RFD: news.admin.moderation
Usenet Cabal
unmoderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.moderation.
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.
Newsgroup line:
news.admin.moderation The evils caused by tinhorn dictators.
RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation
Since the introduction of group moderation (1980) members of the
Usenet community have always had different opinions about moderation:
some users think newsgroup moderation means censorship; others do
it as work with no pay. What is needed is a specific forum where this
topic can be talked about.
At the moment there is no appropriate newsgroup for discussion of this
topic, so posts on the subject are debated mainly in other places like
news.groups, news.admin.net-abuse, news.admin.censorship and the
debate tends to go nowhere. The purpose of news.admin.moderation
is to provide a focal point of discussion on this issue.
In the world there over 3000 moderated groups, many of which are dead.
This should offer sufficient traffic for such a forum. As we all
know, the future will bring increased flows of messages and more and
more moderated newsgroups. Two mailing lists for moderators already
exist. The newsgroup will be something more and will involve normal
users bringing their personal know-how to this specific group.
CHARTER: news.admin.moderation
Bio-robot:
A biological entity,
programmed to behave according to a limited set of
instructions, based in morality ["good" and "bad" definitions],
created by the priest,
to manipulate your fear and guilt
in order to collect a sin tax,
as priest, being totally uncreative and incapable of
producing anything, and, being as cunning and
manipulative, as he is, created this most potent
trick to make you work and simply enjoy the benefits
of YOUR labor, while doing nothing, but creating guilt and fear,
as he knows all to well:
"You never become rich, working for others".
First of all, the good news for all those, interested in
taking over a group via trick of "moderation", is that the
"moderation" trick is used by the usenet power elite to
take control of the usenet and establish the brave new world
order, where these megalomaniacs, assorted perverts and
homophobiacs, knowing no other joy in life, but torturing
others, assert a dictatorship of the lowest common denominator,
while, at the same time, posing as some kind of public servants,
protectors of "good" and assorted net "heroes".
Their idea of Usenet 2 failed quite miserably as it was obvious
on its face value that it was the model of total control of
usenet on every conceivable level.
But, being the cunning perverts as they are, they invented a
new trick to effectively take control of usenet in place, the
trick of "moderation", one of the cunniest ideas ever invented.
At this point, at least 15% of all "big-8" groups are "moderated".
Some of the most significant topics of discussion are already
controlled and totally censored by these "moderators".
Not only they control those groups, they took over, but they
effectively prevent any uncensored discussions on the subject
of that group, because you can not even create anogher group
on the same subject, because, according to the principles of
the current "system", if group already exist on a given subject,
then you can not create another group on the same, or even
similar subject. You'll be told those groups already cover that
subject.
Among those groups you find some of the most significant groups
in the modern technology, such as comp.ai, taken over by the
pathological liar and intellectual pigmey David Kinny, using
the tricks and lies, deception and fabrication, inviting the
people to conduct a mail campaign behind the scenes in order
to gather enough people to take it over. Before the group is
taken over, these potential "moderators" pretend to be the
most democratic and the most tolerant people, telling everyone
that only most obvious "bad" things will be cancelled out of
existence. Otherwise, there will be total freedom to express
any ideas on the subject of that group.
But those fools, who bought into this trick, soon learn that
once the group is taken over, the "new realities" come into
play, just as outlined by this very pervert, David Kinny,
during the discussions on the subject of "moderating" the
entire root of the ai hierarchy in March - May 1999.
Comp.ai, was converted into a bulletin board for advertizements,
and the second one, sci.psychology.consciousness, was simply
suffocated by totally intolerant propaganda peddlers, calling
themselves "moderators", while destroying ANY opinion but their
own, engaging in most blatant form of censorship.
If you look around, you'll find plenty more.
The idea behind the "moderation" is simple enough. The power
elite invented the process of selecting the most parasitic of
all perverts as their appointees, controlling the specific
groups. The intolerant parasites, craving for power, control
and domination, coming to news.groups trying to take over
the group with the trick of moderation, are merely used by the
power elite to establish an extensive network of control of
usenet.
The beauty of this scheme is that both, the power elite and
the "moderation" candidates are pretty much the same kind of
people, interested in the same sort of thing. So, they
effectively become the local enforcers of the brave new world
order on usenet and become the extension of the power elite,
which is the best possible model beyond the outright takeover
of usenet, such as Usenet 2 model.
Moderation is the most effective tool in newsroups
takeover, control, oppression and domination. If some
posters offend your moral principles, programmed into
that outdated CPU between your ears, and you are utterly
unable to even comprehend the idea of pushing the "Next"
button on your newsreader, even on the groups with just
a few posts a day, and if your blood boils and steam is
coming out of your elephant sized ears when you see some
ASCII character combinations, then the trick of "moderation"
is the most effective tool you can utilize to get rid of the
"undesirables" and suppress ANY kind of ideas, that increase
the temperature of your blood stream to the point of boiling.
There is no better way to take over a group than the
trick of "moderation" and it is not that difficult to do.
All you need is to conduct a small mailing campaign behind
the scenes and follow these guidelines.
Then publish the "results" of a "public poll", "proving"
an overwhelming support of your noble idea. Since the
campaign was conducted behind the scenes, using private
email messages or things of that nature, there is no way
to find out if your results are anything, but pure fabrication.
So, you can publish the "results", changing the real numbers
by the factors of magnitude literally. Meanwhile, you have
"evidence" of overwhelming support. Nifty trick indeed.
Then go to IRC or call a few of your friends and generate as many
"votes", as you wish. All quite doable. Been done before,
being done now, and there is a well established set of
tricks you can utilize to achive your noble goal.
Now, if you ever succeed in converting a group to a
"moderated" status, then you are home free as you will
enjoy the protection of the dictator number one on entire
newsgroup "big 8" hierarchy of corruption, whose rule number
one on the subject of "moderation" is:
YEE SHALT NEVER EVER EVEN CONCEIVE THE IDEA OF TOPPLING
A SITTING DICTATOR, (aka "moderator").
Zo, once you succeed, first of all, you will obtain the
powers of a local virtual dictator yourself. Sure, they are
not as extensive as his, but it is just a matter of time.
If you get in line of promotion then one day it will be
virtually inevitable. For now, you will only be able
to control the information stream on one group, but hey,
that is how you start the sucking enterprises unlimited.
Once you took over one group, the rest is a piece of cake.
Now, you'd have to create some combination of ASCII
characters and submit it to Preliminary Insult Committee
during the RFD phase, better known as PMII (Premilimary
Mass Insult Invitation), but the favors are on your side
as you will have the most powerful tricks and lies at your
disposal to "convince" others of the validity of your
noblest of all ideas.
Just remember to keep the "public interest" as the main
thing to hide behind. That turns out to be the most
powerful protection you can enjoy.
Another thing to keep in mind, since NONE of this jazz on
newsgroups is either legal, or authorized by any lawful
authority, and all the "rules", you have seen around are
nothing but a pure bluff and fabrications, created by the
power hungry on their way to the "top" of the heap, you
can virtually do miracles here, if you know the right
tricks of the trade.
The principles of your own Consitution, Freedom of Speech,
Democracy, Basic Human Hights, or ANYTHING you might hold
as a valid reference in your ordinary life, simply do not
apply to this perverted system of totalitarianism, sometimes
called retarded Anarchy, or benevolent dictatorship of the
news groups.
Ok, so your arguments on "moderating" a group would most
likely be:
1. DA PEOPLE are tired of being subjected to this endless
spam on our 5 message per day hole. This is one of the most
powerful tricks indeed.
Not a single person will object to it, most likely, as
this is so overwhelmingly "obvious", that they won't be
able to even conceive of an idea otherwise. Objecting this
point is equivalent to commiting a mortal sin.
Spam = "evil". End of argument.
Well, but what is spam?
- Nobody knows. Even the "spam fighters" themselves, the
newsnet power elite and the oldest of all news groupies
do not agree on it.
It ranges from merely crossposting an article or posting
it more than once to exceeding the BI (Bullshit Index)
of 20. The definitions range from 0 to infinity.
"Spam fighting" is one of the most honorable ways to self
promotion and establishment of global control of the
information streams. It is utilized by the virtual control
and domination organizations, such as Cabal/SPUTUM (Subgenious
Police Usenet Tactical Units Mobile), Lart and a few others.
2. We are sick of crossposts. Don't even need to bother
that those crossposts could be valid, as they come from
a subject very similar to yours, as crossposts automatically
fall under the classification of "evil".
So, plus in YOUR column. Not even an argument required
from your side at least.
Just insist on this point, no matter what, and you are bound
to win on this one also. In fact, you might be pleasantly
surprised that there will be no arguments whatsoever, so
"obvious" it is, even to your opposition.
3. The discussions in our dirty hole are of such a low
level as a result of all those "clueless", "kooks",
"trolls", and "whiners", that we are about to commit a
mass suicide or shut down our own discipline of delusion
altogether, which is a grave threat to the entire human
progress as such.
This argument will stand, and no objection could be even
conceived, as no one can even comprehend how to start the
argument on the first place. They simply "do not care" to
even "bother".
So, you win on this one by default.
4. Certain individuals destroy "sanity" in our hole.
You can use your local equivalent of this Bloxy's entity
and there is plenty of information on the public record
to prove that such entities "disturb our piss-full
coexistence".
Everybody used to talk the same set of delusions and used
to agree to the same old, same old principles of our
mutual output hole licking procedure, we so carefully
perpetuate. But now it becomes virtually impossible to
maintain the "order", as people start asking new
kwestions, to which no one has any answers not now, not
in foreseeable future, and this is kwite bothersome in
itself.
5. Bio-robots are getting confused.
Yes, this is an important argument. No one knows any more
what is what and who is who. We used to blabber about the
same old, same old, just slightly modifying some ASCII
characters, but now that trick does not seem to work, as
the bio-robots can no longer distinguish their own input
hole from the output one. Dangerous consequences follow
indeed, and pretty much automatically.
6. The leading experts don't come to participate in our
obscenest of all obscene groups, as they can not un-confuse
the crowds any longer.
Yes, the masters of mass delusion and mass brain programming,
interested in maximization of the rate of sucking, perpetuating
the same old template thought processes and ideas, can not
operate in this kind of environment, as people simply laugh
at our foremost experts, such as honorable Mr. Turing, or
Marvin Minksy himself (one of the founding fathers of Artificial
Suckology, they used to call Artificial Intelligence).
So, we no longer have guidance and no longer can copycat
the ideas those "leaders" thrown to us as a bone to chew
upon. Most of it simply looks between boring and obscene.
Not even laughable. We used to sit there in our hole,
enumerating their names and their delusions, chewing it in
any way conceivable, but now it doest not seem to work any
longer, as the whole thing seems simply ridiculous.
Also, a pretty bothersome development indeed. Again, this
is EASILY winnable point for takeover.
7. The bio-robotic program seems to lock up or go in
circles, and that does not seem "right". We all seem to be
loosing a grip on reality as it all looks more like a set
of delusions, rooted in the fear of survival. This is one
the most "dangerous" points, having far reaching consequences.
Everybody can see now that our own arguments are not much
different than the story of the Wheel of Karma, as told by
the Idiot. In a couple of sentences we seem to refer to
the beginning of an argument and can not kwite figure out
how to get out of that deadly loop of self referential
reasoning.
Things like that. Basically, every single point works in
YOUR favor.
Plus, if you know the deepest held secrets of the newsgroups,
the very idea here is to prevent as much of a discussion of
ANY significance, as possible, in order to suppress the
advancement of any radically new ideas and developments in
order to perpetuate the same state of mass delusion, resulting
from total brainwashing.
Most of what you see around is perpetuation of the same old,
the same old familiar ideology, resulting from mass bio-robotization
of human perception for the purpose of maximization of the rate
of sucking of the blood of many by the few. Very few ideas around
are either original or genuine and authentic because of fear
of survival, producing the herd mentality. The new, original ideas,
are pretty much by definition will conflict with the existing
set of delusions and and templates produced by mass brainwashing.
Creativity is replaced with mutual ass licking and genuine joy
is replaced with a plastic smile, just to maintain the safety
of the herd.
Any new ideas endanger the state of mass brain programming.
You need consistency of perception in order to maximize the
"market share". The more diversity there is, the more difficult
it is to create the groves in perception and create massive
quantities of bio-robots, thinking along the same lines.
Eventually, what remains is the same set of ideology, created
for the purpose of maximization of the rate of sucking of
blood of many by the few. If you do not fit this ideology,
you are an inherent threat to the current state of affairs.
Bio-robots, brainwashed into oblivion, guided by the moral
principles, invented by the priest, manipulating the notions
of "good" and "bad" via tricks of fear and guilt, programming
the minds of all with the ideas of "sin" in order to collect
a "sin tax", feel threatened when they see any ideas that are
not in line with the program inside the CPUs between their ears.
So again, the chips on the table are automatically laid out
in YOUR favor.
Another point, you might not even begin to comprehend, is
that there is a class of animals around here, called news
groupies, regularly hanging out on news.groups to enjoy the
sadistic torture of those "clueless", who come to news.groups
to either create a new group or trying to get some help or
clarification.
These news groupies are "having fun" here, like those old ladies,
that used to sit in the court rooms, knitting while the death
sentences were pronounced, exclaiming: Oh, how exciting! Finally!
The justice has been served, plus it was a good show. Now its time
to move to the death chambers and smell the burning meat of those
criminals.
These people hang out on news.groups as a professional occupation
as they enjoy the sadistic pleasures of anihiltion in the virtual
domain, arguing with every single proponent, interested in creating
a group, like they cared about it to the very least.
You see, on the first place, the only group they really care about,
is news.groups, as that is the best place to enjoy the mass insult,
humiliation, and an outright intellectual and emotional torture of
those very "clueless", who think they can just come and create a
new group, just because they think so.
