't do a friggin' thing about it.

> I will spend
> thousands of dollars and send hundreds of lawyers to sue every
> fucking person that votes for it, if I have to!

BWAHAHAHA! You get funnier and funnier.

> NO "recreational
> drugs.* hierarchy will be allowed on the big 7/8. A precedent
> NEEDS TO BE SET here if UUnet is ever going to maintain ANY
> credibility or respectability!

You should know about losing credibility and respectability, since you
have long since lost yours to 90% of the people who don't have you
killfiled yet.

> Well, the whole thing was FIXED by that filthy Gnosis and that slob
> Hoss from Cambridge. And Fucking Tale should have known better.
> And TheBob(c) will vote to KILL the rec,drugs.hierarchy, too. I
> think he realizes that he does not want to be burdened by the DEATH
> of CHILDREN that will come if this rec.drugs.* NewsGroup is allowed
> to continue.

The Death of Children? What are you blathering about now?

> If it is not Killed, I am going to go get 60 minutes and jump on
> Tale's ass like a fly on shit! And sue the fucker for causing
> DEATH to children VIA the UseNet UUnet system!

Sheesh, you get more wierd all the time. I didn't think you could
come off as more of a crackpot than you already have, but you just
keep going, and going, and going....

> NO MORE rec.drugs.* hierarchy on the BIG SEVEN/8!

Oh, okay, since you say so, Mr. God.


-Alan Harder
a...@math.ams.org
Legalize it!

The above commentary, which does not *even* represent the opinion of
the American Mathematical Society, is sold by weight, not by volume.
Some settling of the contents may have occurred during shipping.

Colin Douthwaite

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
Michael Shields (shi...@tembel.org) wrote:
: In article <47ca17$f...@cello.gina.calstate.edu>,
: Jason Kennerly <jke...@cello.gina.calstate.edu> wrote:
: > 3. Despite what you might believe about propagation, _none_ of the rec.drugs
: > groups appear at my site, while all of the alt.drugs sites except
: > alt.drugs.hard are here...
:
: Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
: --
: Shields.


Nor does unsupported comment on anecdotal evidence.

However you will realise that your statement actually confirms
that anecdotal evidence proves something because you cannot prove
nothing ! *8-)

Bye,

Jeffrey S Gostin

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
In article <47o19g$e...@hudson.lm.com> D...@manus.org (DrG) writes:

>Well, THAT'S TOUGH SHIT! You will NOT have a rec.drugs.* hierarchy on
>this UseNet, and I will sue the fuck out of Tale, et.al if it is nit KILLED!

Suing Tale won't help you, friend. He is a volunteer who is recognized that
The Man when it comes to authenticating/newgroup'ing newsgroups. That's it. He
performs the 'will of the people' as voiced by the CFV's.

>A precedent NEEDS TO BE SET here if UUnet is ever going to maintain
>ANY credibility or respectability!

Consider a few poinst friend:

1. UUNet is NOT the entire Internet. They are one highly visible provider, but
there are far from the only one. UUNet does not control Internet, nor do they
control Usenet. Their credibility isn't at risk here. Tale is a well known
net.personality, and I doubt there's anything you could do to ruin or tarnish
his reputation on the net.


2. This precedent you're talking about is commonly referred to as 'censoring'.
You wish to censor groups you don't feel should have a voice. Regardless of my
opinions on their content, I feel that, since the group(s) met the criteria
for group creation, they should be allowed to have their piece of the net. You
don't like their content? Fine... don't read the groups. Your intentions are
good, your methods speak otherwise.

>If it is not Killed, I am going to go get 60 minutes and jump on
>Tale's ass like a fly on shit! And sue the fucker for causing DEATH
>to children VIA the UseNet UUnet system!

Rather than waste your breath and typing to prevent the drugs group, perhaps
consider taking your preaching somewhere that'll do some good -- To the
streets, to the children, to the schools... To TEACH these kids to make better
decisions, and to not use drugs. Instead of censorship, try education. The
latter is more productive, and is likely to be more successful.


--J
--
======== ======== "Information Superhighway" does for Internet
== == what C.H.I.P.'s did for Cops.
== == -= Destroy Ignorance -- Seek Higher Understanding
===== ======== Ask me for my PGP key. Privacy is your friend.

