Re: My first post in the new group through my Verizon account
Aratzio
<pr...@cox.net> bloviated:
>
>"Thomas Reynolds" <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:YHZmk.576$xv.94@trnddc02...
>> Subject says it all :-) Thanks to the Big 8 board (and "Z" of course).
>>
>
>No way TR, major ISPs would never add to their servers just because they
>were asked...<g>
That was never claimed, no matter how many times you post that lie.
I'll bet that there is not one MID you can find that has that
statement except by the clueless clots of the underscore group.
You were asked if you knew whether your ISPs would add the group to
demonstrate whether your rationale for creating the group was valid.
Discovering after the fact that they will in no way validates your
lie. You were also asked what you plan was IF they did not add the
group.
The fact you could not answer either question meant you were pulling a
Scarlett O'hara.
P
"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:acdp949mqiqcmv28n...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 16:55:10 -0400, in alt.rhode_island, "P"
> <pr...@cox.net> bloviated:
>
>>
>>"Thomas Reynolds" <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:YHZmk.576$xv.94@trnddc02...
>>> Subject says it all :-) Thanks to the Big 8 board (and "Z" of course).
>>>
>>
>>No way TR, major ISPs would never add to their servers just because they
>>were asked...<g>
>
> That was never claimed, no matter how many times you post that lie.
> I'll bet that there is not one MID you can find that has that
> statement except by the clueless clots of the underscore group.
>
> You were asked if you knew whether your ISPs would add the group to
> demonstrate whether your rationale for creating the group was valid.
Okay..this clueless 'tard asks the question: How would you know in advance
whether your ISP would add a group that has yet to be created? One
way..?...maybe because the same ISPs that announce the are dropping alt*
also state they will continue to carry B8 groups???
> Discovering after the fact that they will in no way validates your
> lie. You were also asked what you plan was IF they did not add the
> group.
I told you; we were all gonna come over to your house, raid the fridge, and
make a mess of the bathroom.
But your question..the what if, if they did not add..seems irrelavent now
that they have..
>
> The fact you could not answer either question meant you were pulling a
> Scarlett O'hara.
>
I never actually saw that movie
Adam H. Kerman
>
>"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>news:acdp949mqiqcmv28n...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 16:55:10 -0400, in alt.rhode_island, "P"
>> <pr...@cox.net> bloviated:
>>
>>>
>>>"Thomas Reynolds" <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:YHZmk.576$xv.94@trnddc02...
>>>> Subject says it all :-) Thanks to the Big 8 board (and "Z" of course).
>>>>
>>>
>>>No way TR, major ISPs would never add to their servers just because they
>>>were asked...<g>
>>
>> That was never claimed, no matter how many times you post that lie.
>> I'll bet that there is not one MID you can find that has that
>> statement except by the clueless clots of the underscore group.
>>
>> You were asked if you knew whether your ISPs would add the group to
>> demonstrate whether your rationale for creating the group was valid.
>
>Okay..this clueless 'tard asks the question: How would you know in advance
>whether your ISP would add a group that has yet to be created? One
>way..?...maybe because the same ISPs that announce the are dropping alt*
>also state they will continue to carry B8 groups???
If the group isn't created on your News server, it's not created. The
newgroup message does not create the group. Claiming that one will
continue to carry Big 8 groups is not the same as creating proposed groups.
P
> If the group isn't created on your News server, it's not created. The
> newgroup message does not create the group. Claiming that one will
> continue to carry Big 8 groups is not the same as creating proposed
> groups.
Got it..understood. But they(Verizon) just added...and yes, understand...it
wasn't the ISP but their server.
Adam H. Kerman
I don't understand. You have both a Cox account and a Verizon account?
Please post a message through the News server Verizon provides. Someone
else was claiming that Verizon is a reseller, which didn't make sense.
Perhaps Verizon recognizes Bamby authority and this wasn't created on
request. There are still a few servers that do.
P
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:UvmdnQ0lCIXUIgHV...@comcast.com...
>P <pr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>If the group isn't created on your News server, it's not created. The
>>>newgroup message does not create the group. Claiming that one will
>>>continue to carry Big 8 groups is not the same as creating proposed
>>>groups.
>
>>Got it..understood. But they(Verizon) just added...and yes,
>>understand...it
>>wasn't the ISP but their server.
>
> I don't understand. You have both a Cox account and a Verizon account?
No, I have a Cox acct. TR posted thru his Verizon acct to the newly created
group.
> Please post a message through the News server Verizon provides. Someone
> else was claiming that Verizon is a reseller, which didn't make sense.
>
> Perhaps Verizon recognizes Bamby authority and this wasn't created on
> request. There are still a few servers that do.
Does it matter whose request was recognized now that their servers are
carrying the group?
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>If the group isn't created on your News server, it's not created. The
>>>>newgroup message does not create the group. Claiming that one will
>>>>continue to carry Big 8 groups is not the same as creating proposed
>>>>groups.
>>>Got it..understood. But they(Verizon) just added...and yes,
>>>understand...it
>>>wasn't the ISP but their server.
>>I don't understand. You have both a Cox account and a Verizon account?
>No, I have a Cox acct. TR posted thru his Verizon acct to the newly created
>group.
Thanks. I assume Cox is cable television?
>>Please post a message through the News server Verizon provides. Someone
>>else was claiming that Verizon is a reseller, which didn't make sense.
>>Perhaps Verizon recognizes Bamby authority and this wasn't created on
>>request. There are still a few servers that do.
>Does it matter whose request was recognized now that their servers are
>carrying the group?
I'm looking for evidence that the underscore crowd are promoting the
group. Yes, it matters a great deal.
~Z~
> I'm looking for evidence that the underscore crowd are promoting the
> group. Yes, it matters a great deal.
Don't even bother, P. Trolls need to be ignored, not encouraged. We have
what we wanted ... and they're *very* sore losers.
Best to let them thrash off in a corner, all by themselves.
Adam H. Kerman
You have a thriving newsgroup, do you?
All you got was a newgroup message that as Brian Mailman pointed out,
you could have sent yourself.
Aratzio
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
It appears *our* work was not in vain. They are quite active in the
hashing and bashing of the admins.
--
A Number 1, Grade A, Prime USDA 'Ratz
Accept No Substitute
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>If the group isn't created on your News server, it's not created. The
>>>>newgroup message does not create the group. Claiming that one will
>>>>continue to carry Big 8 groups is not the same as creating proposed
>>>>groups.
>>>Got it..understood. But they(Verizon) just added...and yes,
>>>understand...it
>>>wasn't the ISP but their server.
>>I don't understand. You have both a Cox account and a Verizon account?
>No, I have a Cox acct. TR posted thru his Verizon acct to the newly created
>group.
I looked for one of his messages posted to news.groups throught Verizon.
He's been posting through Google Groups, so I still don't have an example.
Aratzio
"Thomas Reynolds" <tom.re...@verizon.net> got double secret
probation for writing:
>
>"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>news:acdp949mqiqcmv28n...@4ax.com...
>Prop, by analogy, you were supposed to prove the sky was not falling ( a
>demand made persons whose right to demand anything of anyone is a real
>stretch.
No, you were supposed to do "due dilligence". Sorry if that is a
concept that is too difficult to understand.
BTW: It was the proponent and supporters that made the claim that the
sky was falling and failed to support their claim with anything other
than their opinion.
> And if you couldn't prove it, you should have stayed indoors or
>you would be killed by it crashing down. So, you ignored the demand for
>proof and even went outdoors, looked up and enjoyed the pretty day and enjoy
>fine health even now.
What bizarre world do you live in is asking for evidence the proponent
is both knowledable of what they ask and motivated to perform so that
that the concept will have a chance of working, is a cry that the "sky
is falling"?
> Clearly you simply don't understand. To the "demand
>makers" an appropriate response may be that sometimes stupid crap is so
>obvious you don't need to taste it...the smell from a mile away is
>sufficient to know what you are dealing with. The real question is why such
>strange and wrong-minded (already proven at this point) "persons" are still
>haunted, and haunting us with their masturbatory exercises in therapy.
Now that is some fine psycho-babble frothing and projection. So, Dr.
Freud, what has been proven? That the newsgroupies motivated you and
your little band of cluetards to make sure the group propagates?
>This
>continued activity sort of serves as proof of their "issues" as I see it.
>Harsh letter to follow...
>
Oh, poor baby, will you be netKKKopping people because they fail to
agree with your opinion and continue to discuss the matter over your
objections?
Aratzio
H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> got double secret probation for writing:
Message-ID: <Xs3nk.560$T91.298@trnddc04>
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>If the group isn't created on your News server, it's not created. The
>>>>>>newgroup message does not create the group. Claiming that one will
>>>>>>continue to carry Big 8 groups is not the same as creating proposed
>>>>>>groups.
>>>>>Got it..understood. But they(Verizon) just added...and yes,
>>>>>understand...it
>>>>>wasn't the ISP but their server.
>>>>I don't understand. You have both a Cox account and a Verizon account?
>>>No, I have a Cox acct. TR posted thru his Verizon acct to the newly created
>>>group.
>>I looked for one of his messages posted to news.groups throught Verizon.
>>He's been posting through Google Groups, so I still don't have an example.