That is why they are called "clueless", as they have not
a slightest clue of what this is REALLY all about, and
that is, to enjoy the torture of those very "clueless"
and "kooks". These news groupies are here in line for self
promotion, hoping to get noticed by the power elite and
eventually become the part of the ruling elite on the usenet.
Sure, you'll be asked to create some "charter", but that
is a piece of cake. Just copy anybody else's obscenities
and they are publicly available, change the name of the
group, twist a few words around and, hupla, hupla, you
are in business.
Now, once you vote on this thing, just make sure to
fabricate as many "votes" as impossible, even if the
number exceeds the activity on your group by the factors
of magnitude, you will, most likely, win at the end, as
no one can even verify that "vote" because it is not
technically possible, unless ordered by the courts, and
since the value of this entire newsnet thing is on the par
with used condom, you pretty much have a 100% chance to
"prove" your vote is valid. Remember that preliminary
"poll", you conducted behind the scenes? Well, see how
nicely it works in YOUR favor now?
You can simply refer to it if someone objects to the
totally obscene vote count or things of that sort and you
can even use the tricks of guilt, shame and even fear, to
"dismiss" their arguments, saying something like "hey,
what an evil person you are! Haven't you seen the
OVERWHELMING support for this moderation thing during
the 'public opinion poll'? What kind of evil thoughts you
got in your outdated CPU between your ears? You need to
install the latest version!"
See? You win again!
Ok, and once you "win", then you can shove that "charter"
up their tootoo and do ANYTHING you like, as no one even
cares what happens in all those holes once they are
created, and even if they did, what could they do
afterwards? The deal is DONE!.
Now you can create blacklists, containing the names of
"evil" people, or what is called the filth or inferior
race, and you can create "whitelists", containing the
names of the Aryan race of pure blooded individuals, to
be automatically trusted, no matter what kind of obscenity
they might wish to assert from then on.
You don't even have to bother about the shades of gray.
Those outdated ideas simply do not belong to the domain
of DA "private property", as that is EXACTLY what you have
created in essence with this convenient trick of
"moderation", and you can completely forget about the
ideas of a rainbow. That simply does not apply to the
domains of obscene.
Since it is your private property, you can do ANYTHING
you wish. For example, you can kick the rears of the
dudes of the grade of Marvin Minsky, one of the founding
fathers of Artificial Intelligence, and tell them their
arguments are "off topic" now and will not be considered
until the next millennium (the year 3000).
So, you have a comfortable margin time to operate within.
The benefits of moderation are plenty. First of all, you
can suppress the "undesirable" articles and reduce the
traffic to the point, where only your own articles of
self promotion will be the most visible thing on that
group, and not many will even realize or notice it. It
can be done in the most subliminal ways you can EVER
imagine.
The bio-robots only have a limited set of instructions
and are largely guided by the "family values", so you can
use the tricks of guilt and fear at ANY time to manipulate
them and remember to lick your output hole on a daily
basis, or else...
You automatically become the object of everyone's
attention, jealousy, and automatic "respect", as you,
from now on, become the most prestigious person on that
group, and that group can be ANY group you wish. So,
visibility in your industry, field or discipline, group,
cult, or whatever, is AUTOMATICALLY achieved with this
trick.
You will be eventually considered the only authority there
is, as even the world's foremost scientists will be licking
your output hole until their tongue is well polished and
velvety.
You can begin peddling ANYTHING on that group of yours, be
it an ordinary delusion, and outright lie, dirty marketing
tricks, or ANYTHING you want.
There is just no one to stop you from then on, as the rule
number one kicks in. Remember? It all depends on your self
imposed limitations ONLY. Zo, expand your horizons and
become DA one, who counts, dictates, tells others the
"rules of conduct", ways of thinking the "right" thoughts,
or ANYTHING you can even begin to imagine in your wildest
dreams.
You are the virtual king now!
So, you get the idea?
Again, once you succeed to moderate a group, the most
powerful trick on newsgroups comes into play, aka the rule
number sucking one:
YEE SHALT NEVER EVER EVEN CONCEIVE THE IDEA OF TOPPLING
A SITTING DICTATOR, aka "moderator".
So, good luck in converting the newsgroups into an
orderly world of lowest common denominator to restore
the "order" and "sanity" in the free sucking world.
May god be with you.
May Jedi and the lords of destruction help your noblest
of ALL intents.
In the name of free sucking world:
Good luck!
(and don't forget a good, hearty lick)
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.slack
alt.religion.kibology
news.admin.censorship
it.news.moderazione
alt.censorship
Proponent: Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net>
David Bromage
Don Croyle
--
I've always wanted to be a dilettante, but I've never quite been ready
to make the commitment.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group news.admin.moderation
Since this doesn't appear in the UVV daily report, should I assume
this is not an "official" RFD and thus should be ignored as such
(that's what I was going to do, but then I thought I should ask
in case the queuing is just a little confused)?
ru
Vladimir Mayakovskii
---
Volodya
Jay Denebeim
Why? It duplicates a bunch of alt groups. The trolls already have
plenty of places to post. If this was passed moderators wouldn't show
up there, not with its subject matter, so what's the point?
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
Jay Denebeim
I looked at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot It's real alright, either
that or someone has hacked isc or stanford.
Vladimir Mayakovskii
>
> In article <3B0157...@rapp.su>,
> Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> wrote:
> >I think this would be an interesting group to read
>
> Why? It duplicates a bunch of alt groups. The trolls already have
> plenty of places to post. If this was passed moderators wouldn't show
> up there, not with its subject matter, so what's the point?
Why would the moderators not show up in this group? It would
be good place to explain differences, in way that new people
could perhaps understand.
---
Volodya
Jay Denebeim
Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> wrote:
>Jay Denebeim wrote:
>>
>> In article <3B0157...@rapp.su>,
>> Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> wrote:
>> >I think this would be an interesting group to read
>>
>> Why? It duplicates a bunch of alt groups. The trolls already have
>> plenty of places to post. If this was passed moderators wouldn't show
>> up there, not with its subject matter, so what's the point?
>
>Why would the moderators not show up in this group? It would
>be good place to explain differences, in way that new people
>could perhaps understand.
Because people already take enough pot shots at us, we don't need to
go to a target gallery.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>I think this would be an interesting group to read
Not as it is currently proposed.
ru
Jonathan Kamens
dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>I looked at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot It's real alright, either
>that or someone has hacked isc or stanford.
You're kidding, right Jay?
1) Paths can be forged.
2) I can't imagine that the moderators of news.announce.newgroups would
accept an RFD with the proponent "Usenet Cabal
<usene...@usenetcabal.net>".
3) Did you *read* the text of the RFD?
In short:
This is not a real RFD.
Vladimir Mayakovskii
>
> In article <3B0164...@rapp.su>,
> Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> wrote:
> >Jay Denebeim wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3B0157...@rapp.su>,
> >> Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> wrote:
> >> >I think this would be an interesting group to read
> >>
> >> Why? It duplicates a bunch of alt groups. The trolls already have
> >> plenty of places to post. If this was passed moderators wouldn't show
> >> up there, not with its subject matter, so what's the point?
> >
> >Why would the moderators not show up in this group? It would
> >be good place to explain differences, in way that new people
> >could perhaps understand.
>
> Because people already take enough pot shots at us, we don't need to
> go to a target gallery.
I am not sure what is pot shots, but I guess it is personal
attack. I know this happens. But if you are available to
more people, I fail to see why this is bad in the long run.
---
Volodya
Vladimir Mayakovskii
Respected sir, I read the text. Despite not understanding
lots of it, and I disagree with much of it. I think a group
sugh as this would serve a good purpose.
---
Volodya
Vladimir Mayakovskii
Why so, may I ask? I think the proposal is long, and
unclear perhaps. But the purpose is certainly good.
---
Volodya
ru.ig...@usask.ca
go through it. *groan* The writer is really cruel and
heartless being for inflicting this upon me.
ru
In news.groups Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group news.admin.moderation
[snip]
>Newsgroup line:
>news.admin.moderation The evils caused by tinhorn dictators.
The group description does not describe the topic space of the group.
Is it about administering moderated news groups?
Given that this will be a troll attractor, this group should
be moderated.
>RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation
>Since the introduction of group moderation (1980) members of the
>Usenet community have always had different opinions about moderation:
>some users think newsgroup moderation means censorship; others do
>it as work with no pay. What is needed is a specific forum where this
>topic can be talked about.
Why? Has there been a consistent call for one by many folks?
>At the moment there is no appropriate newsgroup for discussion of this
>topic, so posts on the subject are debated mainly in other places like
>news.groups, news.admin.net-abuse, news.admin.censorship and the
>debate tends to go nowhere. The purpose of news.admin.moderation
>is to provide a focal point of discussion on this issue.
Ok, fine, but how much on-topic traffic do you estimate there will
be based on what you see in those groups? How large is the readership
in actuality? Do many moderators support the creation of this
group? Are there many readers that would be interested in this group?
Those are the kinds of things that are of primary concern in an
RFD/CFV. The issue of being a focal point is secondary and should
appear later than readership/usage information.
>In the world there over 3000 moderated groups, many of which are dead.
>This should offer sufficient traffic for such a forum.
Explain how this is true. Dead groups might not be a concern to
very many folks at all. Perhaps dead groups are just ignored.
Produce some statistics showing how much discussion there currently
is on the topical moderation issues, and where. Otherwise, this
statement is not useful and should be deleted.
>As we all
>know, the future will bring increased flows of messages and more and
>more moderated newsgroups.
This is not a given, as we have yet to see an increase and recent
studies show the growth of network users has plateaued (granted,
use by existing users is still increasing but not like the explosion
we saw in the past 5 years). You should also explain why the
increase will present a problem. Otherwise, the statement is
not useful and should be deleted.
>Two mailing lists for moderators already
>exist.
Which ones? Readership size? Are any of those readers willing
to move to the news group? Do they want it moderated or unmoderated?
Do they discuss the issue this group intends and how much? If
there is no sign that the ML readers want to move to the proposed
group, that statement is not useful and should be deleted.
>The newsgroup will be something more and will involve normal
>users bringing their personal know-how to this specific group.
Explain "something more". The latter part of the statement is
kind of redundant at best, not necessarily true at worst.
>CHARTER: news.admin.moderation
[snip entire charter text]
The entire text in this section is irrelevant and needs to be
replaced. The charter should indicate what kinds of things are
supposed to be discussed and sometimes what is not acceptable
for discussion. The charter is not intended for exposition
or manifestos. Those belong in an FAQ.
First line should be something like: This is an unmoderated
newsgroup for the discussion of moderated newsgroup administration.
After that one could list a few example topics that would be
acceptable.
Then a list of topics or posting types that would be considered
unacceptable, like spam, advertising, binaries...
>END CHARTER.
[snip]
>DISTRIBUTION:
>news.announce.newgroups
>news.groups
>alt.slack
>alt.religion.kibology
>news.admin.censorship
>it.news.moderazione
>alt.censorship
I recommend reducing this list to 3 or 4 groups because some brain-dead
ISPs have a raw 5 group-crosspost limit. I'd recommend n.a.n,
n.a.censorship, and alt.censorship. Send pointers to the others
if you need to include them.
ru *grin*
Todd Michel McComb
It is real, sorry. There is much less censorship than some people
claim.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Jay Denebeim
Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> wrote:
>I am not sure what is pot shots, but I guess it is personal
>attack. I know this happens. But if you are available to
>more people, I fail to see why this is bad in the long run.
This newsgroup is being proposed by cranks, haven't you read the RFD?
Jay Denebeim
Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
> dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>>I looked at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot It's real alright, either
>>that or someone has hacked isc or stanford.
>
>You're kidding, right Jay?
>
>1) Paths can be forged.
Uh, look at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot (to me) that's the
complete path, no way that could be forged.
Jonathan Kamens
Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> writes:
>Respected sir, I read the text. Despite not understanding
>lots of it, and I disagree with much of it. I think a group
>sugh as this would serve a good purpose.
Before you say anything more in this discussion, please go to this
search URL and read the discussion surrounding the two previous
RFDs for this newsgroup:
Jonathan Kamens
It's a troll. Isn't that obvious?
>but I might as well go through it.
Why?
Did we gain anything by the last two RFDs for news.admin.moderation,
both of which failed? Why go through it again?
Please, people, just IGNORE IT AND IT WILL GO AWAY.
Kate Wrightson
Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>In short:
>
>This is not a real RFD.
Yes, it is. Approved by the cabal (TINC) and everything.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ka...@eyrie.org | Please do not e-mail me copies of material posted
Kate Wrightson | to newsgroups. I read the groups to which I post.
Russ Allbery
> 2) I can't imagine that the moderators of news.announce.newgroups would
> accept an RFD with the proponent "Usenet Cabal
> <usene...@usenetcabal.net>".
We make it a general policy to not care about people's e-mail addresses or
claimed screen names for RFD proponents; there's too many places that
could go that I don't like.
> 3) Did you *read* the text of the RFD?
It's a revision of a previous RFD for a group by the same name. I really
don't want to get into being an editor of RFD language; if someone wants
to use the RFD process to print some long screed, I don't see that it
really harms anything.
Basically, I think you're assuming more prefiltering than I think is a
good idea. That's what the discussion period is for, after all.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery
> Why would the moderators not show up in this group?
For pretty much the same reason that moderators don't show up in
news.admin.censorship right now in any large numbers.
> It would be good place to explain differences, in way that new people
> could perhaps understand.
In an ideal world, it would indeed be that. I think more discussion of
approaches and realities of moderation would be very good for Usenet.
However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to paint targets
on their chests and then stand up in the middle of a shooting gallery.
One of the characteristics of debate in news.admin.* at present is that
it's dominated by flooding; the people who get the most articles out there
are the people who are following up to everything with insults, cascades,
trolls, and other sorts of alt.flame-style content. In a debate dominated
by flooding, the people who manage to participate are the people with the
most free time. It's fairly consistantly true that moderators have
significantly less free time than the people who would like to make their
lives difficult.