Kelly Rolf

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
Gnosis (gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi) wrote:
: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
: moderated group rec.drugs.announce
: unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
: unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart

: Distribution : World-wide

: Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>

: Discussion of this proposal should take place in news.groups.

: Please keep proposals concerning this RFD in news.groups, and take debates


: about the merits of legalisation or the morality of drug-taking to
: talk.politics.drugs.

: This is *not* a call for votes. Assuming the discussion goes smoothly,


: a Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted by an independent third party 21
: to 30 days from the date of this posting.

: Newsgroups lines:
: rec.drugs.announce Announcements about drugs and drug-related issues. (Moderated)
: rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.
: rec.drugs.smart Smart drugs (nootropics).

: RATIONALE: all groups

: These new groups are intended to expand the rec.drugs hierarchy so
: that the volume of discussion in the existing groups is reduced to a more
: manageable level, and so that some remaining alt.drugs.* enclaves can move

: over to rec.drugs.*. rec.drugs.announce will provide a way for people


: to stay informed about drug issues even if they don't have to time to
: browse through the rest of the hierarchy; rec.drugs.chemistry will be the
: rec.* version of alt.drugs.chemistry; and rec.drugs.smart is designed to
: provide a workable forum for people interested in nootropics, since no
: such group (except the very obscurely named alt.psychoactives) exists at
: the moment.

: Expected arguments against the expansion of rec.drugs

: In the hope of preventing needless arguments, we would like to take a
: moment to present the case against some fallacious arguments against
: the groups that are likely to arise (once again).

: * "Drugs are illegal and hence cannot be discussed"

: The Internet is a global community and laws vary greatly. For example, the
: Netherlands have decriminalized cannabis, and the United States allows the
: use of the hallucinogen mescaline in the religious ceremonies of the Native
: American Church. And of course, purely theoretical discussion about any
: subject is permissible.

: * "Use of drugs is morally wrong"

: The issue at stake here is whether there _is_ a need for these rec.drugs
: groups, not whether there _should_ be one. Given the popularity of
: alt.drugs and rec.drugs, we think that there is a clear need. If you must
: discuss morality, please take it to talk.politics.drugs.

: CHARTER: all groups

: Attempts to sell or trade controlled substances in these groups are *not*
: permissible. Discussion of the merits of legalization and the morality of
: using drugs is off topic and should be conducted in talk.politics.drugs.

: END CHARTER.

: CHARTER: rec.drugs.announce

: A low-volume moderated newsgroup for announcements related to drugs
: and drug issues. Possible topics include new versions of drug FAQs;
: information about drug legalization conferences, rallies, votes; changes
: in drug laws or enforcement. Target volume is 1-2 messages daily.

: [NOTE: Additional moderators for this group are needed. The job will not
: be very tough, just filter through half a dozen messages daily and
: pick the ones that are acceptable.]

: END CHARTER.

: MODERATOR INFO: rec.drugs.announce

: Moderator: Dan Morris <dmo...@cloud9.net>
: Moderator: Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>

: END MODERATOR INFO.

: CHARTER: rec.drugs.chemistry

: A newsgroup dedicated to the chemistry of recreational drugs. Possible
: topics include the synthesis and extraction of drugs; analogs of
: recreational drugs; theoretical discussions and nomenclature; etc.

: END CHARTER.

: CHARTER: rec.drugs.smart

: A newsgroup dedicated to nootropics ("smart drugs"): cognitive enhancers
: that claim to boost intelligence, memory or mental stamina. Possible
: topics include descriptions of effects; availability of nootropics; etc.

: Anabolic steroids are *not* considered an acceptable topic.

: END CHARTER.

: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:

: If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
: rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
: be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
: newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.

: PROCEDURE:

: This RFD is being issued in accordance with the guidelines set in the
: "How to create a new Usenet newsgroup" FAQ that is regularly posted to
: news.announce.newgroups. Its language is based on previously submitted
: RFDs.

: After a discussion period of 21 to 30 days, if there are no overwhelming
: objections to the proposed groups, there will be a Call For Votes (CFV)
: posted to the same groups as this RFD. The voting period will be at least
: 21 days. If the group passes by a 2/3 majority and receives 100 more YES
: votes than NO votes, it will be created.