>Message-ID: <Xs3nk.560$T91.298@trnddc04>
Was that the message he posted to Big 8 underscore? It's not created on
the servers I use.
Aratzio
Yes, it is on S-S (Newshosting reseller)
Thomas Reynolds
Not a person who accepts success in others are you. Weird...really...
Aratzio
"Success in others"
How utterly bizarre. You pal goes off on a frothing trip down babble
lane and you feel I am jealous of his success. At what, exactly would
you consider him a success?
1. Projecting his own psychological instabilities?
2. Inability to parse English?
3. Impotent whining?
4. Incomprehensible logic?
Now, I am sure that you all have made such wonderful inroads on your
propagation.
Now answer this easy question, would you all be working as hard on
propagation if the newsgroupies had not been poking you with the
pointy sticks of clue?
Contary to your bizarre beliefs, not one newsgroupie wants your group
to fail. How can you tell? Find one post where we say that. Hell find
one post where anyone other than your clueless pals said that it would
*never* propagate.
P
>>>I don't understand. You have both a Cox account and a Verizon account?
>
>>No, I have a Cox acct. TR posted thru his Verizon acct to the newly
>>created
>>group.
>
> Thanks. I assume Cox is cable television?
Cable TV, broadband internet, and phone provider...Huge coverage and
provider of services here in RI.
As is Verizon(phone and internet)
Thomas Reynolds
migrate their alt group to the big 8. The board of the big 8 lets them.
They start migrating and the ISPs and NSPs cooperate and they are all happy
with the outcome. Total time taken, maybe a week or so (even with all the
kooks craping in the living room). And you simply can't shut up about how
it will never work...or, change that now, how it only worked because some
folks are nice...oh, and maybe even helpful. Heavens forefend! What a
hoot!
Adam H. Kerman
The Bambies would have sent a newgroup message on behalf of any
newsgroup you proposed, as long as you told them it would be redundant
and as long as they could tell themselves it would enhance their power.
You offer a bad idea, they'll newgroup it.
Aratzio
And Everyone has *migrated*?
> And you simply can't shut up about how
>it will never work...or, change that now, how it only worked because some
>folks are nice...oh, and maybe even helpful.
No one said it would not work, other than the clueless knobs like you
and your pal. What you were told is the you are idiots without a clue
and that the new group will never propagate as well as your current
group. Now I am reqding that the very same people who said they could
not use NSP to access the alt group are contemplating NSP. How ironic.
> Heavens forefend! What a hoot!
I'm betting you don't even get the irony of your hypocritical whine,
do you?
Peter J Ross
wrote:
It matters in news.groups, if future proponents are to be given
accurate advice.
--
PJR :-)
Newsgroup name validator (beta release, use with caution)
<http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator>
Peter J Ross
<tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Not a person who accepts success in others are you. Weird...really...
Speaking as somebody who believes the Bambies are incompetent
(collectively, and in many cases as individuals), I consider the
further evidence that I'm right to constitute a success.
They haven't even observed the charter they invented for themselves,
since if talk.us.rhode-island is "well-named" I'm Marie of Romania.
Your own success or failure is irrelevant. You're a supporter of a
single proposal, and you'll presumably be gone before long, unless you
become a Bamby. (Doing so is quite easy. Previous experience and
knowledge are not required.)
Peter J Ross
<tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The bottom line analysis. A nice group of folks have a problem and want to
> migrate their alt group to the big 8. The board of the big 8 lets them.
You missed out the bit where the nice group of folks were offered
suggestions other than newgrouping a Big-8 group. These suggestions
were probably preferable, and would certainly have required less
effort from the nice group of folks.
> They start migrating and the ISPs and NSPs cooperate and they are all happy
> with the outcome.
talk.us.rhode-island:
"Your search was found on 19 of 49 servers searched. Or approximately
38.8 percent."
alt.rhode_island:
"Your search was found on 40 of 49 servers searched. Or approximately
81.6 percent."
ri.general:
"Your search was found on 28 of 49 servers searched. Or approximately
57.1 percent."
<http://groupsearch.aacity.net/engine.html>
> Total time taken, maybe a week or so (even with all the
> kooks craping in the living room).
The data I've quoted above suggest that your work isn't over.
Btw, disagreeing with you and/or flaming you doesn't make someone a
kook. In fact, the people you describe as kooks are the ones who have
offered genuine, truthful advice. Even two of the Bambies offered
genuine, truthful advice: are they kooks too?
> And you simply can't shut up about how
> it will never work...or, change that now, how it only worked because some
> folks are nice...oh, and maybe even helpful. Heavens forefend! What a
> hoot!
It's certainly a hoot, but not for the reasons you suppose.
Steve Bonine
> In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 04:08:59 GMT, Thomas Reynolds
> <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> The bottom line analysis. A nice group of folks have a problem and want to
>> migrate their alt group to the big 8. The board of the big 8 lets them.
>
> You missed out the bit where the nice group of folks were offered
> suggestions other than newgrouping a Big-8 group. These suggestions
> were probably preferable, and would certainly have required less
> effort from the nice group of folks.
Yes, the folks were offered suggestions. They considered those
suggestions, and rejected them. And in spite of how they have been
portrayed here in news.groups, those people are not dummies. Some of
them have been around Usenet for a couple of decades and have run large
news servers.
You just can't handle that, can you? You're not capable of making
suggestions; you have to dictate. It's just not within your mindset
that anything other than Your Way might be the right decision.
Oddly enough, I agree with you that leaving the group in alt and helping
people find an NSP that carries alt would be less work. But I also feel
strongly that a group of people has the right to make an informed
decision, even if I personally don't agree with the outcome. They did,
and the decision was to request a newsgroup in the big-8.
So the board was presented with a proponent who could reliably promise a
successful group in the big-8 if one were created. How many times has
that happened in the past few years? Look at the last group created,
comp.lang.c++.misc . . . the proponents haven't even posted in the group
that they requested. Compare that with how talk.us.rhode-island looks,
just a few days after its creation.
But of course success is impossible, based upon your personal dictated
reality. The board is Bad, and anything they do is Bad. So you will
find ways to make it Bad. Any path other than the one you choose is
Wrong, and in spite of the reality of success you will dictate failure.
Peter J Ross
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 04:08:59 GMT, Thomas Reynolds
>> <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The bottom line analysis. A nice group of folks have a problem and want to
>>> migrate their alt group to the big 8. The board of the big 8 lets them.
>>
>> You missed out the bit where the nice group of folks were offered
>> suggestions other than newgrouping a Big-8 group. These suggestions
>> were probably preferable, and would certainly have required less
>> effort from the nice group of folks.
>
> Yes, the folks were offered suggestions. They considered those
> suggestions, and rejected them. And in spite of how they have been
> portrayed here in news.groups, those people are not dummies. Some of
> them have been around Usenet for a couple of decades and have run large
> news servers.
Some Bambies have been around Usenet for decades and have run large
news servers. Does that mean that they're infallible?
> You just can't handle that, can you? You're not capable of making
> suggestions; you have to dictate. It's just not within your mindset
> that anything other than Your Way might be the right decision.
"I suggest that crossing a busy street with your eyes shut may be a
bad idea. But, hell, your way may be better than mine, especially if
you've been crossing busy streets for decades."
> Oddly enough, I agree with you that leaving the group in alt and helping
> people find an NSP that carries alt would be less work. But I also feel
> strongly that a group of people has the right to make an informed
> decision, even if I personally don't agree with the outcome. They did,
> and the decision was to request a newsgroup in the big-8.
There was no reason for them not to request a Big-8 group. There was
every reason for the request to be refused - and two Bambies agree
with me, and they're even more important than you.
> So the board was presented with a proponent who could reliably promise a
> successful group in the big-8 if one were created.
Really? How do you measure success? Don't the Bambies themselves
measure success according to whether groups are "well-named" or not?
> How many times has
> that happened in the past few years?
How many times has a group redundant of an existing alt.* group proved
more successful than its alt.* counterpart?
> Look at the last group created,
> comp.lang.c++.misc . . .
Must I? It's the worst-named Bamby group so far.
> the proponents haven't even posted in the group
> that they requested.
You seem to have confused me with somebody who thought that
comp.lang.c++.misc would be a good idea.
> Compare that with how talk.us.rhode-island looks,
> just a few days after its creation.
What would be the use of such a comparison? Let's compare t.u.r-i with
a.r_i six months from now. I remember thinking in the early days of
news.admin.moderation and soc.men.moderated that both groups looked as
if they had a good chance of succeeding, but they didn't.
> But of course success is impossible, based upon your personal dictated
> reality. The board is Bad, and anything they do is Bad. So you will
> find ways to make it Bad. Any path other than the one you choose is
> Wrong, and in spite of the reality of success you will dictate failure.
Your psychic powers are letting you down again. Since the new group's
name can be abbreviated to TURI, perhaps "Dr" Louis Turi could give
you some advice.
By the way, are you ranting as an individual, or as an official Bamby
Rottweiler? Your endless "Bambies good, anti-Bambies bad" rhetoric
makes me wonder.