Russ Allbery
> Since this doesn't appear in the UVV daily report, should I assume this
> is not an "official" RFD and thus should be ignored as such (that's what
> I was going to do, but then I thought I should ask in case the queuing
> is just a little confused)?
It's an official RFD.
Jay Denebeim
Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> wrote:
>rec.arts.drwho.moderated - DEAD.
Take a bow Mr. Stanley, this is *your* fault completely. If you
hadn't buffaloed the proponants into leaving my system the group would
be fine now. I hope you're happy with yourself.
Dan Riley
I read it. I figured it had to be forged, so I looked at the path.
Like Jay (apparently), we peer with Stanford, and the path here is
Path: lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce-back
That's the full path.
So then I checked the calendar, just to make sure it wasn't April 1.
I agree with Jay--either isc was hacked, it was injected at Stanford,
we wuz hacked, or it's real. I wouldn't put it past Tale to approve
this, if only to make a point.
I plan to vote no unless there are major changes to the RFD.
--
Dan Riley d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu
Wilson Lab, Cornell University <URL:http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~dsr/>
"History teaches us that days like this are best spent in bed"
Jay Denebeim
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Basically, I think you're assuming more prefiltering than I think is
>a good idea. That's what the discussion period is for, after all.
That opens the system up to abuse, where some crank RFD shows up every
six months like clockwork. (he stares pointedly at the subject line
of this post) We need at least a 'three strikes and you're out' rule.
(or if you want to be fair a 6mths * factorial(# of consecutive
failures)
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>In article <9ds4cu$8sq$1...@tribune.usask.ca>,
>Did we gain anything by the last two RFDs for news.admin.moderation,
>both of which failed? Why go through it again?
>Please, people, just IGNORE IT AND IT WILL GO AWAY.
Well, until we implement a 3 strikes policy, there's not much we can
do if the troll is persistent enough to submit a PQ in 3 weeks. All
of the UVVs can refuse to volunteer to hold the vote, but I suspect
Tale won't kill it just because it contains a bunch of junk. As for
me, it turned out I had the rare chance to snip a whole (huge) charter
for lack of required content. In the meanwhile we can generally
agree it's a dumb proposal, and remember to vote NO when the time
comes.
ru
Russ Allbery
>> Basically, I think you're assuming more prefiltering than I think is a
>> good idea. That's what the discussion period is for, after all.
> That opens the system up to abuse, where some crank RFD shows up every
> six months like clockwork.
What problem does this cause?
Sending one e-mail message every six months to vote against some proposal
you think is abusive doesn't seem like that much work, compared to the
amount of work that someone would have to do in dealing with angry
complaints if they started pre-filtering RFDs.
acoftil
went to posting this. :-) One more comment below.
Nancy
I certainly won't be visiting the new group--I LIKE the email list I'm using and
could not openly discuss certain issues on an open ng.
Nancy
to email me, remove the Z.
administrator/creator/moderator
alt.med.fibromyalgia.recovery.info (moderated)
alt.support.depression.manic.moderated
jc
>In article <3B0164...@rapp.su>,
>Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> wrote:
>>Jay Denebeim wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <3B0157...@rapp.su>,
>>> Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> wrote:
>>> >I think this would be an interesting group to read
>>>
>>> Why? It duplicates a bunch of alt groups.
What does it have to do with alt, pervert?
>>> The trolls already have
>>> plenty of places to post. If this was passed moderators wouldn't show
>>> up there, not with its subject matter, so what's the point?
>>
>>Why would the moderators not show up in this group? It would
>>be good place to explain differences, in way that new people
>>could perhaps understand.
>
>Because people already take enough pot shots at us,
US?
Oh, so YOU are one of them?
What seems to be the problem here? Discussing the relevant
issues to the question of "moderation"?
You wish to censor certain issues, most critical issues
of the entire question of Freedom of Speech and democracy
as such?
So you ARE one of those totalitarian dicators yourself?
> we don't need to go to a target gallery.
WHO is "we"?
Did you already form a club behind the scenes?
How do you know what others want?
Or you know it for sure?
In that case, it must be a pattern and CERTAIN tendency.
A pattern of totalitarianism that is.
An inevitable, undisputable and unquestionable tendency,
just like the history record wordwide shows.
Peter Alfredsen
>In article <9drvqi$666$1...@jik.kamens.brookline.ma.us>,
>Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>>In article <9dro7o$pfm$4...@dent.deepthot.org>,
>> dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>>>I looked at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot It's real alright, either
>>>that or someone has hacked isc or stanford.
>>
>>You're kidding, right Jay?
>>
>>1) Paths can be forged.
>
>Uh, look at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot (to me) that's the
>complete path, no way that could be forged.
Right, but I seriously hope you got the wrong order there...
This is what it should look like to you:
Path: news.deepthot.org!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce-back
Otherwise, I have been sending those abuse reports to supernews, and I
didn't even know it.
--
Peter Alfredsen (pete...@fabel.dk)
Join USENET archivers: http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/usenet_archivers
And help keep USENET archives in the public domain.
Jay Denebeim
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.org> writes:
>> That opens the system up to abuse, where some crank RFD shows up every
>> six months like clockwork.
>What problem does this cause?
It raises my blood pressure :-(
>Sending one e-mail message every six months to vote against some proposal
>you think is abusive doesn't seem like that much work, compared to the
>amount of work that someone would have to do in dealing with angry
>complaints if they started pre-filtering RFDs.
Ah, but you're younger than I am and don't have heart problems, so
better you than me :-)
Seriously though, it always gets hot in here when these bozos show up
and I think it's one of the contributing factors to people thinking
the big-8 creation process is painful. They never see the ones that
go through smoothly only the contentious ones for the simple reason
that the contentious ones are the ones that generate the most
traffic.
If you want I'd be happy to do the filtering. I don't think there's
much in the way of disagreement (barring those who disagree just to be
obstinate) about which groups should be bounced at the input filter.
The ones where there is any significant disagreement should go
through, obviously. I was thinking more along the lines of this one
and the na^H^Hwhite power one.
Jay Denebeim
Peter Alfredsen <pete...@fabel.dk> wrote:
>On 15 May 2001 21:13:06 GMT, dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>>Uh, look at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot (to me) that's the
>>complete path, no way that could be forged.
>Right, but I seriously hope you got the wrong order there...
>This is what it should look like to you:
>Path: news.deepthot.org!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce-back
Yeah, I was talking about the path the message took not how it showed
up in the message. I woullda used FQDNs if that were the case.
jay
Brian Mailman
>
> In article <9drvqi$666$1...@jik.kamens.brookline.ma.us>,
> Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>
> >This is not a real RFD.
> Yes, it is. Approved by the cabal (TINC) and everything.
For some reason, I haven't seen the RFD in news.announce.newgroups
here. It's in Deja/Google, though--I don't know how to get the full
headers with the new interface for a message id, sigh.
B/
jc
Well, real enough, if it went through even after
being cross-posted as required.
All the requirements for a "real" RFD are met.
Nicely packaged.
Very polite introduction and conclusion.
Plus pretty detailed description.
So, what is so "unreal" about it?
jc
>In article <9drvqi$666$1...@jik.kamens.brookline.ma.us>,
>Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>>In article <9dro7o$pfm$4...@dent.deepthot.org>,
>> dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>>>I looked at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot It's real alright, either
>>>that or someone has hacked isc or stanford.
>>
>>You're kidding, right Jay?
>>
>>1) Paths can be forged.
>
>Uh, look at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot (to me) that's the
>complete path, no way that could be forged.
Here ya go.
Mr. BRA (Big Red Ass), one of the most experienced
and respected members of ... (well, you know it
yourself, don't you?) himself certifies of reality
and with all the mess he created on usenet, you better
believe he trully knows what he is talking about.
Even Russ Allbery did not bring up the issue of
reality of that RFD.
Therefore, the discussion is in progress.
Lign up your favorite parts.
jc
WHY should it be ignored.
I like it very much.
That group might have been sabotaged a coupld of times
before, but the issues are valid.
Too bad you are such an intolerant fool.
Are you trying to get promoted here?
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
news:9dro7o$pfm$4...@dent.deepthot.org...
> In article <9drm13$5ln$1...@tribune.usask.ca>, <ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote:
> >In news.announce.newgroups Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net>
wrote:
> >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> >> unmoderated group news.admin.moderation
> >
> >this is not an "official" RFD and thus should be ignored as such
> >(that's what I was going to do, but then I thought I should ask
> >in case the queuing is just a little confused)?
>
> that or someone has hacked isc or stanford.
Path:
news.alt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce-
back
That is how it looks at Altopia. news.maxwell.syr.edu AFAICT is
Altopia's main text peer inbound. Looks real to me.
--
-Robert F. Golaszewski; http://www.rfgdxm.f2s.com/dxmguide.htm
"This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down."
Future inscription on the tombstone of Bill Gates.
Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293
[Snip...]
OK sweethearts, who forgot Bloxy's's meds...
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon the bogus email domain (dseg etc.) in place for spambots.
Really it's (wyrd) at raytheon, dotted with com. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions not Raytheon Company.
lord_terabyte_and_th...@cox-internet.com
a restaurant in Havana. He tells the waiter that
the USA is the best country in the world because
of the freedoms it has.
He says, "Take Freedom of Speech for example. I
could stand in front of the White House in
Washington D.C. and yell 'President Bush is a
bastard!' and nothing would be done to me."
The Cuban waiter replies, "We have that same
freedom in Cuba. I could stand in front of El
Capital and yell the same thing and nothing
would be done to me either!"
On Tue, 15 May 2001 00:15:01 GMT, Usenet Cabal
<usene...@usenetcabal.net> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group news.admin.moderation
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
>world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.moderation.
>This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
>Procedural details are below.
>
>Newsgroup line:
>news.admin.moderation The evils caused by tinhorn dictators.
>
>RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation
>
>Since the introduction of group moderation (1980) members of the
>Usenet community have always had different opinions about moderation:
>some users think newsgroup moderation means censorship; others do
>it as work with no pay. What is needed is a specific forum where this
>topic can be talked about.
>
>At the moment there is no appropriate newsgroup for discussion of this
>topic, so posts on the subject are debated mainly in other places like
>news.groups, news.admin.net-abuse, news.admin.censorship and the
>debate tends to go nowhere. The purpose of news.admin.moderation
>is to provide a focal point of discussion on this issue.
>
>In the world there over 3000 moderated groups, many of which are dead.
>This should offer sufficient traffic for such a forum. As we all
>know, the future will bring increased flows of messages and more and
>more moderated newsgroups. Two mailing lists for moderators already
>exist. The newsgroup will be something more and will involve normal
>users bringing their personal know-how to this specific group.
>
>CHARTER: news.admin.moderation
>
>Bio-robot:
>
>A biological entity,
>programmed to behave according to a limited set of
>instructions, based in morality ["good" and "bad" definitions],
>created by the priest,
>to manipulate your fear and guilt
>in order to collect a sin tax,
>as priest, being totally uncreative and incapable of
>producing anything, and, being as cunning and
>manipulative, as he is, created this most potent
>trick to make you work and simply enjoy the benefits
>of YOUR labor, while doing nothing, but creating guilt and fear,
>as he knows all to well:
>"You never become rich, working for others".
>
>First of all, the good news for all those, interested in
>taking over a group via trick of "moderation", is that the
>"moderation" trick is used by the usenet power elite to
>take control of the usenet and establish the brave new world
>order, where these megalomaniacs, assorted perverts and
>homophobiacs, knowing no other joy in life, but torturing
>others, assert a dictatorship of the lowest common denominator,
>while, at the same time, posing as some kind of public servants,
>protectors of "good" and assorted net "heroes".
>
>Their idea of Usenet 2 failed quite miserably as it was obvious
>on its face value that it was the model of total control of
>usenet on every conceivable level.
>
>But, being the cunning perverts as they are, they invented a
>new trick to effectively take control of usenet in place, the
>trick of "moderation", one of the cunniest ideas ever invented.
>At this point, at least 15% of all "big-8" groups are "moderated".
>Some of the most significant topics of discussion are already
>controlled and totally censored by these "moderators".
>Not only they control those groups, they took over, but they
>effectively prevent any uncensored discussions on the subject
>of that group, because you can not even create anogher group
>on the same subject, because, according to the principles of
>the current "system", if group already exist on a given subject,
>then you can not create another group on the same, or even
>similar subject. You'll be told those groups already cover that
>subject.
>
>Among those groups you find some of the most significant groups
>in the modern technology, such as comp.ai, taken over by the
>pathological liar and intellectual pigmey David Kinny, using
>the tricks and lies, deception and fabrication, inviting the
>people to conduct a mail campaign behind the scenes in order
>to gather enough people to take it over. Before the group is
>taken over, these potential "moderators" pretend to be the
>most democratic and the most tolerant people, telling everyone
>that only most obvious "bad" things will be cancelled out of
>existence. Otherwise, there will be total freedom to express
>any ideas on the subject of that group.
>
>But those fools, who bought into this trick, soon learn that
>once the group is taken over, the "new realities" come into
>play, just as outlined by this very pervert, David Kinny,
>during the discussions on the subject of "moderating" the
>entire root of the ai hierarchy in March - May 1999.
>
>Comp.ai, was converted into a bulletin board for advertizements,
>and the second one, sci.psychology.consciousness, was simply
>suffocated by totally intolerant propaganda peddlers, calling
>themselves "moderators", while destroying ANY opinion but their
>own, engaging in most blatant form of censorship.
>If you look around, you'll find plenty more.