: DISTRIBUTION:

: Posted to : rec.drugs.* news.announce.newgroups

Colin Douthwaite

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
Stephan Schulz (sch...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE) wrote:

:
: RFD's _always_ have the Follow-Up set to news.groups only, for the


: simple reason that the discussion about new newsgroups is off-topic in

: most groups. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^

Proof ?

Many groups don't even have Charters.

Bye,

Russ Allbery

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
In news.groups, Christopher B Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> writes:

> The point of giving newsgroups good names is to make it easy for
> administrators to pick and chose which groups to carry. In the past, a
> "family friendly" provider could carry all of the Big 7 confident in the
> knowledge that groups dedicated to pornography, recreational drug use,
> and so forth were stuck in alt.*.

Missed rec.arts.erotica did you, Chris?

--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/

Peter Seebach

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
In article <47o0af$e...@hudson.lm.com>, DrG <D...@manus.org> wrote:
>se...@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) wrote:

[blatant troll about confusing me with someone else deleted.]

>There is no group for "marijuana." You are using the wrong words.
>we have alt.drugs.pot and rec.drugs.cannabis now, that's it.

Same thing.

>>I think you fail to distinguish between "encourage to expiriment with",
>>"encourage to abuse", "cause to abuse", and "give a forum for learning
>>about before trying anything". And a few others.

>LOOK. We are talking about the CONCEPT of using hard drugs for
>a "recreational purpose" and that is WRONG!

No, it isn't. It's stupid, but so is bowling. And you have completely
failed to respond to the paragraph you quote.

>KILL rec.drugs.* HIerarchy for the GOOD OF MANKIND!

An amusing troll, but not a patch on Kibo with a hangover.

(And yes folks, it's a troll.)

-s
--
Peter Seebach - se...@solon.com || se...@intran.xerox.com --
C/Unix proto-wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help. No, really!
Copyright 1995 Peter Seebach. -- High energy particle theology
The *other* C FAQ - ftp taniemarie.solon.com /pub/c/afq

Gnosis

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
Gnosis (gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi) wrote:
: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
: moderated group rec.drugs.announce
: unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
: unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart

First off, apologies to all for not replying sooner, but my site's
newsfeed has been *extremely* slow lately... that's why I'm replying
to myself instead of addressing the comments directly, they haven't
even arrived here yet! (Obviously, I have access to another system where
I can read news so I know about them.)

Anyway, I have decided to drop the section about the alt groups *ENTIRELY*
from the RFD. That's right, no rmgroups from me, just a periodically-
posted pointer to the new groups should they pass.

To the conspiracy theorist: The reason why I posted only to two alt groups
is quite simple. This expansion directly concerns only two of them,
alt.drugs.chemistry (-> r.d.chemistry) and alt.psychoactives (-> r.d.smart).

As for the suggested additions:

* rec.drugs.ecstasy was in the draft RFD, but most people thought
it's too specialized a topic, and I'd be tempted to agree. For time
being, it can stay in r.d.psychedelic.

* rec.drugs.effects is a classic example of a newsgroup built to "draw off"
all the noise from a group. Unfortunately, groups like this never work,
and we'd just have one more group filled with junk (cf. alt.drugs.culture).

I hope that covers the major points. A 2nd RFD will be posted in a week
or two, and I'll attempt to reply to all queries raised here.

DrG

unread,
Nov 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/8/95
to
shi...@tembel.org (Michael Shields) wrote:
>In article <47ijfr$i...@hudson.lm.com>, DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>> but I know a real genius called Matt, and he goes to
>> school here in Pennsylvania, and he seems like a good
>> dude, and he is against hard drugs, and he seems to know
>> his way around this net, because he is a professional
>> spammer-hunter and spammer killer, but I don't remember
>> his whole last name. I go through over 200 emails and postings
>[...]
>
>Thanks for letting us know. Get back to us when you have that RFD ready.
>--
>Shields.

Well, the Guy Matt is actually not the right guy. I have hundreds of
humanoids in my cyberspace memory here, and I get them mixed up.

The reason for this one was they were both from Pa. schools, now YOU
figure out how the humanoid memory storage system works, huh?

Actually the guy I was thinking of was Tim Skirvin. But I don't know if he
actually understands the issue well enough to do it right.