Aratzio
J Ross <p...@example.invalid> got double secret probation for writing:
>In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 07:50:57 -0500, Steve Bonine
><s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>> In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 04:08:59 GMT, Thomas Reynolds
>>> <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The bottom line analysis. A nice group of folks have a problem and want to
>>>> migrate their alt group to the big 8. The board of the big 8 lets them.
>>>
>>> You missed out the bit where the nice group of folks were offered
>>> suggestions other than newgrouping a Big-8 group. These suggestions
>>> were probably preferable, and would certainly have required less
>>> effort from the nice group of folks.
>>
>> Yes, the folks were offered suggestions. They considered those
>> suggestions, and rejected them. And in spite of how they have been
>> portrayed here in news.groups, those people are not dummies. Some of
>> them have been around Usenet for a couple of decades and have run large
>> news servers.
>
>Some Bambies have been around Usenet for decades and have run large
>news servers. Does that mean that they're infallible?
Steve was lying. One made some unverified *claim* to have run a
server.
>
>> You just can't handle that, can you? You're not capable of making
>> suggestions; you have to dictate. It's just not within your mindset
>> that anything other than Your Way might be the right decision.
>
>"I suggest that crossing a busy street with your eyes shut may be a
>bad idea. But, hell, your way may be better than mine, especially if
>you've been crossing busy streets for decades."
So that would mean I am the most infallible person in the discussion.
>
>> Oddly enough, I agree with you that leaving the group in alt and helping
>> people find an NSP that carries alt would be less work. But I also feel
>> strongly that a group of people has the right to make an informed
>> decision, even if I personally don't agree with the outcome. They did,
>> and the decision was to request a newsgroup in the big-8.
>
>There was no reason for them not to request a Big-8 group. There was
>every reason for the request to be refused - and two Bambies agree
>with me, and they're even more important than you.
>
>> So the board was presented with a proponent who could reliably promise a
>> successful group in the big-8 if one were created.
>
>Really? How do you measure success? Don't the Bambies themselves
>measure success according to whether groups are "well-named" or not?
No, "we did something" is the definition of suck-cess. The Co-Chair
said so.
>
>> How many times has
>> that happened in the past few years?
>
>How many times has a group redundant of an existing alt.* group proved
>more successful than its alt.* counterpart?
Shall we start with the *obvious* groups:
Warcraft
Bittorrent
>
>> Look at the last group created,
>> comp.lang.c++.misc . . .
>
>Must I? It's the worst-named Bamby group so far.
Is it alive?
>
>> the proponents haven't even posted in the group
>> that they requested.
>
>You seem to have confused me with somebody who thought that
>comp.lang.c++.misc would be a good idea.
I have you confused with Bowtie, does that help?
>
>> Compare that with how talk.us.rhode-island looks,
>> just a few days after its creation.
>
>What would be the use of such a comparison? Let's compare t.u.r-i with
>a.r_i six months from now. I remember thinking in the early days of
>news.admin.moderation and soc.men.moderated that both groups looked as
>if they had a good chance of succeeding, but they didn't.
I think the group will suck-ceed, however the precedent it sets is
what is most disturbing and the suck-cess will be a long term
detriment. The b8mbies have clearly stated "we support fragmenting and
redundancy" as a path to the continued health and suvival of usenet as
a whole. Next will be the creation of the nimby groups because the one
group does not want another group posting in *their* group. Oh, wait,
they already did that.
>
>> But of course success is impossible, based upon your personal dictated
>> reality. The board is Bad, and anything they do is Bad. So you will
>> find ways to make it Bad. Any path other than the one you choose is
>> Wrong, and in spite of the reality of success you will dictate failure.
>
>Your psychic powers are letting you down again. Since the new group's
>name can be abbreviated to TURI, perhaps "Dr" Louis Turi could give
>you some advice.
Sollog had already claimed a *HIT!*.
>
>By the way, are you ranting as an individual, or as an official Bamby
>Rottweiler? Your endless "Bambies good, anti-Bambies bad" rhetoric
>makes me wonder.
His mentor is Thomas "Fingers In Ears" Lee
Art Deco
>"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>news:acdp949mqiqcmv28n...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 16:55:10 -0400, in alt.rhode_island, "P"
>> <pr...@cox.net> bloviated:
>>
>>>
>>>"Thomas Reynolds" <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:YHZmk.576$xv.94@trnddc02...
>>>> Subject says it all :-) Thanks to the Big 8 board (and "Z" of course).
>> Discovering after the fact that they will in no way validates your
>> lie. You were also asked what you plan was IF they did not add the
>> group.
>
>I told you; we were all gonna come over to your house, raid the fridge, and
>make a mess of the bathroom.
Please do, that should be most entertaining to watch. I like smoking
craters.
>But your question..the what if, if they did not add..seems irrelavent now
>that they have..
Yet the point the underscores have avoided all along is still there:
talk.us.rhode-island will *never* exist on the same number of news
servers that alt.rhode_island does. By ignoring this fact, you
demonstrate that you care nothing about any new people subscribing. As
long as the current group can post through their *ISP*, all is good.
This is called near-sighted thinking.
--
"Classic erroneous presupposition."
-- David Tholen
Art Deco
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> I'm looking for evidence that the underscore crowd are promoting the
>> group. Yes, it matters a great deal.
>
>Don't even bother, P. Trolls need to be ignored, not encouraged. We have
>what we wanted ... and they're *very* sore losers.
Heh.
>
>Best to let them thrash off in a corner, all by themselves.
Note that "P" played his juvenile snecking game again, and that "Z" is
still reading in the underscore.
[latest bambie stillborn restored]
Art Deco
>In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 07:50:57 -0500, Steve Bonine
><s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>> In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 04:08:59 GMT, Thomas Reynolds
>>> <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Look at the last group created,
>> comp.lang.c++.misc . . .
>
>Must I? It's the worst-named Bamby group so far.
>
>> the proponents haven't even posted in the group
>> that they requested.
>
>You seem to have confused me with somebody who thought that
>comp.lang.c++.misc would be a good idea.
Listening to discussion concerning proposals isn't a requirement for
the junta, they "voted" long before the discussion took place.
Besides, reading and listening is hard work.
>
>> Compare that with how talk.us.rhode-island looks,
>> just a few days after its creation.
>
>What would be the use of such a comparison? Let's compare t.u.r-i with
>a.r_i six months from now. I remember thinking in the early days of
>news.admin.moderation and soc.men.moderated that both groups looked as
>if they had a good chance of succeeding, but they didn't.
>
>> But of course success is impossible, based upon your personal dictated
>> reality. The board is Bad, and anything they do is Bad. So you will
>> find ways to make it Bad. Any path other than the one you choose is
>> Wrong, and in spite of the reality of success you will dictate failure.
>
>Your psychic powers are letting you down again. Since the new group's
>name can be abbreviated to TURI, perhaps "Dr" Louis Turi could give
>you some advice.
<http://www.drturi.com/>
<http://www.drturi.com/home.php>
[++alt.prophecies.drturi]
>
>By the way, are you ranting as an individual, or as an official Bamby
>Rottweiler? Your endless "Bambies good, anti-Bambies bad" rhetoric
>makes me wonder.
"DISCLAIMER"
"Dr. Turi's Website is VERY Very Real"
"And NOT for Entertainment Purposes Only!"
Sounds just like the bambies.
The fake "Dr." Turdi does sport a lovely toupee, however.
Aratzio
Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> got double secret probation for writing:
><pr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>news:acdp949mqiqcmv28n...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 16:55:10 -0400, in alt.rhode_island, "P"
>>> <pr...@cox.net> bloviated:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Thomas Reynolds" <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:YHZmk.576$xv.94@trnddc02...
>>>>> Subject says it all :-) Thanks to the Big 8 board (and "Z" of course).
>
>>> Discovering after the fact that they will in no way validates your
>>> lie. You were also asked what you plan was IF they did not add the
>>> group.
>>
>>I told you; we were all gonna come over to your house, raid the fridge, and
>>make a mess of the bathroom.
>
>Please do, that should be most entertaining to watch. I like smoking
>craters.
We'll not invoke the nuclear option. This is a viable group and I've
had no reports of netKKKopping activity. Not one whiney email to the
abuse box yet.
>
>>But your question..the what if, if they did not add..seems irrelavent now
>>that they have..
>
>Yet the point the underscores have avoided all along is still there:
>
>talk.us.rhode-island will *never* exist on the same number of news
>servers that alt.rhode_island does. By ignoring this fact, you
>demonstrate that you care nothing about any new people subscribing. As
>long as the current group can post through their *ISP*, all is good.
Except there have already been complaints that they cannot cross-post
etc. Pretty much as described to them and dismissed by them.
>
>This is called near-sighted thinking.
A little street car?
"I have always depended upon the kindness of strangers"
Adam H. Kerman
>>>The bottom line analysis. A nice group of folks have a problem and want to
>>>migrate their alt group to the big 8. The board of the big 8 lets them.
>>You missed out the bit where the nice group of folks were offered
>>suggestions other than newgrouping a Big-8 group. These suggestions
>>were probably preferable, and would certainly have required less
>>effort from the nice group of folks.
>Yes, the folks were offered suggestions. They considered those
>suggestions, and rejected them. And in spite of how they have been
>portrayed here in news.groups, those people are not dummies. Some of
>them have been around Usenet for a couple of decades and have run large
>news servers.