>
>The idea behind the "moderation" is simple enough. The power
>elite invented the process of selecting the most parasitic of
>all perverts as their appointees, controlling the specific
>groups. The intolerant parasites, craving for power, control
>and domination, coming to news.groups trying to take over
>the group with the trick of moderation, are merely used by the
>power elite to establish an extensive network of control of
>usenet.
>
>The beauty of this scheme is that both, the power elite and
>the "moderation" candidates are pretty much the same kind of
>people, interested in the same sort of thing. So, they
>effectively become the local enforcers of the brave new world
>order on usenet and become the extension of the power elite,
>which is the best possible model beyond the outright takeover
>of usenet, such as Usenet 2 model.
>
>Moderation is the most effective tool in newsroups
>takeover, control, oppression and domination. If some
>posters offend your moral principles, programmed into
>that outdated CPU between your ears, and you are utterly
>unable to even comprehend the idea of pushing the "Next"
>button on your newsreader, even on the groups with just
>a few posts a day, and if your blood boils and steam is
>coming out of your elephant sized ears when you see some
>ASCII character combinations, then the trick of "moderation"
>is the most effective tool you can utilize to get rid of the
>"undesirables" and suppress ANY kind of ideas, that increase
>the temperature of your blood stream to the point of boiling.
>
>There is no better way to take over a group than the
>trick of "moderation" and it is not that difficult to do.
>All you need is to conduct a small mailing campaign behind
>the scenes and follow these guidelines.
>
>Then publish the "results" of a "public poll", "proving"
>an overwhelming support of your noble idea. Since the
>campaign was conducted behind the scenes, using private
>email messages or things of that nature, there is no way
>to find out if your results are anything, but pure fabrication.
>So, you can publish the "results", changing the real numbers
>by the factors of magnitude literally. Meanwhile, you have
>"evidence" of overwhelming support. Nifty trick indeed.
>
>Then go to IRC or call a few of your friends and generate as many
>"votes", as you wish. All quite doable. Been done before,
>being done now, and there is a well established set of
>tricks you can utilize to achive your noble goal.
>
>Now, if you ever succeed in converting a group to a
>"moderated" status, then you are home free as you will
>enjoy the protection of the dictator number one on entire
>newsgroup "big 8" hierarchy of corruption, whose rule number
>one on the subject of "moderation" is:
>
>YEE SHALT NEVER EVER EVEN CONCEIVE THE IDEA OF TOPPLING
>A SITTING DICTATOR, (aka "moderator").
>
>Zo, once you succeed, first of all, you will obtain the
>powers of a local virtual dictator yourself. Sure, they are
>not as extensive as his, but it is just a matter of time.
>If you get in line of promotion then one day it will be
>virtually inevitable. For now, you will only be able
>to control the information stream on one group, but hey,
>that is how you start the sucking enterprises unlimited.
>Once you took over one group, the rest is a piece of cake.
>
>Now, you'd have to create some combination of ASCII
>characters and submit it to Preliminary Insult Committee
>during the RFD phase, better known as PMII (Premilimary
>Mass Insult Invitation), but the favors are on your side
>as you will have the most powerful tricks and lies at your
>disposal to "convince" others of the validity of your
>noblest of all ideas.
>
>Just remember to keep the "public interest" as the main
>thing to hide behind. That turns out to be the most
>powerful protection you can enjoy.
>
>Another thing to keep in mind, since NONE of this jazz on
>newsgroups is either legal, or authorized by any lawful
>authority, and all the "rules", you have seen around are
>nothing but a pure bluff and fabrications, created by the
>power hungry on their way to the "top" of the heap, you
>can virtually do miracles here, if you know the right
>tricks of the trade.
>
>The principles of your own Consitution, Freedom of Speech,
>Democracy, Basic Human Hights, or ANYTHING you might hold
>as a valid reference in your ordinary life, simply do not
>apply to this perverted system of totalitarianism, sometimes
>called retarded Anarchy, or benevolent dictatorship of the
>news groups.
>
>Ok, so your arguments on "moderating" a group would most
>likely be:
>
>1. DA PEOPLE are tired of being subjected to this endless
>spam on our 5 message per day hole. This is one of the most
>powerful tricks indeed.
>
>Not a single person will object to it, most likely, as
>this is so overwhelmingly "obvious", that they won't be
>able to even conceive of an idea otherwise. Objecting this
>point is equivalent to commiting a mortal sin.
>
>Spam = "evil". End of argument.
>Well, but what is spam?
>- Nobody knows. Even the "spam fighters" themselves, the
>newsnet power elite and the oldest of all news groupies
>do not agree on it.
>
>It ranges from merely crossposting an article or posting
>it more than once to exceeding the BI (Bullshit Index)
>of 20. The definitions range from 0 to infinity.
>
>"Spam fighting" is one of the most honorable ways to self
>promotion and establishment of global control of the
>information streams. It is utilized by the virtual control
>and domination organizations, such as Cabal/SPUTUM (Subgenious
>Police Usenet Tactical Units Mobile), Lart and a few others.
>
>2. We are sick of crossposts. Don't even need to bother
>that those crossposts could be valid, as they come from
>a subject very similar to yours, as crossposts automatically
>fall under the classification of "evil".
>
>So, plus in YOUR column. Not even an argument required
>from your side at least.
>
>Just insist on this point, no matter what, and you are bound
>to win on this one also. In fact, you might be pleasantly
>surprised that there will be no arguments whatsoever, so
>"obvious" it is, even to your opposition.
>
>3. The discussions in our dirty hole are of such a low
>level as a result of all those "clueless", "kooks",
>"trolls", and "whiners", that we are about to commit a
>mass suicide or shut down our own discipline of delusion
>altogether, which is a grave threat to the entire human
>progress as such.
>
>This argument will stand, and no objection could be even
>conceived, as no one can even comprehend how to start the
>argument on the first place. They simply "do not care" to
>even "bother".
>
>So, you win on this one by default.
>
>4. Certain individuals destroy "sanity" in our hole.
>You can use your local equivalent of this Bloxy's entity
>and there is plenty of information on the public record
>to prove that such entities "disturb our piss-full
>coexistence".
>
>Everybody used to talk the same set of delusions and used
>to agree to the same old, same old principles of our
>mutual output hole licking procedure, we so carefully
>perpetuate. But now it becomes virtually impossible to
>maintain the "order", as people start asking new
>kwestions, to which no one has any answers not now, not
>in foreseeable future, and this is kwite bothersome in
>itself.
>
>5. Bio-robots are getting confused.
>Yes, this is an important argument. No one knows any more
>what is what and who is who. We used to blabber about the
>same old, same old, just slightly modifying some ASCII
>characters, but now that trick does not seem to work, as
>the bio-robots can no longer distinguish their own input
>hole from the output one. Dangerous consequences follow
>indeed, and pretty much automatically.
>
>6. The leading experts don't come to participate in our
>obscenest of all obscene groups, as they can not un-confuse
>the crowds any longer.
>
>Yes, the masters of mass delusion and mass brain programming,
>interested in maximization of the rate of sucking, perpetuating
>the same old template thought processes and ideas, can not
>operate in this kind of environment, as people simply laugh
>at our foremost experts, such as honorable Mr. Turing, or
>Marvin Minksy himself (one of the founding fathers of Artificial
>Suckology, they used to call Artificial Intelligence).
>
>So, we no longer have guidance and no longer can copycat
>the ideas those "leaders" thrown to us as a bone to chew
>upon. Most of it simply looks between boring and obscene.
>Not even laughable. We used to sit there in our hole,
>enumerating their names and their delusions, chewing it in
>any way conceivable, but now it doest not seem to work any
>longer, as the whole thing seems simply ridiculous.
>
>Also, a pretty bothersome development indeed. Again, this
>is EASILY winnable point for takeover.
>
>7. The bio-robotic program seems to lock up or go in
>circles, and that does not seem "right". We all seem to be
>loosing a grip on reality as it all looks more like a set
>of delusions, rooted in the fear of survival. This is one
>the most "dangerous" points, having far reaching consequences.
>
>Everybody can see now that our own arguments are not much
>different than the story of the Wheel of Karma, as told by
>the Idiot. In a couple of sentences we seem to refer to
>the beginning of an argument and can not kwite figure out
>how to get out of that deadly loop of self referential
>reasoning.
>
>Things like that. Basically, every single point works in
>YOUR favor.
>
>Plus, if you know the deepest held secrets of the newsgroups,
>the very idea here is to prevent as much of a discussion of
>ANY significance, as possible, in order to suppress the
>advancement of any radically new ideas and developments in
>order to perpetuate the same state of mass delusion, resulting
>from total brainwashing.
>
>Most of what you see around is perpetuation of the same old,
>the same old familiar ideology, resulting from mass bio-robotization
>of human perception for the purpose of maximization of the rate
>of sucking of the blood of many by the few. Very few ideas around
>are either original or genuine and authentic because of fear
>of survival, producing the herd mentality. The new, original ideas,
>are pretty much by definition will conflict with the existing
>set of delusions and and templates produced by mass brainwashing.
>
>Creativity is replaced with mutual ass licking and genuine joy
>is replaced with a plastic smile, just to maintain the safety
>of the herd.
>
>Any new ideas endanger the state of mass brain programming.
>You need consistency of perception in order to maximize the
>"market share". The more diversity there is, the more difficult
>it is to create the groves in perception and create massive
>quantities of bio-robots, thinking along the same lines.
>
>Eventually, what remains is the same set of ideology, created
>for the purpose of maximization of the rate of sucking of
>blood of many by the few. If you do not fit this ideology,
>you are an inherent threat to the current state of affairs.
>
>Bio-robots, brainwashed into oblivion, guided by the moral
>principles, invented by the priest, manipulating the notions
>of "good" and "bad" via tricks of fear and guilt, programming
>the minds of all with the ideas of "sin" in order to collect
>a "sin tax", feel threatened when they see any ideas that are
>not in line with the program inside the CPUs between their ears.
>
>So again, the chips on the table are automatically laid out
>in YOUR favor.
>
>Another point, you might not even begin to comprehend, is
>that there is a class of animals around here, called news
>groupies, regularly hanging out on news.groups to enjoy the
>sadistic torture of those "clueless", who come to news.groups
>to either create a new group or trying to get some help or
>clarification.
>
>These news groupies are "having fun" here, like those old ladies,
>that used to sit in the court rooms, knitting while the death
>sentences were pronounced, exclaiming: Oh, how exciting! Finally!
>The justice has been served, plus it was a good show. Now its time
>to move to the death chambers and smell the burning meat of those
>criminals.
>
>These people hang out on news.groups as a professional occupation
>as they enjoy the sadistic pleasures of anihiltion in the virtual
>domain, arguing with every single proponent, interested in creating
>a group, like they cared about it to the very least.
>
>You see, on the first place, the only group they really care about,
>is news.groups, as that is the best place to enjoy the mass insult,
>humiliation, and an outright intellectual and emotional torture of
>those very "clueless", who think they can just come and create a
>new group, just because they think so.
>
>That is why they are called "clueless", as they have not
>a slightest clue of what this is REALLY all about, and
>that is, to enjoy the torture of those very "clueless"
>and "kooks". These news groupies are here in line for self
>promotion, hoping to get noticed by the power elite and
>eventually become the part of the ruling elite on the usenet.
>
>Sure, you'll be asked to create some "charter", but that
>is a piece of cake. Just copy anybody else's obscenities
>and they are publicly available, change the name of the
>group, twist a few words around and, hupla, hupla, you
>are in business.
>
>Now, once you vote on this thing, just make sure to
>fabricate as many "votes" as impossible, even if the
>number exceeds the activity on your group by the factors
>of magnitude, you will, most likely, win at the end, as
>no one can even verify that "vote" because it is not
>technically possible, unless ordered by the courts, and
>since the value of this entire newsnet thing is on the par
>with used condom, you pretty much have a 100% chance to
>"prove" your vote is valid. Remember that preliminary
>"poll", you conducted behind the scenes? Well, see how
>nicely it works in YOUR favor now?
>
>You can simply refer to it if someone objects to the
>totally obscene vote count or things of that sort and you
>can even use the tricks of guilt, shame and even fear, to
>"dismiss" their arguments, saying something like "hey,
>what an evil person you are! Haven't you seen the
>OVERWHELMING support for this moderation thing during
>the 'public opinion poll'? What kind of evil thoughts you
>got in your outdated CPU between your ears? You need to
>install the latest version!"
>
>See? You win again!
>
>Ok, and once you "win", then you can shove that "charter"
>up their tootoo and do ANYTHING you like, as no one even
>cares what happens in all those holes once they are
>created, and even if they did, what could they do
>afterwards? The deal is DONE!.
>
>Now you can create blacklists, containing the names of
>"evil" people, or what is called the filth or inferior
>race, and you can create "whitelists", containing the
>names of the Aryan race of pure blooded individuals, to
>be automatically trusted, no matter what kind of obscenity
>they might wish to assert from then on.
>
>You don't even have to bother about the shades of gray.
>Those outdated ideas simply do not belong to the domain
>of DA "private property", as that is EXACTLY what you have
>created in essence with this convenient trick of
>"moderation", and you can completely forget about the
>ideas of a rainbow. That simply does not apply to the
>domains of obscene.
>
>Since it is your private property, you can do ANYTHING
>you wish. For example, you can kick the rears of the
>dudes of the grade of Marvin Minsky, one of the founding
>fathers of Artificial Intelligence, and tell them their
>arguments are "off topic" now and will not be considered
>until the next millennium (the year 3000).
>
>So, you have a comfortable margin time to operate within.
>
>The benefits of moderation are plenty. First of all, you
>can suppress the "undesirable" articles and reduce the
>traffic to the point, where only your own articles of
>self promotion will be the most visible thing on that
>group, and not many will even realize or notice it. It
>can be done in the most subliminal ways you can EVER
>imagine.