I think Della could do this one much better anyway. DELLA! CAROL!
Are you out there in cyberspace, Darling?

DellaNoche/Carol is the one who originally called my attention to
this Gnosis fraud. Peter was a great help, too, as was Carl, and ALL
of the rest of the anti-hard drug people.

But WHY did Tale let this happen? That's wah I want to know.

I will talk to Della and get back to this thread.

Seek Tao, MIchael, and

Shalom.

DrG

Russ Allbery

unread,
Nov 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/8/95
to
In news.groups, DrG <D...@manus.org> writes:

> Actually the guy I was thinking of was Tim Skirvin. But I don't know if he
> actually understands the issue well enough to do it right.

> I think Della could do this one much better anyway. DELLA! CAROL!
> Are you out there in cyberspace, Darling?

> DellaNoche/Carol is the one who originally called my attention to
> this Gnosis fraud. Peter was a great help, too, as was Carl, and ALL
> of the rest of the anti-hard drug people.

You're getting far too obvious. This is like the forged Tale retirement
note that named Richard Sexton as his successor. (Of course, I bit on that
one....)

The alternative is that you actually have no idea who the people are behind
the names you're dropping, but that seems to be getting less likely....

DrG

unread,
Nov 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/8/95
to
gos...@blue.crayola.cse.psu.edu (Jeffrey S Gostin) wrote:
>In article <47o19g$e...@hudson.lm.com> D...@manus.org (DrG) writes:
>
>>Well, THAT'S TOUGH SHIT! You will NOT have a rec.drugs.* hierarchy on
>>this UseNet, and I will sue the fuck out of Tale, et.al if it is nit KILLED!
>Suing Tale won't help you, friend. He is a volunteer who is recognized that
>The Man when it comes to authenticating/newgroup'ing newsgroups. That's it. He
>performs the 'will of the people' as voiced by the CFV's.

Look, sorry that I flamed Tale, I was just pissed.
The "will of the people" is the will of the CABAL here.

>>A precedent NEEDS TO BE SET here if UUnet is ever going to maintain
>>ANY credibility or respectability!
>Consider a few poinst friend:
>
>1. UUNet is NOT the entire Internet. They are one highly visible provider, but
>there are far from the only one. UUNet does not control Internet, nor do they
>control Usenet. Their credibility isn't at risk here. Tale is a well known
>net.personality, and I doubt there's anything you could do to ruin or tarnish
>his reputation on the net.

Where is the FAQ on Tale? I do not want to ruin or tarnish anybody, I just
want you guys to understand that the CONTENT is fine in any NewsGroup,
but the TITLE is a condonation of the activity "reasonably to be expected"
thereunder."

Do YOU condone the recreational use of SMACK?!
Now ANSWER the fucking question, since you, Jeffrey,
are such a big nethead. make a record!


>
>2. This precedent you're talking about is commonly referred to as 'censoring'.
>You wish to censor groups you don't feel should have a voice. Regardless of my
>opinions on their content, I feel that, since the group(s) met the criteria
>for group creation, they should be allowed to have their piece of the net. You
>don't like their content? Fine... don't read the groups. Your intentions are
>good, your methods speak otherwise.

STUPID boy here -- mixing up CONTENT and HEADERS/NAMES
of UseNet NewsGroups. Headers are marks of ACCEPTANCE
by the group.

>>If it is not Killed, I am going to go get 60 minutes and jump on
>>Tale's ass like a fly on shit! And sue the fucker for causing DEATH
>>to children VIA the UseNet UUnet system!

I appologize for Flaming Tale here, but he is the boss.
This was not his fault alone, but they are all to blame,
starting with the BIG Seven Bum*/Law* type bigshots.

Well, i think 60 minutes would be very interested in this story.
But I am still working on it -- it will take me a few months.

>Rather than waste your breath and typing to prevent the drugs group, perhaps
>consider taking your preaching somewhere that'll do some good -- To the
>streets, to the children, to the schools... To TEACH these kids to make better
>decisions, and to not use drugs. Instead of censorship, try education. The
>latter is more productive, and is likely to be more successful.