Not dummies, huh. Our Dear Proponent repeatedly misstated the news story
that Verizon had kept Big 8 groups, dropping the rest of Usenet, as one
of many News servers that took such action. In truth, Verizon is the
only News server that pulled the stunt. Maybe he's not a dummy. What
would you call him: Fear monger? Panic peddler?
I still find it amazing that none of the allegedly responsible and
knowledgable users of the group actually helped a user who lost access
to the newsgroup, either because he was a Verizon subscriber or a user
of another ISP that stopped reselling Usenet entirely, migrate to
another News server. That would have been the simplest and most
straightforward action to take.
>But of course success is impossible, based upon your personal dictated
>reality. The board is Bad, and anything they do is Bad. So you will
>find ways to make it Bad. Any path other than the one you choose is
>Wrong, and in spite of the reality of success you will dictate failure.
Well, yeah, the Board giving notice in this manner that they are
overreaching into starting redundant regional newsgroups is Bad, among
the Worst stunt they've pulled. That Bambie checkgroups will include
regionals from now on is not just war on regional hierarchies themselves,
it's yet another reason for a News server not to process their checkgroups
since it will include regional newsgroups unlikely to be of value to that
server's users.
Brian Mailman
People have made the mistake before that they have some sort of security
with the bambies.
B/
Brian Mailman
>>> Discovering after the fact that they will in no way validates
>>> your lie. You were also asked what you plan was IF they did not
>>> add the group.
>>
>> I told you; we were all gonna come over to your house, raid the
>> fridge, and make a mess of the bathroom.
In my household, that's called "teenagers."
B/
Brian Mailman
problem.
(that "problem" is easily solved.).
> and
> want to migrate their alt group to the big 8. The board of the big 8
> lets them.
The bambies cannot allow anything, and they cannot refuse/deny anything.
All you had to do is send a control message (aka "an advisory") in your
own name, and begin working on propagating the groupl
B/
Brian Mailman
> In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 07:50:57 -0500, Steve Bonine
> <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> So the board was presented with a proponent who could reliably
>> promise a successful group in the big-8 if one were created.
Adam? Explain about proponents and promises.
[...]
> By the way, are you ranting as an individual, or as an official Bamby
> Rottweiler? Your endless "Bambies good, anti-Bambies bad" rhetoric
> makes me wonder.
The Emperor, isolated in the Forbidden City, did become a figurehead
while the eunuchs took over.
B/
Brian Mailman
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:06:08 -0600, in the land of alt.rhode_island,
> Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> got double secret probation for writing:
>
>> there:
>>
>> talk.us.rhode-island will *never* exist on the same number of news
>
> Except there have already been complaints that they cannot cross-post
> etc. Pretty much as described to them and dismissed by them.
I've said it before. I want to see how many ontopic, non-crossposted
messages there are in six months.
B/
Brian Mailman
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> But of course success is impossible, based upon your personal
>> dictated reality. The board is Bad, and anything they do is Bad.
>> So you will find ways to make it Bad. Any path other than the one
>> you choose is Wrong, and in spite of the reality of success you
>> will dictate failure.
>
> Well, yeah, the Board giving notice in this manner that they are
> overreaching into starting redundant regional newsgroups is Bad,
> among the Worst stunt they've pulled. That Bambie checkgroups will
> include regionals from now on is not just war on regional hierarchies
> themselves, it's yet another reason for a News server not to process
> their checkgroups since it will include regional newsgroups unlikely
> to be of value to that server's users.
That unpleasant side effect is possibly unintentional.
B/
Peter J Ross
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:50:35 +0100, in the land of news.groups, Peter
> J Ross <p...@example.invalid> got double secret probation for writing:
>
>>In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 07:50:57 -0500, Steve Bonine
>><s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>> In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 04:08:59 GMT, Thomas Reynolds
>>>> <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You missed out the bit where the nice group of folks were offered
>>>> suggestions other than newgrouping a Big-8 group. These suggestions
>>>> were probably preferable, and would certainly have required less
>>>> effort from the nice group of folks.
>>>
>>> Yes, the folks were offered suggestions. They considered those
>>> suggestions, and rejected them. And in spite of how they have been
>>> portrayed here in news.groups, those people are not dummies. Some of
>>> them have been around Usenet for a couple of decades and have run large
>>> news servers.
>>
>>Some Bambies have been around Usenet for decades and have run large
>>news servers. Does that mean that they're infallible?
>
> Steve was lying.
Oh, surely not! Steve never lies! In particular, Steve has no reason
to apologise to Adam for the defamatory lies he posted a few months
ago!
Peter J Ross
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 07:50:57 -0500, Steve Bonine
>> <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>> So the board was presented with a proponent who could reliably
>>> promise a successful group in the big-8 if one were created.
>
> Adam? Explain about proponents and promises.
Does this really have to be explained?
Wait a minute, we're dealing with Bambies and pro-Bambies here. Of
course it has to be explained. Please use short, simple words, Adam.
> [...]
>
>> By the way, are you ranting as an individual, or as an official Bamby
>> Rottweiler? Your endless "Bambies good, anti-Bambies bad" rhetoric
>> makes me wonder.
>
> The Emperor, isolated in the Forbidden City, did become a figurehead
> while the eunuchs took over.
Steve is no eunuch. Posting easily-refuted rants to news.groups
requires balls.
Peter J Ross
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
Even Bambies have made that mistake. Yves resigned from the Bambies
when he realised that they weren't interested in waiting for him to
vote before announcing a result. The Bambies immediately started
flaming him.
I'm not making this up, Rhode Islanders. You may call Adam, Aratzio,
Brian and me trolls and kooks, but we're not the ones who have a
history of stabbing our friends in the back when it suits us.
Peter J Ross
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
> Thomas Reynolds wrote:
>> "Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:q4vp94t3nu3hu8gs1...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:01:55 GMT, in the land of news.groups,
>>> "Thomas Reynolds" <tom.re...@verizon.net> got double secret
>>> probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1rlp941sfuvt7r54s...@4ax.com...
>>>>
It's even simpler than that. If users of alt.rhode_island were really
too stupid to switch to better NSPs, then ri.general was available. A
lot of the initial propagation work had already been done.
But the shameful thing about this latest Bamby cock-up is that once
more the proponents were lied to. Once more they were told that the
group they wanted would be "created".
When are the Bambies going to admit that the Big-8 hierarchies are in
a state of crisis? The sky really is falling in the world of Big-8
management.
Peter J Ross
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
After six months, I want to make a comparison between the new talk.*
group and the old alt.* group. Perhaps this will be the first time the
Bambies have ever successfully poached users from alt.*. Or perhaps
not.
Peter J Ross
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
In my household, tht's called "me".
I quite often have to ground myself for up to a week.
~Z~
> Even Bambies have made that mistake. Yves resigned from the Bambies
> when he realised that they weren't interested in waiting for him to
> vote before announcing a result.
I don't understand the complaint.
Once a majority is certain, the outcome is known. At that point, what is
the benefit to waiting?
Can you imagine if political elections were held up until every single
vote had been tallied before announcing a result? That would take months.
Adam H. Kerman
>Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>>Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 07:50:57 -0500, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>So the board was presented with a proponent who could reliably
>>>>promise a successful group in the big-8 if one were created.
>>Adam? Explain about proponents and promises.
>Does this really have to be explained?
>Wait a minute, we're dealing with Bambies and pro-Bambies here. Of
>course it has to be explained. Please use short, simple words, Adam.
Man. There's always a catch.
Aratzio
Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> got double secret probation for
writing:
>~Z~ wrote:
That you, Jayne?
Aratzio
Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Art Deco wrote:
In my house it is called "the fucking lard ass brother-in-law"
Aratzio
Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:06:08 -0600, in the land of alt.rhode_island,
>> Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> got double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>> Yet the point the underscores have avoided all along is still
>>> there:
>>>
>>> talk.us.rhode-island will *never* exist on the same number of news
>>> servers that alt.rhode_island does. [...]
>>
>> Except there have already been complaints that they cannot cross-post
>> etc. Pretty much as described to them and dismissed by them.
>
>I've said it before. I want to see how many ontopic, non-crossposted
>messages there are in six months.
>
>B/
They do not have an actual topic.
Aratzio
Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> got double secret probation for
writing:
>In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:46:31 -0700, Brian Mailman
><bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:06:08 -0600, in the land of alt.rhode_island,
>>> Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> got double secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>>> Yet the point the underscores have avoided all along is still
>>>> there:
>>>>
>>>> talk.us.rhode-island will *never* exist on the same number of news
>>>> servers that alt.rhode_island does. [...]
>>>
>>> Except there have already been complaints that they cannot cross-post
>>> etc. Pretty much as described to them and dismissed by them.
>>
>> I've said it before. I want to see how many ontopic, non-crossposted
>> messages there are in six months.
>
>After six months, I want to make a comparison between the new talk.*
>group and the old alt.* group. Perhaps this will be the first time the
>Bambies have ever successfully poached users from alt.*. Or perhaps
>not.
It will work.
I was also unaware that there were lemmings in RHode Island.