>
>The bio-robots only have a limited set of instructions
>and are largely guided by the "family values", so you can
>use the tricks of guilt and fear at ANY time to manipulate
>them and remember to lick your output hole on a daily
>basis, or else...
>
>You automatically become the object of everyone's
>attention, jealousy, and automatic "respect", as you,
>from now on, become the most prestigious person on that
>group, and that group can be ANY group you wish. So,
>visibility in your industry, field or discipline, group,
>cult, or whatever, is AUTOMATICALLY achieved with this
>trick.
>
>You will be eventually considered the only authority there
>is, as even the world's foremost scientists will be licking
>your output hole until their tongue is well polished and
>velvety.
>
>You can begin peddling ANYTHING on that group of yours, be
>it an ordinary delusion, and outright lie, dirty marketing
>tricks, or ANYTHING you want.
>
>There is just no one to stop you from then on, as the rule
>number one kicks in. Remember? It all depends on your self
>imposed limitations ONLY. Zo, expand your horizons and
>become DA one, who counts, dictates, tells others the
>"rules of conduct", ways of thinking the "right" thoughts,
>or ANYTHING you can even begin to imagine in your wildest
>dreams.
>
>You are the virtual king now!
>So, you get the idea?
>
>Again, once you succeed to moderate a group, the most
>powerful trick on newsgroups comes into play, aka the rule
>number sucking one:
>
>YEE SHALT NEVER EVER EVEN CONCEIVE THE IDEA OF TOPPLING
>A SITTING DICTATOR, aka "moderator".
>
>So, good luck in converting the newsgroups into an
>orderly world of lowest common denominator to restore
>the "order" and "sanity" in the free sucking world.
>
>May god be with you.
>May Jedi and the lords of destruction help your noblest
>of ALL intents.
>
>In the name of free sucking world:
>Good luck!
>(and don't forget a good, hearty lick)
>
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>PROCEDURE:
>
>This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
>of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
>should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
>for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
>proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
>Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
>warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
>
>All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
>
>This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
>guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
>to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
>documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
>questions about the process.
>
>DISTRIBUTION:
>
>news.announce.newgroups
>news.groups
>alt.slack
>alt.religion.kibology
>news.admin.censorship
>it.news.moderazione
>alt.censorship
>
>Proponent: Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net>
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
news:9drvqi$666$1...@jik.kamens.brookline.ma.us...
> >that or someone has hacked isc or stanford.
>
>
> 1) Paths can be forged.
>
> accept an RFD with the proponent "Usenet Cabal
> <usene...@usenetcabal.net>".
>
> 3) Did you *read* the text of the RFD?
>
> In short:
>
> This is not a real RFD.
Check out http://www.usenetcabal.net/. That domain is valid. I just sent
an e-mail to usene...@usenetcabal.net to see if it bounces. This looks to
me like a valid RFD. Maybe very unlikely to pass, but in proper form.
jc
>
>> Ok, I'm not sure if this is a joke, but I might as well
>> go through it. *groan* The writer is really cruel and
>> heartless being for inflicting this upon me.
>
>I may have dodged a bullet.
>
>> ru
>>
>> In news.groups Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> wrote:
>> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> > unmoderated group news.admin.moderation
>>
>> >Newsgroup line:
>> >news.admin.moderation The evils caused by tinhorn dictators.
>>
>> Is it about administering moderated news groups?
>
>to their posts and other peoples posts. This is not intended to
>exclude moderators from participating, but this is not an exclusive
>club for moderators only. They each have their own bully pulpits.
I can comprehend that.
>> Given that this will be a troll attractor, this group should
>> be moderated.
>
>I disagree, Jay will not be posting there. Besides, a moderated
>group in this namespace would be an insult to the usenet community.
Not only an insult, but an arrogant attempt to
take over even the issue of "moderation" as such.
>> >RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation
>>
>> >Since the introduction of group moderation (1980) members of the
>> >Usenet community have always had different opinions about moderation:
>> >some users think newsgroup moderation means censorship; others do
>> >it as work with no pay. What is needed is a specific forum where this
>> >topic can be talked about.
>>
>> Why? Has there been a consistent call for one by many folks?
>Previous proposals by a different proponent have generated significant
>interest.
>> >At the moment there is no appropriate newsgroup for discussion of this
>> >topic, so posts on the subject are debated mainly in other places like
>> >news.groups, news.admin.net-abuse, news.admin.censorship and the
>> >debate tends to go nowhere. The purpose of news.admin.moderation
>> >is to provide a focal point of discussion on this issue.
>>
>> Ok, fine, but how much on-topic traffic do you estimate there will
>> be based on what you see in those groups? How large is the readership
>> in actuality?
>
>I would estimate 10-50 posts per day, depending on circumstances.
EASILY.
I can posts that much myself.
No problem.
I'll take up the slack.
Not to worry.
>> Do many moderators support the creation of this group?
>
>They are not the focal constituent. _Users_ are the target
>audience and moderators would also be welcome to participate.
Yes. I'd LOVE to talk to them.
Plus it would be a very good public record
for all to see and for the future generations
to study, if there will be any to come.
I think this single fact by itself is enough to justify it.
Plus we could start bidding for moderated groups
and so align the usenet to the realities of modern
market economy.
I'd be willing to bid on a couple of groups myself.
After all, isn't how the REAL world works out there?
Or it is still a jungle?
>> Are there many readers that would be interested in this group?
>> Those are the kinds of things that are of primary concern in an
>> RFD/CFV. The issue of being a focal point is secondary and should
>> appear later than readership/usage information.
>
>Previous votes have demonstrated a significant interest.
Sure, with over 15% of the groups already "moderated",
I bet there would be hundreds if not thousands of
posters.
>> >In the world there over 3000 moderated groups, many of which are dead.
>> >This should offer sufficient traffic for such a forum.
>>
>> Explain how this is true. Dead groups might not be a concern to
>> very many folks at all. Perhaps dead groups are just ignored.
>> Produce some statistics showing how much discussion there currently
>> is on the topical moderation issues, and where. Otherwise, this
>> statement is not useful and should be deleted.
>
>The point that was attempted is that the dead groups allow no posts
>in the given namespace. rec.arts.ascii is a group I have wanted to
>participate in but has been empty for 4+ years.
>Now, onto new moderated groups created in the last year or so:
>rec.arts.drwho.moderated - DEAD.
>misc.writing.moderated - DEAD.
>As far as where the discussion on moderation occurs, it is very
>fragmented due to the proliferation of moderation in multiple
>hierarchies, sub-hierarchies, etc.
Plus there is not a single place, specifically dedicated
to this critically important issue.
Seems compelling to me.
>> >As we all
>> >know, the future will bring increased flows of messages and more and
>> >more moderated newsgroups.
>>
>> This is not a given, as we have yet to see an increase and recent
>> studies show the growth of network users has plateaued (granted,
>> use by existing users is still increasing but not like the explosion
>> we saw in the past 5 years).
>
>Bandwith doubles every few months. True, if the big 8 is looked at
>in isolation the rate of increase would appear much smaller as other
>hierarchies are vibrant with growth whereas the big 8 is not.
>> You should also explain why the
>> increase will present a problem. Otherwise, the statement is
>> not useful and should be deleted.
>
>I shall consider this.
>
>> >Two mailing lists for moderators already
>> >exist.
Usenet is not a mailing list operation.
If you are interested in mailing lists,
then you are welcome to join those clubs.
>> Which ones? Readership size? Are any of those readers willing
>> to move to the news group? Do they want it moderated or unmoderated?
>> Do they discuss the issue this group intends and how much? If
>> there is no sign that the ML readers want to move to the proposed
>> group, that statement is not useful and should be deleted.
>
>This is not for traffic justification but rather to show the exclusion
>of users from exposure to moderation issue. news.admin.moderation
>is designed to be non-exclusionary by the status of unmoderated.
>
>> >The newsgroup will be something more and will involve normal
>> >users bringing their personal know-how to this specific group.
>>
>> Explain "something more". The latter part of the statement is
>> kind of redundant at best, not necessarily true at worst.
>>
>> >CHARTER: news.admin.moderation
>>
>> [snip entire charter text]
>>
>> The entire text in this section is irrelevant
>
>Agreed! All big 8 charters are meaningless and unchangeable and
>are by definition irrelevant. Inclusion of a FAQ is therefore
>appropriate.
After all, after a "moderator" takes over a group,
he can change the "charter" literally ANY way he pleases.
Looking at a charter of comp.ai, mentioned in this RFD,
it is clear that it literally became fascist.
The "moderator" stated that there will be a blacklist
and a white list.
The people on white list will be allowed to post
without any "moderation" and the people on the black list
will NOT be allowed and will be in effect censored
REGARDLESS of what they have to say.
That is PURE form of fascism and totalitarianism.
That "charter" was not even challenged.
Look up the archives shortly after comp.ai was taken
over by this "pathological liar and intelectual pigmey",
David Kinny.
Furthermore, that individual went as far, as to
prohibit even the people of the caliber of Marvin Minsky
to speak on some subjects.
Interestingly enough, Marvin Minski is one of the
foremost world scientists in AI and one of the funding
fathers.
To censor the people of the caliber of Marvin Minski
is a PURE form of totalitarianism.
Look up the archives. It is all there.
>> >END CHARTER.
>>
>> [snip]
>> >DISTRIBUTION:
>>
>> >news.announce.newgroups
>> >news.groups
>> >alt.slack
>> >alt.religion.kibology
>> >news.admin.censorship
>> >it.news.moderazione
>> >alt.censorship
>>
>> I recommend reducing this list to 3 or 4 groups because some brain-dead
>> ISPs have a raw 5 group-crosspost limit.
>
>IIRC, that is primarily a European thing due to poor implementations
>of a hair-brained BI2 scheme.
>
>> I'd recommend n.a.n,
>> n.a.censorship, and alt.censorship. Send pointers to the others
>> if you need to include them.
>
>Thanks. I'll take that under advisement.
>
>> ru *grin*
>
lord_terabyte_and_th...@cox-internet.com
to the relevant posts:
Oh, those wacky trolls!
On 15 May 2001 21:22:54 GMT, j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan
jc
>ru igarashi <ru.ig...@usask.ca> writes:
>
>> Since this doesn't appear in the UVV daily report, should I assume this
>> is not an "official" RFD and thus should be ignored as such (that's what
>> I was going to do, but then I thought I should ask in case the queuing
>> is just a little confused)?
>
>It's an official RFD.
Well, if Russ Allbery says it himself,
I am not sure who else to ask.
That is about as high in the food chain,
as you can get besides David Lawrence,
aka tale. But that one does not speak
to mortals I have heard.
So, now you have it, infediles.
jc
That pretty much clears up all there is to clear.
Russ Allbery himself puts the stamp of approval.
On your knees, mortals!
jc
>Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> writes:
>
>> Why would the moderators not show up in this group?
>
>For pretty much the same reason that moderators don't show up in
>news.admin.censorship right now in any large numbers.
Well, that could be discussed also.
If "moderators" fail to "show up" on discussions
of "moderation" of their "own" groups, then it
follows...
>> It would be good place to explain differences, in way that new people
>> could perhaps understand.
>
>In an ideal world, it would indeed be that.
Is usenet an ideal world, at least in the present form?
> I think more discussion of
>approaches and realities of moderation would be very good for Usenet.
How noble.
>However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to paint targets
>on their chests and then stand up in the middle of a shooting gallery.
Why WOULD they?
If their "moderation" techniques and principles are reasonable,
honest and do serve a public interest, then what do they have
to be afraid of?
After all, why did they become the proponents
and offered their own services for the good of all?
Have you seen a public servant being afraid to show up
in public to discuss the issues of the public concern?
>One of the characteristics of debate in news.admin.* at present is that
>it's dominated by flooding; the people who get the most articles out there
>are the people who are following up to everything with insults, cascades,
>trolls, and other sorts of alt.flame-style content. In a debate dominated
>by flooding, the people who manage to participate are the people with the
>most free time. It's fairly consistantly true that moderators have
>significantly less free time than the people who would like to make their
>lives difficult.
What does flooding have to do with this group?
Any group could be flooded.
Do you shut down the usenet because of this potential?
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
news:9dsafh$f7f$1...@news.orst.edu...
> In article <9ds652$5mq$2...@dent.deepthot.org>,
> >complete path, no way that could be forged.
>
> article is a forgery. If that's the "complete path", as you say, then
> there is even more reason to believe that the article is a forgery,
> since there is no reason for deepthot to be initiating RFD for this
> group. Was it posted at deepthot?
Path:
news.alt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce-
back
As seen from Altopia. deepthot isn't in my path. Thus it came from
stanford or isc. I just checked a number of servers and it looks like the
newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce-back is consistent. Is stanford
perchance isc.orgs only peer? Does isc.org peer with stanford? If so, that
would mean this could possibly be from isc.org.
jc
>In article <7683gtst53c5ubfi1...@4ax.com>,
>Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> wrote:
>
>>rec.arts.drwho.moderated - DEAD.
>
>Take a bow Mr. Stanley, this is *your* fault completely. If you
>hadn't buffaloed the proponants into leaving my system the group would
>be fine now. I hope you're happy with yourself.
This fine gentleman seems to be interested in
acquiring some virtual real estate in the form
of "moderated" groups.
How noble.
How insightful.
How sincere.
Every time I see his writings, I always rejoice
of his wisdom.
jc
>j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens) wrote in message
> <9ds6ne$bvg$2...@jik.kamens.brookline.ma.us>:
>
>> In article <3B0184...@rapp.su>,
>> Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> writes:
>> >Respected sir, I read the text. Despite not understanding
>> >lots of it, and I disagree with much of it. I think a group
>> >sugh as this would serve a good purpose.
>>
>> Before you say anything more in this discussion, please go to this
>> search URL and read the discussion surrounding the two previous
>> RFDs for this newsgroup:
>>
>>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:news.groups+insubject:news.admin.moder
>ation&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=d&filter=0
>
>to read the group. I would suggest you gain some self-control
>and maturity.