Look dude, I do NOt want to ever censor any CONTENT of what anybody says.
But you are NOT going to have the ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE of a rec.drugs.*
hierarchy on your UUnet/ISP Big seven/8 without getting SUED by some Parents!

Education starts right here on UseNet.

You want to talk about "recreational drugs" then go to the alts, PERIOD.
There are eight alt.drugs.* NewsGroups to pick from.

A Concerned Father


*selah*

unread,
Nov 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/8/95
to
Follow-up To: news.groups
Summary:
Keywords:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Temple (psyc...@mindvox.phantom.com) wrote:
: For some reason I have been unable to find the original RFD post for this.

I checked in ftp.uu.net and it seems that this "RFD" has not actually
been officially filed--at least, it is not listed in the
usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/ lists.

(Note: follow-ups have been set to news.groups)


DrG

unread,
Nov 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/8/95
to
a...@math.ams.org (Alan Harder) wrote:

>>>>>> " " == DrG <D...@manus.org> writes:
>In article <47o19g$e...@hudson.lm.com> D...@manus.org (DrG) writes:
>
>Not allowed by who? You don't own usenet, you can't dictate what is
>on usenet, and you can't do a friggin' thing about it.

Yes I can STUPID! I can KILL the rec,drugs hierarchy! Watch me BOY!

> > I will spend
> > thousands of dollars and send hundreds of lawyers to sue every
> > fucking person that votes for it, if I have to!

> > NO "recreational
> > drugs.* hierarchy will be allowed on the big 7/8. A precedent


> > NEEDS TO BE SET here if UUnet is ever going to maintain ANY
> > credibility or respectability!
>

>You should know about losing credibility and respectability, since you
>have long since lost yours to 90% of the people who don't have you
>killfiled yet.

What the fuck would you know asshole? There can't be TOO many who
have killfiled me, because I get over fifty responses a day to my articles.
I mean, why dom't YOU killfile me PLEASE! So I don't have to contimue to
hear your FRIVOLOUS arguments!

> > Well, the whole thing was FIXED by that filthy Gnosis and that slob
> > Hoss from Cambridge. And Fucking Tale should have known better.

I appologize for Flaming Tale here, but he IS the fucking Boss.
The Buck has to stop somewhere.
If you are going to be a "boss" -- get ready for everybody to hate you!

> > And TheBob(c) will vote to KILL the rec,drugs.hierarchy, too. I
> > think he realizes that he does not want to be burdened by the DEATH
> > of CHILDREN that will come if this rec.drugs.* NewsGroup is allowed
> > to continue.
>
>The Death of Children? What are you blathering about now?

MY Children! Any anybody elses children STUPID!
Don't you know that the NAMES of the big 7/8 UseNet NewsGroups are
a reflection fo what we CONDONE as a society!
CRACK KILLS! HEROIN KILLS! METH. KILLS! COCAINE KILLS!
And you want to promote the discussion of the "recreational use" of these
things? Where is your MORALITY,Alan?!

> > If it is not Killed, I am going to go get 60 minutes and jump on
> > Tale's ass like a fly on shit! And sue the fucker for causing

I appologize for Flaming Tale. But this is much bigger than tale.
I am still investigating.

> > DEATH to children VIA the UseNet UUnet system!
>

>Sheesh, you get more wierd all the time. I didn't think you could
>come off as more of a crackpot than you already have, but you just
>keep going, and going, and going....

Yes, and you can call me whatever you want, but you will NEVER
stop me. I want proper regimentation and DECENCY on this UseNet,
and we have not had much of that up to now.

> > NO MORE rec.drugs.* hierarchy on the BIG SEVEN/8!
>
>Oh, okay, since you say so, Mr. God.
>
>
>-Alan Harder

That is "DOCTOR God," Alan. I create children, systems, laws
and bionic body politic analysis/operation/control software,
but you would not understand.
Go back to your Calculus.

DrGod

Peter da Silva

unread,
Nov 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/8/95
to
In article <47q6ka$r...@hudson.lm.com>, DrG <D...@manus.org> wrote:
>I will be DAMNED if I will let this
>exist in MY world. What about the rest of you?

I don't believe in damnation or the immortal soul, but if there is a hell
I am sure it has a special place for people who followup to their own
messages.

Jeffrey S Gostin

unread,
Nov 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/8/95