Peter J Ross
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> Even Bambies have made that mistake. Yves resigned from the Bambies
>> when he realised that they weren't interested in waiting for him to
>> vote before announcing a result.
>
> I don't understand the complaint.
>
> Once a majority is certain, the outcome is known. At that point, what is
> the benefit to waiting?
Politeness to the less popular members of what in those days was
called the "Interim Committee" might have been beneficial.
> Can you imagine if political elections were held up until every single
> vote had been tallied before announcing a result? That would take months.
Actually, that's exactly the way political elections work here in the
UK. Sometimes it takes a couple of days to count all the votes in
rural areas.
Adam H. Kerman
>So the board was presented with a proponent who could reliably promise a
>successful group in the big-8 if one were created. How many times has
>that happened in the past few years? Look at the last group created,
>comp.lang.c++.misc . . . the proponents haven't even posted in the group
>that they requested. Compare that with how talk.us.rhode-island looks,
>just a few days after its creation.
Steve, there are no circumstances in which a proponent can make a
reliable promise of future traffic or group success. No proponent has
control of the future. What a proponent promises is irrelevant.
Groups aren't supposed to be created for the purpose of getting less
traffic and less propagation than the group it duplicates.
P
>>>> Discovering after the fact that they will in no way validates
>>>> your lie. You were also asked what you plan was IF they did not
>>>> add the group.
>>>
>>> I told you; we were all gonna come over to your house, raid the
>>> fridge, and make a mess of the bathroom.
>
> In my household, that's called "teenagers."
Does that mean you'll also give us the car keys?
P
news:slrng9qtt...@pjr.motzarella.org...>> The bottom line analysis. A nice group of folks have a problem and want
>> migrate their alt group to the big 8. The board of the big 8 lets them.
>
> suggestions other than newgrouping a Big-8 group. These suggestions
> were probably preferable, and would certainly have required less
> effort from the nice group of folks.
>
>> happy
>> with the outcome.
>
> talk.us.rhode-island:
> "Your search was found on 19 of 49 servers searched. Or approximately
> 38.8 percent."
>
> alt.rhode_island:
> "Your search was found on 40 of 49 servers searched. Or approximately
> 81.6 percent."
>
> ri.general:
> "Your search was found on 28 of 49 servers searched. Or approximately
> 57.1 percent."
>
> <http://groupsearch.aacity.net/engine.html>
But how accurate is that cite when the major servers affecting the
participant in this group seem willing to carry? Take for example
re.general(not proliferated by this core, mostly some from MA)...or
ri.politics, participants = no none, and never has. Does server count
override traffic and participation. And what's up with an analysis of only
49 severs at this site? I don't see mine there..
>> Total time taken, maybe a week or so (even with all the
>> kooks craping in the living room).
>
> The data I've quoted above suggest that your work isn't over.
>
Wholly understood.
P
> How many times has a group redundant of an existing alt.* group proved
> more successful than its alt.* counterpart?
Why must a new B8 group prove itself a success in advance with a measure of
success equal to proliferation exceeding a redundant topic in alt*, or any
% thereof?
I'd like to know of some B8 groups created that those regulars in
news.groups consider a 'success...and I find it particularly odd that all
the naysayers for the B8 share the habit of living in alt* groups yet
demonstrate the hypocrisy of criticizing migration from one hierchy to
another.
P
>>> lie. You were also asked what you plan was IF they did not add the
>>> group.
>>
>>I told you; we were all gonna come over to your house, raid the fridge,
>>and
>>make a mess of the bathroom.
>
> craters.
Filtered or non filtered smoking craters?
BTW, do you clean his bathroom...is that why you seem so upset? You 'ratz's
house maid or something...?
Thomas Lee
<erfc...@usa.net> writes
>talk.us.rhode-island will *never* exist on the same number of news
>demonstrate that you care nothing about any new people subscribing. As
>long as the current group can post through their *ISP*, all is good.
SO what's your answer? How would you act to get propogation improved?
My answer is to ask the NSPs to carry the new group. I've asked two to
do it, so far, and both have. And I plan to contact a few more this
week.
How many have you contacted? How much work to YOU put in to making
things better? Or is your 'contribution' limited to venom?
As this is not really about RI, but about news in general, newsgroups
adjusted.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Thomas Lee
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
>Peter J Ross wrote:
>> Even Bambies have made that mistake. Yves resigned from the Bambies
>> when he realised that they weren't interested in waiting for him to
>> vote before announcing a result.
>
>I don't understand the complaint.
A very long time ago, when the board was still very new, we had a vote.
Two of us had not been able to vote yet when it was announced. I was
annoyed, but Yves was furious - even though our vote would have made no
difference. But that was something like 2-3 years ago and was
acknowledged as a mistake. One we've not made again. Peter somehow
things a mistake made by a new board using, at that time a new and
untried process, is something to be held against us forever. It was
regrettable, but we've moved on.
>Once a majority is certain, the outcome is known. At that point, what
>is the benefit to waiting?
Because in voting, I or Yvescould have said "no because of X" which
might have changed other's minds. That, and it's rude to say "the board
has voted for Y" when two of us hadn't yet voted! It was a mistake, made
for good reasons (I call it overenthusaiasm).
>Can you imagine if political elections were held up until every single
>vote had been tallied before announcing a result? That would take
>months.
True. But to announce the result 4 hours before polling closes is a
little wrong, don't you think?
But this is all very ancient history and is hardly relevant to anything
any more.
Thomas Lee
>I'd like to know of some B8 groups created that those regulars in
>news.groups consider a 'success...and I find it particularly odd that
>all the naysayers for the B8 share the habit of living in alt* groups
>yet demonstrate the hypocrisy of criticizing migration from one hierchy
>to another.
LOL.
The ABR will point to ALL groups created by B8MB as failure.
;-)
--
Thomas Lee - t...@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Adam H. Kerman
>Peter J Ross wrote:
>>Even Bambies have made that mistake. Yves resigned from the Bambies
>>when he realised that they weren't interested in waiting for him to
>>vote before announcing a result.
>I don't understand the complaint.
>Once a majority is certain, the outcome is known. At that point, what is
>the benefit to waiting?
Declaring the results of a vote before each voter has had an opportunity
to consider the matter is the most serious breech of procedure. There's
a mere handful of Bambies so it shouldn't be terribly difficult to
properly notify them of the vote and wait the proper amount of time
before closing the vote. Besides, in a committee, one may rescind his
vote before the vote is announced. It wasn't just Yves' rights that were
violated, but everyone else's.
Yes, the matter is serious enough to trigger resignations.
>Can you imagine if political elections were held up until every single
>vote had been tallied before announcing a result? That would take months.
You do understand that there aren't even as many as a dozen Bambies, so
that your comment is utterly irrelevant?
Adam H. Kerman
>>>Even Bambies have made that mistake. Yves resigned from the Bambies
>>>when he realised that they weren't interested in waiting for him to
>>>vote before announcing a result.
>>I don't understand the complaint.
>A very long time ago, when the board was still very new, we had a vote.
>Two of us had not been able to vote yet when it was announced. I was
>annoyed, but Yves was furious - even though our vote would have made no
>difference. But that was something like 2-3 years ago and was
>acknowledged as a mistake. One we've not made again. Peter somehow
>things a mistake made by a new board using, at that time a new and
>untried process, is something to be held against us forever. It was
>regrettable, but we've moved on.
So that's a series of mistakes.
1) Failure to give notice of the vote
2) Failure to give notice of when the vote will be closed
3) Announcing the result, thus closing the vote prematurely
4) Failure to admit that the single most serious procedural error was
committed, that the results were invalid, that the vote should be retaken
5) Instead of learning from this failure, incorrectly blame the incident
on inexperience rather than breach of ethics
6) Declaring the matter closed so Yves' legitimate complaint isn't
addressed
7) Rinse, repeat
Adam H. Kerman
>>talk.us.rhode-island will *never* exist on the same number of news
>>servers that alt.rhode_island does. By ignoring this fact, you
>>demonstrate that you care nothing about any new people subscribing. As
>>long as the current group can post through their *ISP*, all is good.
>SO what's your answer? How would you act to get propogation improved?
>My answer is to ask the NSPs to carry the new group. I've asked two to
>do it, so far, and both have. And I plan to contact a few more this
>week.
>How many have you contacted? How much work to YOU put in to making
>things better? Or is your 'contribution' limited to venom?
>As this is not really about RI, but about news in general, newsgroups
>adjusted.
Hahahahaha
Thomas is making me share the blame for Bambi's most serious failure
with Art Deco. I didn't wanna share; give it back.
Adam H. Kerman
>>I'd like to know of some B8 groups created that those regulars in
>>news.groups consider a 'success...and I find it particularly odd that
>>all the naysayers for the B8 share the habit of living in alt* groups
>>yet demonstrate the hypocrisy of criticizing migration from one hierchy
>>to another.
>LOL.
>The ABR will point to ALL groups created by B8MB as failure.
I'd like to know of some Bambi-started group that the Bambies themselves
consider to be a success, stating the reasons why they believe it's a
success and backing it up with traffic data.
Adam H. Kerman
>><http://groupsearch.aacity.net/engine.html>
The propagation search engine is accurate to the extent that the
maintainer knows of major News servers that have an active file
searchable from a foreign network.