Jay Denebeim posting flames?
How could that be?
jc
>j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens) writes:
>> In article <9dro7o$pfm$4...@dent.deepthot.org>,
>> dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>> >I looked at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot It's real alright, either
>> >that or someone has hacked isc or stanford.
>>
>> You're kidding, right Jay?
>>
>> 1) Paths can be forged.
>>
>> 2) I can't imagine that the moderators of news.announce.newgroups would
>> accept an RFD with the proponent "Usenet Cabal
>> <usene...@usenetcabal.net>".
>>
>> 3) Did you *read* the text of the RFD?
>
>I read it. I figured it had to be forged, so I looked at the path.
>Like Jay (apparently), we peer with Stanford, and the path here is
>
> Path: lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce-back
>
>That's the full path.
>
>So then I checked the calendar, just to make sure it wasn't April 1.
>
>I agree with Jay--either isc was hacked, it was injected at Stanford,
>we wuz hacked, or it's real.
Well, Russ Allbery himself certified it.
>I wouldn't put it past Tale to approve
>this, if only to make a point.
To APPROVE the article for discussion?
>I plan to vote no unless there are major changes to the RFD.
How exciting.
They say the Cornell University is where the REAL AI
is done.
Is that true?
jc
>In article <yleltqw...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
>Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>Basically, I think you're assuming more prefiltering than I think is
>>a good idea. That's what the discussion period is for, after all.
>
>That opens the system up to abuse, where some crank RFD shows up every
>six months like clockwork. (he stares pointedly at the subject line
>of this post) We need at least a 'three strikes and you're out' rule.
>(or if you want to be fair a 6mths * factorial(# of consecutive
>failures)
This fine gentleman, BRA, seems to be getting a little
concerned with this group.
The only little problem he has is that he himself is
one of those "moderators". So, his opinion is likely
to be just a little bit biased.
jc
>Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>>In article <9ds4cu$8sq$1...@tribune.usask.ca>,
>
>>Did we gain anything by the last two RFDs for news.admin.moderation,
>>both of which failed? Why go through it again?
>
>>Please, people, just IGNORE IT AND IT WILL GO AWAY.
>
>Well, until we implement a 3 strikes policy, there's not much we can
>do if the troll is persistent enough to submit a PQ in 3 weeks. All
>of the UVVs can refuse to volunteer to hold the vote, but I suspect
>Tale won't kill it just because it contains a bunch of junk.
How CAN tale "kill it"?
Are you saying he is INDEED a totalitarian dictator here?
> As for
>me, it turned out I had the rare chance to snip a whole (huge) charter
>for lack of required content. In the meanwhile we can generally
>agree it's a dumb proposal, and remember to vote NO when the time
>comes.
Are you trying to sabotage the "vote"?
What is this REMEMBER to "vote" "no" thing?
You think people have no brains and can not
figure out for themselves how they wish to vote?
I will remember to vote big YES.
>ru
jc
I have heard that RFDs WERE actually pre-filtered in the past.
Is that true?
jc
>On Tue, 15 May 2001 21:56:35 +0000, Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> >Newsgroup line:
>>> >news.admin.moderation The evils caused by tinhorn dictators.
>>>
>>> The group description does not describe the topic space of the group.
>>> Is it about administering moderated news groups?
>>
>>It is for users who have experienced moderated group administration
>>to their posts and other peoples posts. This is not intended to
>>exclude moderators from participating, but this is not an exclusive
>>club for moderators only. They each have their own bully pulpits.
>
>communicated to the appropriate moderator on the appropriate ng? If the ng is
>just a gripe group, no moderator in his/her right mind would ever visit. We
>have enough to do without getting attacked on an open ng.
Then why DID you volunteer to be a "moderator"?
Did ANYBODY force you?
Why don't you just resign if that is such a big deal
to you?
>I *LIKE* the moderators private email lists
Well, but that looks like "a conspiracy behind the scenes",
isn't it?
>-- I can actually learn a lot of
>information by hearing other's problems and solutions--
But ONLY from the "moderators"?
>that type of open
>discussion can NOT happen on an open unmoderated ng.
So, open discussions can ONLY be conducted behind
the scenes?
This seems to be a new twist on democracy.
>I see it as a total waste of time and usenet resources.
What kind of resources are you talking about?
Did you make some estimate?
>JMO,
>
>Nancy
>to email me, remove the Z.
>administrator/creator/moderator
>alt.med.fibromyalgia.recovery.info (moderated)
>alt.support.depression.manic.moderated
Strange, you HAVE come here to discuss this proposal.
Did anybody invite you?
But you claim that "moderators" would not come to
the group, specifically dedicated to the issues
of moderation.
What kind of logic is this?
jc
>Thank you for such an analytical post. I really appreciate all the trouble you
>went to posting this. :-) One more comment below.
>
>Nancy
>On 15 May 2001 20:43:10 GMT, ru.ig...@usask.ca wrote:
>
>>Ok, I'm not sure if this is a joke, but I might as well
>>go through it. *groan* The writer is really cruel and
>>heartless being for inflicting this upon me.
>>
>>
>>In news.groups Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> wrote:
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> unmoderated group news.admin.moderation
>>
>>[snip]
>>>news.admin.moderation The evils caused by tinhorn dictators.
>>
>>The group description does not describe the topic space of the group.
>>Is it about administering moderated news groups?
>>
>>be moderated.
>>
>>
>>>Since the introduction of group moderation (1980) members of the
>>>Usenet community have always had different opinions about moderation:
>>>some users think newsgroup moderation means censorship; others do
>>>it as work with no pay. What is needed is a specific forum where this
>>>topic can be talked about.
>>
>>Why? Has there been a consistent call for one by many folks?
>>
>>>topic, so posts on the subject are debated mainly in other places like
>>>news.groups, news.admin.net-abuse, news.admin.censorship and the
>>>debate tends to go nowhere. The purpose of news.admin.moderation
>>>is to provide a focal point of discussion on this issue.
>>
>>Ok, fine, but how much on-topic traffic do you estimate there will
>>be based on what you see in those groups? How large is the readership
>>group? Are there many readers that would be interested in this group?
>>Those are the kinds of things that are of primary concern in an
>>RFD/CFV. The issue of being a focal point is secondary and should
>>appear later than readership/usage information.
>>
>>>This should offer sufficient traffic for such a forum.
>>
>>Explain how this is true. Dead groups might not be a concern to
>>very many folks at all. Perhaps dead groups are just ignored.
>>Produce some statistics showing how much discussion there currently
>>is on the topical moderation issues, and where. Otherwise, this
>>statement is not useful and should be deleted.
>>
>>>know, the future will bring increased flows of messages and more and
>>>more moderated newsgroups.
>>
>>This is not a given, as we have yet to see an increase and recent
>>studies show the growth of network users has plateaued (granted,
>>use by existing users is still increasing but not like the explosion
>>not useful and should be deleted.
>
> and could not openly discuss certain issues on an open ng.
What kind of issues you WOULDN'T discuss openly
on a group, specifically dedicated to discuss
the issues of "moderation"?
Did you tell the people, who foolishly elected you
as "moderator" that this will be your position?
To discuss the issues, dealing with public interests,
behind the scenes isn't exactly what the notion of
public service is all about, isn't it?
Or you do not consider yourself as a public servant
any longer once you managed to take over the group?
Do you think that group is your private property now?
>>>Two mailing lists for moderators already
>>>exist.
>>
>>Which ones? Readership size? Are any of those readers willing
>>to move to the news group? Do they want it moderated or unmoderated?
>>Do they discuss the issue this group intends and how much? If
>>there is no sign that the ML readers want to move to the proposed
>>group, that statement is not useful and should be deleted.
>>
>>>The newsgroup will be something more and will involve normal
>>>users bringing their personal know-how to this specific group.
>>
>>Explain "something more". The latter part of the statement is
>>kind of redundant at best, not necessarily true at worst.
>>
>>>CHARTER: news.admin.moderation
>>
>>[snip entire charter text]
>>
>>The entire text in this section is irrelevant and needs to be
>>replaced. The charter should indicate what kinds of things are
>>supposed to be discussed and sometimes what is not acceptable
>>for discussion. The charter is not intended for exposition
>>or manifestos. Those belong in an FAQ.
>>
>>First line should be something like: This is an unmoderated
>>newsgroup for the discussion of moderated newsgroup administration.
>>
>>After that one could list a few example topics that would be
>>acceptable.
>>
>>Then a list of topics or posting types that would be considered
>>unacceptable, like spam, advertising, binaries...
>>
>>>END CHARTER.
>>
>>[snip]
>>>DISTRIBUTION:
>>
>>>news.announce.newgroups
>>>news.groups
>>>alt.slack
>>>alt.religion.kibology
>>>news.admin.censorship
>>>it.news.moderazione
>>>alt.censorship
>>
>>I recommend reducing this list to 3 or 4 groups because some brain-dead
>>ISPs have a raw 5 group-crosspost limit. I'd recommend n.a.n,
>>n.a.censorship, and alt.censorship. Send pointers to the others
>>if you need to include them.
>>
>>ru *grin*
jc
Not a problem, we can repost it.
Quote:
In article <9drrjf$rn1$1...@dent.deepthot.org>, dene...@deepthot.org (Jay
Denebeim) wrote:
>In article <3B0164...@rapp.su>,
>Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> wrote:
>>Jay Denebeim wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <3B0157...@rapp.su>,
>>> Vladimir Mayakovskii <vol...@rapp.su> wrote:
>>> >I think this would be an interesting group to read
>>>
>>> Why? It duplicates a bunch of alt groups.
What does it have to do with alt, pervert?
>>> The trolls already have
>>> plenty of places to post. If this was passed moderators wouldn't show
>>> up there, not with its subject matter, so what's the point?
>>
>>Why would the moderators not show up in this group? It would
>>be good place to explain differences, in way that new people
>>could perhaps understand.
>
>Because people already take enough pot shots at us,
US?
Oh, so YOU are one of them?
What seems to be the problem here? Discussing the relevant
issues to the question of "moderation"?
You wish to censor certain issues, most critical issues
of the entire question of Freedom of Speech and democracy
as such?
So you ARE one of those totalitarian dicators yourself?
> we don't need to go to a target gallery.
WHO is "we"?
Did you already form a club behind the scenes?
How do you know what others want?
Or you know it for sure?
In that case, it must be a pattern and CERTAIN tendency.
A pattern of totalitarianism that is.
An inevitable, undisputable and unquestionable tendency,
just like the history record wordwide shows.
His AssHoliness, Raoul Xemblinosky
>
> In article <ylofsuu...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> >Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.org> writes:
>
> >> That opens the system up to abuse, where some crank RFD shows up every
> >> six months like clockwork.
>
> >What problem does this cause?
>
> It raises my blood pressure :-(
Then loosen up a little and try to relax.
> >Sending one e-mail message every six months to vote against some proposal
> >you think is abusive doesn't seem like that much work, compared to the
> >amount of work that someone would have to do in dealing with angry
> >complaints if they started pre-filtering RFDs.
>
> Ah, but you're younger than I am and don't have heart problems, so
> better you than me :-)
>
> Seriously though, it always gets hot in here when these bozos show up
> and I think it's one of the contributing factors to people thinking
> the big-8 creation process is painful. They never see the ones that
> go through smoothly only the contentious ones for the simple reason
> that the contentious ones are the ones that generate the most
> traffic.
>
> If you want I'd be happy to do the filtering.
I'm sure you would.
> I don't think there's
> much in the way of disagreement (barring those who disagree just to be
> obstinate)
I'm sure you'd be happy to bar those who disagree, just to be
obstinate.
> about which groups should be bounced at the input filter.
> The ones where there is any significant disagreement should go
> through, obviously.
I'm sure you'd be happy to point out which disagreements are
significant and which ones aren't.
> I was thinking more along the lines of this one
> and the na^H^Hwhite power one.
Godwin's Law invoked. Nice work, Jay.
Todd Michel McComb
Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> wrote:
>Only those who have skeletons in their closets due to deceipt and
>corruption would be afraid to discuss moderation in news.admin.moderation.
There is a large gap between fear and a willingness to spend one's
time. I think you must ask yourself what you hope to get from this
newsgroup, and whether you have any hope of getting it, whether it
is passed or not. I cannot imagine that it will become productive
for anyone involved, including you. I have been wrong before, so
feel free to believe I will be wrong again, but you have indicated
little that this group can be other than a place for disgruntled
users to vent. What that could possibly accomplish, I have no
idea.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
jc
>On 15 May 2001 21:13:06 GMT, dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
>>In article <9drvqi$666$1...@jik.kamens.brookline.ma.us>,
>>Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>>>In article <9dro7o$pfm$4...@dent.deepthot.org>,
>>> dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>>>>I looked at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot It's real alright, either
>>>>that or someone has hacked isc or stanford.
>>>
>>>You're kidding, right Jay?
>>>
>>>1) Paths can be forged.
>>
>>complete path, no way that could be forged.
>
>This is what it should look like to you:
>Path: news.deepthot.org!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce-back
>
>Otherwise, I have been sending those abuse reports to supernews, and I
>didn't even know it.
Well, you have to realize that the people like BRA
usually look at the world, standing on their head.
That seems to be a more natural posture.
Too bad you did not know that.
>--
>Peter Alfredsen (pete...@fabel.dk)
>Join USENET archivers: http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/usenet_archivers
>And help keep USENET archives in the public domain.
Jay Denebeim
His AssHoliness, Raoul Xemblinosky <rao...@mollusk.bungmunch.com> wrote:
>Jay Denebeim wrote:
>> I was thinking more along the lines of this one
>> and the na^H^Hwhite power one.
>Godwin's Law invoked. Nice work, Jay.