Note well that Cox doesn't have its own News server, but resells
High-Winds Media which markets itself under a number of names, so it's
one of the servers searched.
As always, if anyone knows of a server that should be added to the
propagation search, 2Rowdy will be happy to do so if it's searchable.
Art Deco
Learn how to post, noob, learn what attributions are for.
I stand by my assessment that you are a lamer.
--
Teh Way of Teh Tholen|nelohT:
* lie
* deny
* IKYABWAI
* grammar/typo pounce
* 'tard lame
* "you did it too"
* snip-n-run
Art Deco
>Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>>Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> writes
>
>>>talk.us.rhode-island will *never* exist on the same number of news
>>>servers that alt.rhode_island does. By ignoring this fact, you
>>>demonstrate that you care nothing about any new people subscribing. As
>>>long as the current group can post through their *ISP*, all is good.
>
>>SO what's your answer? How would you act to get propogation improved?
>
>>My answer is to ask the NSPs to carry the new group. I've asked two to
>>do it, so far, and both have. And I plan to contact a few more this
>>week.
How many NSPs did you contact about the "obvious" froups?
The soc.mans.moderated?
The neo-nazis?
>
>>How many have you contacted? How much work to YOU put in to making
>>things better? Or is your 'contribution' limited to venom?
Why would I want to promote a newsgroup with a goofy, poorly selected
name?
Oh, and Thomas, please explain how the words I wrote in the paragraph
above are "venom".
>
>>As this is not really about RI, but about news in general, newsgroups
>>adjusted.
>
>Hahahahaha
>
>Thomas is making me share the blame for Bambi's most serious failure
>with Art Deco. I didn't wanna share; give it back.
Yes, the finger of blame is now pointing at me. But go ahead, I shall
yield the floor.
Art Deco
Now they don't bother to announce votes or anything associated with the
"voting" process, everything is done in secret. Problem solved.
Aratzio
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> got double secret probation for writing:
>
>A very long time ago, when the board was still very new,
Just after you usurped the voting process and appointed yourselves,
Mr. Cheney.
> we had a vote.
What you call "a vote" the rest of the world calls a pre-ordained
conclusion. Six of the 8 members can ALWAYS be counted on to vote as
one.
>Two of us had not been able to vote yet when it was announced. I was
>annoyed, but Yves was furious - even though our vote would have made no
>difference. But that was something like 2-3 years ago and was
>acknowledged as a mistake.
That is a lie, Thomas. It was ststed that his vote didn't matter and
therefore irrelevant. There was NEVER an admission of fault or an
apology given to Yves. As a matter of fact Kamens and other members of
the board publically flamed and derided Yves for his stand. If the
newgroupies had not taken up the cause you fuckwits would have
continued in your arrogane. The point then just as with the
newgroupies now, those that disagree have the right and sometimes the
duty to insure their view is heard.
Hint Thomas: Who is always telling proponents not to listen to
specific people?
Aatu Koskensilta
> I'd like to know of some Bambi-started group that the Bambies themselves
> consider to be a success, stating the reasons why they believe it's a
> success and backing it up with traffic data.
I don't care enough to provide any traffic data, but
comp.lang.haskell, which I've been reading since its inception, seems
to be doing fine. Of course, what the "Bambies" think of
comp.lang.haskell I don't know.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Aratzio
H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> got double secret probation for writing:
The Iphone group is adequately active. The rest are wastelands.
Especially the redundant groups.
Aratzio
H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>P <pr...@cox.net> wrote:
You will note that the maintainer of the Engine is so notorious as a
anti-board member that he was placed in the now defunct "dungeon".
You will also note that the board does not ever refute the fact that
their groups propagate like shit.
You will also note that the board has ZERO published tools of their
own that in any way measure success or failure. Failure would be a
given.
Adam H. Kerman
>>I'd like to know of some Bambi-started group that the Bambies themselves
>>consider to be a success, stating the reasons why they believe it's a
>>success and backing it up with traffic data.
>I don't care enough to provide any traffic data, but
>comp.lang.haskell, which I've been reading since its inception, seems
>to be doing fine.
That's one.
>Of course, what the "Bambies" think of comp.lang.haskell I don't know.
Well, that's the point of the exercise. They don't appear to care.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>>>P <pr...@cox.net> writes
>>>>I'd like to know of some B8 groups created that those regulars in
>>>>news.groups consider a 'success...and I find it particularly odd that
>>>>all the naysayers for the B8 share the habit of living in alt* groups
>>>>yet demonstrate the hypocrisy of criticizing migration from one hierchy
>>>>to another.
>>>LOL.
>>>The ABR will point to ALL groups created by B8MB as failure.
>>I'd like to know of some Bambi-started group that the Bambies themselves
>>consider to be a success, stating the reasons why they believe it's a
>>success and backing it up with traffic data.
>The Iphone group is adequately active. The rest are wastelands.
>Especially the redundant groups.
That's two.
Note that a Squirrel and the Ofishul Ruiner of Usenet came up with
examples, while the Bambies haven't yet offered an example.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>LOL.
>That's two.
Whoops! I didn't notice Aatu's resignation announcement, so he's an
ex-Squirrel. More often than not, I've enjoyed his sense of humor even
when disagreeing with him, even when I've been the target of it.
Aratzio
H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote:
Colbert - dead
The Office - dead
O'reilly - dead (couple kook screeders use it for screed bombs)
Warcraft - dead
Xbox - dead
Wii - Some x-posted material, no real content
Playstation - dead
media.players.portable - dead
ipod - life support is failing, mostly x-posts from iphone group.
moderation - dead
iphone - ~100 posts a month since may
mobile - dead
wiki - dead
youtube - dead
myspace - dead
google - 60 posts since may - almost all x-posted to alt.google
livejournal - dead
bittorent - ead
socmen - dead
So the ones I looked at are all, with theexception of the iphone group
have zero original content and are for all intents DOA.
Thomas Lee
<erfc...@usa.net> writes
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Declaring the results of a vote before each voter has had an opportunity
>>to consider the matter is the most serious breech of procedure. There's
>>a mere handful of Bambies so it shouldn't be terribly difficult to
>>properly notify them of the vote and wait the proper amount of time
>>before closing the vote. Besides, in a committee, one may rescind his
>>vote before the vote is announced. It wasn't just Yves' rights that were
>>violated, but everyone else's.
For the record it happened once. It was a mistake and has not happened
again. Why you dredge up things that happened years ago is beyond me.
More to the point, why aren't you willing to accept the fact that this
was a mistake that hasn't happened again?
>>Yes, the matter is serious enough to trigger resignations.
Only if you were looking for an excuse. Yes, it was wrong to have issued
the results before at least two of us had voted. It was a fit of
over-enthusaism not ever likely to be repeated. Stuff happens, we learn
- and most of us get over it. Flouncing out after a genuine mistake
seemed premature then, and now.
>>>Can you imagine if political elections were held up until every single
>>>vote had been tallied before announcing a result? That would take months.
>>
>>You do understand that there aren't even as many as a dozen Bambies, so
>>that your comment is utterly irrelevant?
>
>Now they don't bother to announce votes or anything associated with the
>"voting" process, everything is done in secret. Problem solved.
Again - don't let the truth get in the way of a great whine.
Newsgroups adjusted as this has nothing to do with Rhode Island.
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Brian Mailman
> Because in voting, I or Yvescould have said "no because of X" which
> might have changed other's minds. That, and it's rude to say "the board
> has voted for Y" when two of us hadn't yet voted! It was a mistake, made
> for good reasons (I call it overenthusaiasm).
You're supposed to be adults, and familiar with the concept of "delayed
gratification."
B/
Brian Mailman
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:39:52 +0100, in the land of alt.rhode_island,
> Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> got double secret probation for writing:
>>A very long time ago, when the board was still very new,
> Just after you usurped the voting process and appointed yourselves,
> Mr. Cheney.
As I said a week or so ago.... while the decision to want a Big 8 group
is highly unadvised, *none* of "us" ever said they didn't have the right
to make that decision for themselves.
None of us flouted our ability to make decisions for others, and the
same ones that did were *directly* involved in taking that away.
B/
Brian Mailman
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:10:32 -0700, in the land of alt.rhode_island,
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>>~Z~ wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> I'm looking for evidence that the underscore crowd are promoting the
>>>> group. Yes, it matters a great deal.
>>>
>>> Don't even bother, P. Trolls need to be ignored, not encouraged. We have
>>> what we wanted ... and they're *very* sore losers.
>>>
>>> Best to let them thrash off in a corner, all by themselves.
>>
>>People have made the mistake before that they have some sort of security
>>with the bambies.
> That you, Jayne?
You were reading what's left of my mind.
B/
Brian Mailman
stroke is dead. All that's in there is the proponent posting under
different nyms cutting and pasting articles. The rare occasion someone
tries to have a discussion, he shuttles it off of Usenet to his web forum.
B/
Aratzio
Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:39:52 +0100, in the land of alt.rhode_island,
>> Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> got double secret probation for writing:
>
>>>A very long time ago, when the board was still very new,
>
>> Just after you usurped the voting process and appointed yourselves,
>> Mr. Cheney.
>
>As I said a week or so ago.... while the decision to want a Big 8 group
>is highly unadvised, *none* of "us" ever said they didn't have the right
>to make that decision for themselves.
>
>None of us flouted our ability to make decisions for others, and the
>same ones that did were *directly* involved in taking that away.
>
>B/
But more importantly since the *prime directive* seems to be "Yes is
the answer" doesn't that make the board superfluous? The discussion in
NGP is not whether the group should be created but what is the name
that will be created. Jeremy tried to discuss the concept within the
proper context and was for the most part ignored. They were to busy
fucking up the name.
Adam H. Kerman
>Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> writes
>>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Declaring the results of a vote before each voter has had an opportunity
>>>to consider the matter is the most serious breech of procedure. There's
>>>a mere handful of Bambies so it shouldn't be terribly difficult to
>>>properly notify them of the vote and wait the proper amount of time
>>>before closing the vote. Besides, in a committee, one may rescind his
>>>vote before the vote is announced. It wasn't just Yves' rights that were
>>>violated, but everyone else's.
>For the record it happened once. It was a mistake and has not happened
>again. Why you dredge up things that happened years ago is beyond me.
>More to the point, why aren't you willing to accept the fact that this
>was a mistake that hasn't happened again?
There's no evidence of ability to learn from mistakes. It shouldn't have
to be said among ethical people, should it, that if you take a vote,
you do it fairly?
>>>Yes, the matter is serious enough to trigger resignations.
>Only if you were looking for an excuse.
Yves was at fault. I see. Couldn't we just blame 'Ratz?
>>>>Can you imagine if political elections were held up until every single
>>>>vote had been tallied before announcing a result? That would take months.
>>>You do understand that there aren't even as many as a dozen Bambies, so
>>>that your comment is utterly irrelevant?
>>Now they don't bother to announce votes or anything associated with the
>>"voting" process, everything is done in secret. Problem solved.
>Again - don't let the truth get in the way of a great whine.
You're making a fool of yourself here. Those who participated in Big 8
votes put themselves on record. Bambies refuse to do that, claiming the
need to have secret policies.
>Newsgroups adjusted as this has nothing to do with Rhode Island.
Thanks for the reminder to restore the crosspost.
Aratzio
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>>Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> writes
>>>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Declaring the results of a vote before each voter has had an opportunity
>>>>to consider the matter is the most serious breech of procedure. There's
>>>>a mere handful of Bambies so it shouldn't be terribly difficult to
>>>>properly notify them of the vote and wait the proper amount of time
>>>>before closing the vote. Besides, in a committee, one may rescind his
>>>>vote before the vote is announced. It wasn't just Yves' rights that were
>>>>violated, but everyone else's.
>
>>For the record it happened once. It was a mistake and has not happened
>>again. Why you dredge up things that happened years ago is beyond me.
>>More to the point, why aren't you willing to accept the fact that this
>>was a mistake that hasn't happened again?
>
>There's no evidence of ability to learn from mistakes. It shouldn't have
>to be said among ethical people, should it, that if you take a vote,
>you do it fairly?
>
>>>>Yes, the matter is serious enough to trigger resignations.
>
>>Only if you were looking for an excuse.
>
>Yves was at fault. I see. Couldn't we just blame 'Ratz?
I had barely made my first victory lap when Yves resigned.
>
>>>>>Can you imagine if political elections were held up until every single
>>>>>vote had been tallied before announcing a result? That would take months.
>
>>>>You do understand that there aren't even as many as a dozen Bambies, so
>>>>that your comment is utterly irrelevant?
>
>>>Now they don't bother to announce votes or anything associated with the
>>>"voting" process, everything is done in secret. Problem solved.
>
>>Again - don't let the truth get in the way of a great whine.
>
>You're making a fool of yourself here. Those who participated in Big 8
>votes put themselves on record. Bambies refuse to do that, claiming the
>need to have secret policies.
Jeremy & Mark - reasonable to an extent
The other 6 - We need to do something.
It isn;t a secret, Adam.
>
>>Newsgroups adjusted as this has nothing to do with Rhode Island.
>
>Thanks for the reminder to restore the crosspost.
Thomas is their new bestest friend cause he likes RHode Island.
CovvTseTung
says...
We'll see if he still thinks that way after visiting.
--
"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>Once a majority is certain, the outcome is known. At that point, what is
>the benefit to waiting?
That reasoning is embodied in the board voting policies,
available for scrutiny here:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:board_voting
We did err in an early vote; one board member was upset
about the early release of the result; the policy was
revised to avoid a repetition of that particular problem.
In this particular case, all board members participated
in the vote. There are currently eight board members.
Six voted in favor of creation of the group; two were
opposed. The result was announced as early as possible
under the guidelines for the Last Call for Comments
(point 5):
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
Marty
--
Co-chair of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) <http://www.big-8.org>
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>I don't care enough to provide any traffic data, but
>comp.lang.haskell, which I've been reading since its inception, seems
>to be doing fine. Of course, what the "Bambies" think of
>comp.lang.haskell I don't know.
Me, neither.
I only know what I think. I've taken a vow against using my
powers of ESP when dealing with mere mortals. ;o)
I voted for c.l.h because I'm biassed in favor of
providing tech-type groups in the big-8. They
hearken back to the origins of Usenet. I don't
expect them to be high-traffic, but I hope they
will provide information that folks will appreciate
for years to come.
I was less certain about the quality of our decision
on comp.soft-sys.octave. I felt that we might have
created that without getting a firm commitment from
the proponent to make the group work. It has had
a few good months since its inception:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.octave/about?hl=en
Poking around at random, I see the kind of
traffic I would expect in a technical group.
comp.lang.xharbour, by contrast, is putting up
enviable numbers:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.xharbour/about?hl=en
This was an odd RFD. xharbour had its own news server
for many years, if I remember correctly. The folks who
developed the application wanted to shut down their
server and move the traffic to comp.lang.xharbour.
Their strategy seems to be working OK so far.
Peter J Ross
wrote:
> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrng9qtt...@pjr.motzarella.org...
>> In news.groups on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 04:08:59 GMT, Thomas Reynolds
>> <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The bottom line analysis. A nice group of folks have a problem and want
>>> to
>>> migrate their alt group to the big 8. The board of the big 8 lets them.
>>
>> You missed out the bit where the nice group of folks were offered
>> suggestions other than newgrouping a Big-8 group. These suggestions
>> were probably preferable, and would certainly have required less
>> effort from the nice group of folks.
>>
>>> They start migrating and the ISPs and NSPs cooperate and they are all
>>> happy
>>> with the outcome.
>>
>> talk.us.rhode-island:
>> "Your search was found on 19 of 49 servers searched. Or approximately
>> 38.8 percent."
>>
>> alt.rhode_island:
>> "Your search was found on 40 of 49 servers searched. Or approximately
>> 81.6 percent."
>>
>> ri.general:
>> "Your search was found on 28 of 49 servers searched. Or approximately
>> 57.1 percent."
>>
>> <http://groupsearch.aacity.net/engine.html>
>
> But how accurate is that cite
Not very accurate, since the tool is being used for a purpose it
wasn't designed for. But it's the best we've got so far, and I don't
believe it's so inaccurate that the difference between 39.8% (or
42.9%, as it is today) and 81.6% can be written off as statistically
insignificant.
> when the major servers affecting the participant in this group seem
> willing to carry?
What about potential future participants who use different servers?
Some of the servers that don't carry the new group are "major".
> Take for example
> re.general(not proliferated by this core, mostly some from MA)...or
> ri.politics, participants = no none, and never has. Does server count
> override traffic and participation.
Yes it does, if potential future traffic is important, which it is.
A reasonably well-propagated newsgroup, ri.general, was ready and
waiting for you, and certainly had more traffic than tur-i did before
it existed.
> And what's up with an analysis of only
> 49 severs at this site? I don't see mine there..
Not all servers make their newsgroups file public, unfortunately.
--
PJR :-)
Newsgroup name validator (beta release, use with caution)
<http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator>
Peter J Ross
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:23:43 -0500, in the land of news.groups, "Adam
> H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>
>>P <pr...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Thomas Reynolds <tom.re...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>You missed out the bit where the nice group of folks were offered
>>>>suggestions other than newgrouping a Big-8 group. These suggestions
>>>>were probably preferable, and would certainly have required less
>>>>effort from the nice group of folks.
>>
>>
You will note also that neither Johan-and-William's page nor the one
in my signature is ever referred to by a Bamby or pro-Bamby.
Perhaps the Bambies offer superior versions of these tools themselves?
(I'm sure Skirvin would if he could obtain the source code, break it a
bit, and claim it as his own work.)
> You will also note that the board does not ever refute the fact that
> their groups propagate like shit.
I find this particularly hard to understand, since they could easily
blame their predecessors for not noticing the problem sooner.
> You will also note that the board has ZERO published tools of their
> own that in any way measure success or failure. Failure would be a
> given.
How would such tools help the Bambies to bully proponents and flame
the people who try to help proponents?
Peter J Ross
wrote:
>> How many times has a group redundant of an existing alt.* group proved
>> more successful than its alt.* counterpart?