Uh, no, since we're talking about neo-nazis here using the N word does
not invoke Godwin.
jc
>"Jay Denebeim" <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote in message
>news:9dro7o$pfm$4...@dent.deepthot.org...
>> In article <9drm13$5ln$1...@tribune.usask.ca>, <ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote:
>> >In news.announce.newgroups Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net>
>wrote:
>> >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> >> unmoderated group news.admin.moderation
>> >
>> >Since this doesn't appear in the UVV daily report, should I assume
>> >this is not an "official" RFD and thus should be ignored as such
>> >(that's what I was going to do, but then I thought I should ask
>> >in case the queuing is just a little confused)?
>>
>> I looked at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot It's real alright, either
>> that or someone has hacked isc or stanford.
>
>Path:
>news.alt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce-
>back
>
>
> That is how it looks at Altopia. news.maxwell.syr.edu AFAICT is
>Altopia's main text peer inbound. Looks real to me.
The discussion has began.
The issues are real.
The need for the group is real.
What kind of reality are these "moderators" talking about here?
jc
>"Jonathan Kamens" <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote in message
>news:9drvqi$666$1...@jik.kamens.brookline.ma.us...
>> In article <9dro7o$pfm$4...@dent.deepthot.org>,
>> dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>> >I looked at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot It's real alright, either
>> >that or someone has hacked isc or stanford.
>>
>> You're kidding, right Jay?
>>
>> 1) Paths can be forged.
>>
>> 2) I can't imagine that the moderators of news.announce.newgroups would
>> accept an RFD with the proponent "Usenet Cabal
>> <usene...@usenetcabal.net>".
>>
>> 3) Did you *read* the text of the RFD?
>>
>> In short:
>>
>> This is not a real RFD.
>
>
> Check out http://www.usenetcabal.net/. That domain is valid. I just sent
>an e-mail to usene...@usenetcabal.net to see if it bounces. This looks to
>me like a valid RFD. Maybe very unlikely to pass, but in proper form.
I have heard that usenet cabal is owned by Jay Leno in part.
Not sure if David Letterman also has an interest in it.
Hope that 3rd derivative Freemason, Bush, is not a part
in this story.
Remember seeing some FAQ about it.
jc
>"John Stanley" <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote in message
>news:9dsafh$f7f$1...@news.orst.edu...
>> In article <9ds652$5mq$2...@dent.deepthot.org>,
>> Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote:
>> >>1) Paths can be forged.
>> >
>> >Uh, look at the path: isc!stanford!deepthot (to me) that's the
>> >complete path, no way that could be forged.
>>
>> If that's the path you see on deepthot, then yes, absolutely, the
>> article is a forgery. If that's the "complete path", as you say, then
>> there is even more reason to believe that the article is a forgery,
>> since there is no reason for deepthot to be initiating RFD for this
>> group. Was it posted at deepthot?
>
>
>Path:
>news.alt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce-
>back
>
> As seen from Altopia. deepthot isn't in my path. Thus it came from
>stanford or isc. I just checked a number of servers and it looks like the
>newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce-back is consistent. Is stanford
>perchance isc.orgs only peer? Does isc.org peer with stanford? If so, that
>would mean this could possibly be from isc.org.
Why not?
ISC.ORG is partly sponsored by DISA
(Defense Information Systems Agency).
Stanford is one of the bigger servers "out there".
Ever heard of Hoover Institution at stanford?
All nicely reconciles.
Just a couple of hops directly to the military
and intelligence agencies.
Nice setup.
Russ Allbery is running the stanford operation.
Plus he maintains the INN news server code.
Plus he has a substantial interest and input
in the issues of NNTP protocol and news distribution
as such.
I would not be surprised if Jesse with the helm
and a nukelar bomb up his rear end is just one
hop away.
Kate Wrightson
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote:
>If you want I'd be happy to do the filtering. I don't think there's
>much in the way of disagreement (barring those who disagree just to be
>obstinate) about which groups should be bounced at the input filter.
Count me as disagreement. As Russ posted elsewhere in this thread, there
is little to be gained and much to be lost by instituting a form of
filtering based on previous failure or behavior.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ka...@eyrie.org | Please do not e-mail me copies of material posted
Kate Wrightson | to newsgroups. I read the groups to which I post.
jc
>Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>>Kate Wrightson wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <9drvqi$666$1...@jik.kamens.brookline.ma.us>,
>>> Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>For some reason, I haven't seen the RFD in news.announce.newgroups
>>here.
Its there allright. At least last time I looked
withing the last 24 hrs.
>Neither did I, presumably for the same reason I missed the RESULT
>for 'sci.lang.scandinavian'; that they were crossposted to more than
>five groups. I wonder how many others I've missed since switching to
>Worldnet?
>
>>It's in Deja/Google, though--I don't know how to get the full
>>headers with the new interface for a message id, sigh.
>
>If you haven't already, try the link Mr. Stanley provided earlier
>in this thread. I must admit, I didn't read the whole RFD...
>
jc
>jc...@hotmail.com (jc) wrote in message <9dsho5$lia$5...@news.ukr.net>:
>
>> In article <9dsa6b$8um$1...@dent.deepthot.org>, dene...@deepthot.org (Jay
> Denebeim) wrote:
>> >In article <7683gtst53c5ubfi1...@4ax.com>,
>> >Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>rec.arts.drwho.moderated - DEAD.
>> >
>> >Take a bow Mr. Stanley, this is *your* fault completely. If you
>> >hadn't buffaloed the proponants into leaving my system the group would
>> >be fine now. I hope you're happy with yourself.
>>
>> This fine gentleman seems to be interested in
>> acquiring some virtual real estate in the form
>> of "moderated" groups.
>
I heard that before.
Seems pretty pointed.
>> How noble.
>> How insightful.
>> How sincere.
>>
>> Every time I see his writings, I always rejoice
>> of his wisdom.
>
>Odd, I usually stock up on toilet paper after reading
>his posts.
I am so sorry. Didn't mean to upset your natural
bowel movement.
jc
>jc...@hotmail.com (jc) wrote in message <9dshht$lia$4...@news.ukr.net>:
>
>> >However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to paint targets
>> >on their chests and then stand up in the middle of a shooting gallery.
>>
>> Why WOULD they?
>>
>> If their "moderation" techniques and principles are reasonable,
>> honest and do serve a public interest, then what do they have
>> to be afraid of?
>
>due to deceipt and corruption would be afraid to
>discuss moderation in news.admin.moderation.
I have to admint. That simply follows naturally.
All the "public servants" I have seen on the idiot box,
they call TV, always brag about being ready to serve...
People even begin to ask what kinda stuff they
are ready to serve beyond a starwars offense system,
they call defense.
Otherwise, everything is nice and kosher.
>> After all, why did they become the proponents
>> and offered their own services for the good of all?
>>
>> Have you seen a public servant being afraid to show up
>> in public to discuss the issues of the public concern?
>
>Umm. Many are only self-serving. Others are genuinely
>concerned with doing a good job.
Except they repeat it so often, that I am not sure they
themselves ever bothered to define a "good job".
It all depends on which end of the pipe you look at.
> It's a shame that the
>former group is so vocal in opposition to this group and
>the good moderators aren't even here to set a good example
>for the self-serving rogues who are outraged anybody would
>dare question their totalitarian dictates.
Are you sure there are any "good moderators" around?
I'd love to see their closets.
jc
>usen...@usa.net (J.J.) wrote in message
> <G%jM6.25252$4f7.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>
>> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>> >Kate Wrightson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <9drvqi$666$1...@jik.kamens.brookline.ma.us>,
>> >> Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >This is not a real RFD.
>> >
>> >> Yes, it is. Approved by the cabal (TINC) and everything.
>> >
>> >For some reason, I haven't seen the RFD in news.announce.newgroups
>> >here.
>>
>> for 'sci.lang.scandinavian'; that they were crossposted to more than
>> five groups. I wonder how many others I've missed since switching to
>> Worldnet?
>>
>> >It's in Deja/Google, though--I don't know how to get the full
>> >headers with the new interface for a message id, sigh.
>>
>> If you haven't already, try the link Mr. Stanley provided earlier
>> in this thread. I must admit, I didn't read the whole RFD...
>
> http://www.mailgate.org/news/news.groups/msg49797.html
>with some but not all headers.
How insightful.
What a nicely organized and well thought out proposal.
You deserve some applause.
We'll see if these totalitarian dictators and all these
power elite wannabies and ass lickers will be able to
sabotage this proposal as they did the previos ones.
I bet we'll see some real action here pretty soon.
Hey, perverts, who is going to start the email campaign
behind the scenes?
jc
>In article <f8j3gt09j6i1tnkou...@4ax.com>,
>Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> wrote:
>>Only those who have skeletons in their closets due to deceipt and
>>corruption would be afraid to discuss moderation in news.admin.moderation.
>
>There is a large gap between fear and a willingness to spend one's
>time. I think you must ask yourself what you hope to get from this
>newsgroup, and whether you have any hope of getting it, whether it
>is passed or not.
So, the issues by themselves are not clear enough?
> I cannot imagine that it will become productive
>for anyone involved, including you.
Ok, but what is YOUR "problem" here?
Is he asking YOU to do his work?
> I have been wrong before,
Have you EVER been "right"?
>so feel free to believe I will be wrong again,
Oh, you WILL. At least as long, as you have this
binary representation of existence.
>but you have indicated
>little that this group can be other than a place for disgruntled
>users to vent.
Does anyone force YOU to go there?
Let them vent. Or you have a censor's book of
"appropriate subjects and ways and means of expression"?
> What that could possibly accomplish, I have no idea.
So, you are just a curious onlooker here?
Are you a regular news.groupie?
Come here for fun and profit?
>Todd McComb
>mcc...@medieval.org
>
jc
>"rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote in message
> <9dsgdn$4j7$0...@dosa.alt.net>:>[spam headers]
>> Received: from mail.mochamail.com (unverified [64.14.3.253]) by
> mocha1.mochamail.com
>> (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.4) with ESMTP id <B0001...@mocha1.mochamail.com> for
> <usene...@usenetcabal.net>;
>> Tue, 15 May 2001 16:54:12 -0700
>> Received: from hppav ([172.156.142.81]) by mail.mochamail.com with Microsoft
> SMTPSVC(5.0.2172.1);
>> Tue, 15 May 2001 16:54:11 -0700
>> From: "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com>
>
>
>I do not wish to receive your multi-level cough syrup marketing
>spiels. Please don't send me any more.
Looks like the rear end output analyzers are busy
with their microscope.
They seem to have forgotten that the brown matter
is also inside their brain.
You are looking at the wrong end of the pipe,
dummies. Didn't you notice?
[reposted because of rogue cancel]
US?
WHO is "we"?
>Jay
>--
>* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
>* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
>* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
>* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!spool0-chcgil.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!europa.netcrusader.net!192.148.253.68!netnews.com!isdnet!news.internetia.pl!news.tpi.pl!news.onet.pl!news.tvn.nn.pl!202.169.133.50.posted
From: jc...@hotmail.com (jc)
Newsgroups: tvn.milionerzy,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Subject: cmsg cancel <9dscl9$gp7$1...@news.ukr.net>
Control: cancel <9dscl9$gp7$1...@news.ukr.net>
Date: 15 May 2001 23:56:37 GMT
Organization: Sponsor: Numen s.c. (http://www.nn.pl/)
Lines: 1
Approved: jc...@hotmail.com (jc)
Message-ID: <cancel.9dscl9$gp7$1...@news.ukr.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.18.11.53
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.169.133.50
X-Trace: news.tvn.nn.pl 3601314840 202.169.133.50 (15 May 2001 23:56:38 GMT)
Tooling for Rebecca's Anus: <9dscl9$gp7$1...@news.ukr.net>
[reposted because of rogue cancel]
[Snip...]
OK sweethearts, who forgot Bloxy's's meds...
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon the bogus email domain (dseg etc.) in place for spambots.
Really it's (wyrd) at raytheon, dotted with com. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions not Raytheon Company.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news.tele.dk!194.25.134.62!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.task.gda.pl!news.memax.krakow.pl!news.onet.pl!news.tvn.nn.pl!202.169.133.50.posted
From: ste...@sp27.dseg.ti.com (Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293)
Newsgroups: tvn.milionerzy,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Subject: cmsg cancel <HtjM6.36$Mf6...@dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com>
Control: cancel <HtjM6.36$Mf6...@dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com>
Date: 16 May 2001 00:51:16 GMT
Organization: Sponsor: Numen s.c. (http://www.nn.pl/)
Lines: 1
Approved: ste...@sp27.dseg.ti.com (Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293)
Message-ID: <cancel.HtjM6.36$Mf6...@dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.18.8.163
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.169.133.50
X-Trace: news.tvn.nn.pl 4621436727 202.169.133.50 (16 May 2001 00:51:17 GMT)
Tooling for Rebecca's Anus: <HtjM6.36$Mf6...@dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com>
Jonathan Kamens
Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> writes:
>Previous proposals by a different proponent have generated significant
>interest.
If by "significant interest" you mean that a lot of people flamed
about them, then you're right.
If by "significant interest" you mean that a lot of people voted
against them, then you're right.
If by "significant interest" you mean that enough people were in favor
of the group to give it a snowball's chance in hell of passing, then
you're wrong.
You haven't done anything in your new RFD to make it more likely to
pass than the previous two; in fact, it seems rather obvious to me that
your RFD, if it goes to a vote as-is, is less likely to pass than the
previous two.
The first news.admin.moderation vote was 52 votes shy of passing. The
second vote was 53 votes shy of passing. You haven't done anything to
improve the odds this time around, so why are you bothering, if it
isn't just to be a troll?
Jonathan Kamens
Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> writes:
>Secrecy in moderation breeds mistrust in moderators. Your point
>is an excellent reason to create this group for those who have
>been victimized by furtive moderation policies.