>
> Why must a new B8 group prove itself a success in advance with a measure of
> success equal to proliferation exceeding a redundant topic in alt*, or any
> % thereof?
A group can't be proved a success or failure in advance, but one can
detect trends. One such trend is that duplicates of alt.* groups have
tended to fail.
> I'd like to know of some B8 groups created that those regulars in
> news.groups consider a 'success...
The Haskell and Xharbour groups (neither of which duplicated the topic
of an existing group, AFAIK) appear to be thriving. I know of no
others that have definitely succeeded, but I could give a long list of
ones that have definitely failed.
A while ago I posted an analysis of traffic in Bamby and pre-Bamby
Big-8 groups, which I'd have found very worrying if I'd been a Bamby.
I'll do that again some time.
> and I find it particularly odd that all
> the naysayers for the B8 share the habit of living in alt* groups yet
> demonstrate the hypocrisy of criticizing migration from one hierchy to
> another.
Eh? I read a few alt.* groups. If the server I use dropped them, I'd
find another server. And if the server somebody else used dropped
them, I'd give advice on finding another server.
Peter J Ross
<t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
> Peter somehow
> things a mistake made by a new board using, at that time a new and
> untried process, is something to be held against us forever.
I've made a couple of throwaway remarks on the subject.
> It was regrettable, but we've moved on.
Yes, you've moved on to doing other things you ought to regret.
You have a long history of doing things you ought to regret. I'll
continue to point and laugh at any of those things that I happen to be
reminded of. It's important for newbies to know that each stupid thing
you do is part of a pattern of consistently stupid things that you've
been doing ever since you first appointed yourselves.
Peter J Ross
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
> Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:39:52 +0100, in the land of alt.rhode_island,
>> Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> got double secret probation for writing:
>
>>>A very long time ago, when the board was still very new,
>
>> Just after you usurped the voting process and appointed yourselves,
>> Mr. Cheney.
>
> As I said a week or so ago.... while the decision to want a Big 8 group
> is highly unadvised, *none* of "us" ever said they didn't have the right
> to make that decision for themselves.
No, but I think hierarchy managers should filter out non-starter
proposals before they appear as RFDs.
An example of a non-starter would be a local newsgroup that's
redundant not only of an existing group but also of an existing
hierarchy - *two* existing hierarchies, in the case of the second RFD.
> None of us flouted our ability to make decisions for others, and the
> same ones that did were *directly* involved in taking that away.
Hierarchy administrators *should* take some decisions for others. They
should also be competent and well-meaning, of course, so it would be
best if the present bunch did as little as possible. In fact, it would
be better than the present situation if they resigned en masse, threw
away the PGP keys, and left the Big-8 to become irrelevant gradually
instead of actively vandalising the namespace entrusted to them.
Peter J Ross
<t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <090820081006087789%erfc...@usa.net>, Art Deco
> <erfc...@usa.net> writes
>>talk.us.rhode-island will *never* exist on the same number of news
>>servers that alt.rhode_island does. By ignoring this fact, you
>>demonstrate that you care nothing about any new people subscribing. As
>>long as the current group can post through their *ISP*, all is good.
>
> SO what's your answer? How would you act to get propogation improved?
Why should Art Deco even care? He isn't a hierarchy administrator.
I *choose* to care, Art Deco may choose *not* to care, but it's your
*job* to care, and to do something constructive.
> My answer is to ask the NSPs to carry the new group. I've asked two to
> do it, so far, and both have. And I plan to contact a few more this
> week.
Papering over the cracks won't stop the house falling down.
I ask again, since you don't seem to have answered the question yet:
Do you request groups as a hierarchy administrator, or do you give the
false impression that you intend to use the groups yourself?
> How many have you contacted? How much work to YOU put in to making
> things better? Or is your 'contribution' limited to venom?
Is your failure all Art Deco's fault, or is Adam to blame as well?
Btw, news.aioe.org now carries tur-i.
Did you request the group? And if so, did you conceal your position as
a hierarchy administrator.
If I find that the the only way Bambies can get newsgroups created is
by pretending not to be Bambies, I'll laugh at you even louder than
usual.
> As this is not really about RI, but about news in general, newsgroups
> adjusted.
On the crossposting issue I agree with you and disagree with Adam.
Wait, that can't be right. "We" disagree with everything "you" do,
while agreeing with everything "we" do, or so I've heard.
Aratzio
<p...@example.invalid> bloviated:
I'd like to see a proponent come to them as a prospective *buyer* and
have them demonstrate their effectivness and their ability.
"We do not have to, we are the self-appointed board and only we have a
vote"
Peter J Ross
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
[about the Bambies]
> I'd like to see a proponent come to them as a prospective *buyer* and
> have them demonstrate their effectivness and their ability.
Yes, that would be fun.
"What services do you offer, and how reliable are they?"
> "We do not have to, we are the self-appointed board and only we have a
> vote"
"And we always succeed, since we regularly redefine 'success' as
'the result of whatever we've recently done'. The Warcraft group was a
success, and rmgrouping it was a success too. Successes 'R' Us!"
Wait, I just mentioned the Warcraft group. That particular comic
spectacle occurred *months* ago, so no doubt Steve Bonine will be
along to comment on my "emotional pain" soon.
Aratzio
<p...@example.invalid> bloviated:
>In news.groups on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:51:37 -0700, Aratzio
><a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>[about the Bambies]
>
>> I'd like to see a proponent come to them as a prospective *buyer* and
>> have them demonstrate their effectivness and their ability.
>
>Yes, that would be fun.
I get this picture of headless chickens running around as the heads
lay on the ground mouthing toothless flames.
>
>"What services do you offer, and how reliable are they?"
"We "create" groups and yes is the answer, now fill out the forms, in
triplicate, wait in line, over there, behind the other proponents, and
we will vote yes as soon as we are done processing your RFD and
changing the name to something quite idiotic".
>
>> "We do not have to, we are the self-appointed board and only we have a
>> vote"
>
>"And we always succeed, since we regularly redefine 'success' as
>'the result of whatever we've recently done'. The Warcraft group was a
>success, and rmgrouping it was a success too. Successes 'R' Us!"
>
>Wait, I just mentioned the Warcraft group. That particular comic
>spectacle occurred *months* ago, so no doubt Steve Bonine will be
>along to comment on my "emotional pain" soon.
You are a sad shell of the Peter J. Ross we all came to deride. No
more easy banter and prickly innuendo. Just the sad commentary of a
wasted usenet life laid bare for all to see. With Bonine and Lee
hounding you, I see not other option in your ill-fated life but
suicide.
Of course your suicide will be my fault.
Brian Mailman
> We did err in an early vote; one board member was upset about the
> early release of the result;...
Does anyone else read that the way I do? That the result was already
decided and then released "early?"
b/
Peter J Ross
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> You are a sad shell of the Peter J. Ross we all came to deride. No
> more easy banter and prickly innuendo. Just the sad commentary of a
> wasted usenet life laid bare for all to see. With Bonine and Lee
> hounding you, I see not other option in your ill-fated life but
> suicide.
I have the razors and guns ready, but I'm waiting to be accused of
facilitating misogyny in soc.men before I use them.
> Of course your suicide will be my fault.
In my will, I'll leave Adam all my stuff, but I'll make it clear that
I've left it to him because my death was all your fualt.
Adam will probably like my huge collections of Frank Zappa and Doctor
Who discs more than you, anyway.
On second thoughts, I might make an exception for my PDQ Bach albums.
PDQ Bach is to music what the Bambies are to hierarchy administration,
so he could give the Bambies some useful tips. I'll make a special
legacy for Marty.
Peter J Ross
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
They've already admitted that. Thomas Lee says he was "annoyed", but
his last chance to be a member of a committee that would tolerate him,
unlike uk.*, ensured that, unlke Yves, he didn't resign.
Unlike Yves, Thomas doesn't mind being shat upon as long as he's still
allowed to wear the kind of "admin" hat that the uk.* users deprived
him of.
Thomas is contemptible, but he's also mildly amusing. Instead of
refuting his silly lies, perhaps I ought to start trolling him a bit,
the way he sometimes tries to troll us?
Mark Kramer
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Yes, the folks were offered suggestions. They considered those
>suggestions, and rejected them. And in spite of how they have been
>portrayed here in news.groups, those people are not dummies. Some of
>them have been around Usenet for a couple of decades and have run large
>news servers.
And none of us have been here for decades?
Are those you are referring to the ones who said things like they couldn't
afford to change NSPs because they had a contract with the ISP and didn't
want to pay the early termination fee? Or that they needed high-speed
internet access and if they changed NSPs they'd lose high-speed access? Is
that the kind of stuff that people who run large news servers would say?
>You just can't handle that, can you? You're not capable of making
>suggestions; you have to dictate.
Coming from someone who has done his fair share of dictating in the past,
you are qualified to talk about others.
>It's just not within your mindset
>that anything other than Your Way might be the right decision.
Pot, meet kettle. Am I breaking the law by expressing my opinion here?
>Oddly enough, I agree with you that leaving the group in alt and helping
>people find an NSP that carries alt would be less work. But I also feel
>strongly that a group of people has the right to make an informed
>decision,
Even when the information they are using is ridiculous and patently false?
Even when that decision will affect the rest of us?