1) Creating this newsgroup will not do anything to reduce whatever
"secrecy in moderation" currently exists.
2) There are already numerous forums in which people can discuss
moderation openly. There is no evidence that another one will add
anything useful to the Usenet; there is much evidence that it will
not, at least if it is unmoderated.
Jonathan Kamens
Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> writes:
>j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens) wrote in message <9ds6ne$bvg$2...@jik.kamens.brookline.ma.us>:
>> Before you say anything more in this discussion, please go to this
>> search URL and read the discussion surrounding the two previous
>> RFDs for this newsgroup:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:news.groups+insubject:news.admin.moderation&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=d&filter=0
>
>You and Jay Denebeim posting flames.
539 articles were posted in the previous discussions. Of those, Jay
posted 39 (7%) and I posted 11 (2%). 82 different people posted at
least once. It would seem that the discussion was somewhat more varied
than your (false) assertion would suggest.
jc
>>
>> In article <ylofsuu...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
>> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> >Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.org> writes:
>>
>> >> That opens the system up to abuse, where some crank RFD shows up every
>> >> six months like clockwork.
>>
>> >What problem does this cause?
>>
>> It raises my blood pressure :-(
>
>Then loosen up a little and try to relax.
Yep. Eat come walnuts. It produces a natural
bowel movement. No need to even take laxatives.
Plus walnuts stimulate the brain activity.
Didn't you know, dummies?
>> >Sending one e-mail message every six months to vote against some proposal
>> >you think is abusive doesn't seem like that much work, compared to the
>> >amount of work that someone would have to do in dealing with angry
>> >complaints if they started pre-filtering RFDs.
>>
>> Ah, but you're younger than I am and don't have heart problems, so
>> better you than me :-)
>>
>> Seriously though, it always gets hot in here when these bozos show up
>> and I think it's one of the contributing factors to people thinking
>> the big-8 creation process is painful. They never see the ones that
>> go through smoothly only the contentious ones for the simple reason
>> that the contentious ones are the ones that generate the most
>> traffic.
>>
>> If you want I'd be happy to do the filtering.
>
>I'm sure you would.
>
>> I don't think there's
>> much in the way of disagreement (barring those who disagree just to be
>> obstinate)
>
>I'm sure you'd be happy to bar those who disagree, just to be
>obstinate.
>
>> about which groups should be bounced at the input filter.
>> The ones where there is any significant disagreement should go
>> through, obviously.
>
>I'm sure you'd be happy to point out which disagreements are
>significant and which ones aren't.
Yep. Thats his specialty according to usenet archives.
That is why, I guess, he earned his holey title of
BRA (Big Red Ass). He seems to enjoy poking his
xenophobic nose into just about anybody's affairs
and make final determinations and pronouncements.
I even heard he came to news.groups and announced
the results of "vote" on one of the sabotaged groups
even before the "real" announcement was made by the
"vote" taker and claimed that the group would have
no chance to be created as his behind the scene
communications with His Holeyness indicated.
He turned out to be right.
This big red round thing really knows his business.
>> I was thinking more along the lines of this one
>> and the na^H^Hwhite power one.
Zig heil!
jc
>In article <3B01D156...@mollusk.bungmunch.com>,
>His AssHoliness, Raoul Xemblinosky <rao...@mollusk.bungmunch.com> wrote:
>>Jay Denebeim wrote:
>
>>> I was thinking more along the lines of this one
>>> and the na^H^Hwhite power one.
>
>>Godwin's Law invoked. Nice work, Jay.
>
>Uh, no, since we're talking about neo-nazis here using the N word does
>not invoke Godwin.
You must be of the good ole school of classical ones.
Yep, these neos are quite obnoxious.
jc
>In article <9dsdlg$a7k$1...@dent.deepthot.org>,
>Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote:
>
>>If you want I'd be happy to do the filtering. I don't think there's
>>much in the way of disagreement (barring those who disagree just to be
>>obstinate) about which groups should be bounced at the input filter.
>
>Count me as disagreement. As Russ posted elsewhere in this thread, there
>is little to be gained and much to be lost by instituting a form of
>filtering based on previous failure or behavior.
Is he getting desperate?
jc
Are you a genuine pervert or just a regular pathological liar
and manipulator?
jc
>In article <7ue3gtg3v3fbr45u5...@4ax.com>,
> Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net> writes:
>>Secrecy in moderation breeds mistrust in moderators. Your point
>>is an excellent reason to create this group for those who have
>>been victimized by furtive moderation policies.
>
>1) Creating this newsgroup will not do anything to reduce whatever
>"secrecy in moderation" currently exists.
How would you know?
Can you see the future?
>2) There are already numerous forums in which people can discuss
>moderation openly.
Such as?
> There is no evidence that another one will add
>anything useful to the Usenet;
How do you get that "evidence"
unless you create that group?
> there is much evidence that it will
>not, at least if it is unmoderated.
Can I see that "evidence"?
What do you have between your ears?
A kerosine lamp?
Or a big black hole?
Todd Michel McComb
>So, the issues by themselves are not clear enough?
The issues are clear to me. How this proposed group will facilitate
resolving them is not.
>Ok, but what is YOUR "problem" here?
I have no problem.
>Have you EVER been "right"?
Yes. I have been right my share of times.
>Does anyone force YOU to go there?
No. I was responding under the notion, as inappropriate as it may
have been, that the group proposal was seeking to resolve some of
the problematic results of moderation.
>Are you a regular news.groupie?
Yes, I have read and contributed to this group since its creation,
and have been involved in various Usenet issues and groups.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
news:04k3gt4n2dqd4vh26...@4ax.com...
> "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote in message
<9dsgdn$4j7$0...@dosa.alt.net>:
>
> > I just sent an e-mail to usene...@usenetcabal.net to see if it
bounces.
>
> [spam headers]
> > Received: from mail.mochamail.com (unverified [64.14.3.253]) by
mocha1.mochamail.com
> > (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.4) with ESMTP id
<B0001...@mocha1.mochamail.com> for <usene...@usenetcabal.net>;
> > Tue, 15 May 2001 16:54:12 -0700
> > Received: from hppav ([172.156.142.81]) by mail.mochamail.com with
Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2172.1);
> > Tue, 15 May 2001 16:54:11 -0700
> > From: "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com>
>
>
> I do not wish to receive your multi-level cough syrup marketing
> spiels. Please don't send me any more.
ROFL. Since it did bounce and that looks right I'll take your word. And
since my web page wasn't in the e-mail .sig, not even the slightest bit
about cough syrup? ;) However, I won't e-mail you again.
jc
The articles are being cancelled with fake cancels.
I bet we'll see MUCH more fun before the totalitarian
dictators see the light of day.
In article <5$-_-$$$%-%_%%__-$@news.noc.cabal.int>, jc...@hotmail.com (jc)
His AssHoliness, Raoul Xemblinosky
>
> In article <3B01D156...@mollusk.bungmunch.com>,
> His AssHoliness, Raoul Xemblinosky <rao...@mollusk.bungmunch.com> wrote:
> >Jay Denebeim wrote:
>
> >> I was thinking more along the lines of this one
> >> and the na^H^Hwhite power one.
>
> >Godwin's Law invoked. Nice work, Jay.
>
> Uh, no, since we're talking about neo-nazis here using the N word does
> not invoke Godwin.
Your dodge might have carried more credence had you written
"ne^H^Hwhite power" instead of "na^H^Hwhite power." It might
have carried even more credence had you not snipped everything
else you couldn't bring yourself to answer. Nice try, Jay.
jc
beyond the automatic restoration of the articles cancelled
if they are cross posted to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet?
I guess I'd better crosspost all of my posts to make sure
the won't simply dissapear into a land of oblivion.
Where is that HipCrime dude?
Nice job!
In article <4$-_-$$$%-%_%----$@news.noc.cabal.int>, ste...@sp27.dseg.ti.com
ru.ig...@usask.ca
be responding through this message as well...
acoftil <gnn4...@zpacbell.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2001 21:56:35 +0000, Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net>
>wrote:
>>> >Newsgroup line:
>>> >news.admin.moderation The evils caused by tinhorn dictators.
>>>
>>> The group description does not describe the topic space of the group.
>>> Is it about administering moderated news groups?
>>
>>It is for users who have experienced moderated group administration
>>to their posts and other peoples posts. This is not intended to
>>exclude moderators from participating, but this is not an exclusive
>>club for moderators only. They each have their own bully pulpits.
Then the proponent should replace "The evils caused..." with a shortened
version of this statement. Something like, "Readers' moderation issues".
>So, this is a proposal for a gripe group?
Hey, if there are enough readers that like to gripe and want a place
to do it, they are welcome to their group according to Big-8 policies.
>And how would poster's issues be
>communicated to the appropriate moderator on the appropriate ng? If the ng is
>just a gripe group, no moderator in his/her right mind would ever visit. We
>have enough to do without getting attacked on an open ng.
And vice versa, if no moderator reads the group, it is just a gripe
group. If the only purpose of the group is to gripe and folks are
happy enough with that, fine. However, I'd recommend renaming it
so that it doesn't get confused for a group that intended for more
technical discussions, for example talk.<something>.moderation, or
news.admin.moderation.complain... If the purpose of the group is to
effect a change, or just act as a channel of information to moderators,
then I think this proposed group will fail to fulfil that purpose.
There needs to be a mechanism to control the degree of unuseful
posting traffic (e.g. flames, trolls,...) and to focus the discussions
on specific problems and suggestions. Frankly, I'd really like to
see the evidence that indicates there are enough people that talk
about this topic.
Proponent, rename the group, do (much) more research, and totally
rewrite the proposal (use the charter properly).
ru
His AssHoliness, Raoul Xemblinosky
>
> In article <3B01D156...@mollusk.bungmunch.com>, "His AssHoliness, Raoul Xemblinosky" <rao...@mollusk.bungmunch.com> wrote:
> >Jay Denebeim wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <ylofsuu...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
> >> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> >> >Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.org> writes:
> >>
> >> >> That opens the system up to abuse, where some crank RFD shows up every
> >> >> six months like clockwork.
> >>
> >> >What problem does this cause?
> >>
> >> It raises my blood pressure :-(
> >
> >Then loosen up a little and try to relax.
>
> Yep. Eat come walnuts. It produces a natural
> bowel movement. No need to even take laxatives.
> Plus walnuts stimulate the brain activity.
Whatever it takes. Heart problems run in my family too
(although I have escaped them so far), and I'd hate to
hear about Jay or anybody elsepopping off from a heart
attack caused by some dumbassed UseNet flame war. If you
can't stand the heat, there is no need to keep sticking
your head over the burners.
Where I come from, it's called "Kalisch Syndrome."
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
> In article <9dsg4f$3mn$0...@dosa.alt.net>, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"
<rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote:
> >Path:
>
>news.alt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce
-
> >back
> >
> >
> > That is how it looks at Altopia. news.maxwell.syr.edu AFAICT is
> >Altopia's main text peer inbound. Looks real to me.
>
> The discussion has began.
> The issues are real.
> The need for the group is real.
>
> What kind of reality are these "moderators" talking about here?
The proponent here would actually be better of creating
alt.censorship.moderation. The problem in the Big 8 is you can get proposals
shot down with votes. Not that many news admins honor alt.* rmgroups, but
with this guy be able to draft this good of an RFD, he could get this NG in
alt.* by proposing it in alt.config likely without even any of the mostly
ignored rmgroups. The justification is there in terms of daily posts on this
topic. In fact, alt.censorship.moderation likely would be a high traffic NG.
Yer doing this in the wrong patch of Usenet.
jc
>In article <9dsllj$lia$2...@news.ukr.net>, jc <jc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>So, the issues by themselves are not clear enough?
>
>The issues are clear to me. How this proposed group will facilitate
>resolving them is not.
Ah. But first you have to create a group
and then you have to come and make your position clear.
That is how it gets resolved.
>>Ok, but what is YOUR "problem" here?
>
>I have no problem.
Good. That the thing I like to hear.
So, doing here what then?
>>Have you EVER been "right"?
>
>Yes. I have been right my share of times.
Good.
Be my guest then.
>>Does anyone force YOU to go there?
>
>No. I was responding under the notion, as inappropriate as it may
>have been, that the group proposal was seeking to resolve some of
>the problematic results of moderation.
And before the group has been created, you ALREADY know
the outcome?
Good.
Welcome to the land of obscene.
Anything else?
>>Are you a regular news.groupie?
>
>Yes, I have read and contributed to this group since its creation,
>and have been involved in various Usenet issues and groups.
Good. You are my favorite kind.
Where is that chainsaw?
>Todd McComb
>mcc...@medieval.org
>
jc
>"Usenet Cabal" <usene...@usenetcabal.net> wrote in message
>news:04k3gt4n2dqd4vh26...@4ax.com...
>> "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote in message
><9dsgdn$4j7$0...@dosa.alt.net>:
>>
>> > I just sent an e-mail to usene...@usenetcabal.net to see if it
>bounces.
>>
>> [spam headers]
>> > Received: from mail.mochamail.com (unverified [64.14.3.253]) by
>mocha1.mochamail.com
>> > (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.4) with ESMTP id
><B0001...@mocha1.mochamail.com> for <usene...@usenetcabal.net>;
>> > Tue, 15 May 2001 16:54:12 -0700
>> > Received: from hppav ([172.156.142.81]) by mail.mochamail.com with
>Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2172.1);
>> > Tue, 15 May 2001 16:54:11 -0700
>> > From: "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com>
>>
>>
>> I do not wish to receive your multi-level cough syrup marketing
>> spiels. Please don't send me any more.
>
>
> ROFL. Since it did bounce and that looks right I'll take your word. And
>since my web page wasn't in the e-mail .sig, not even the slightest bit
>about cough syrup? ;) However, I won't e-mail you again.
Good.
Time to examine your output hole then.
You see any difference before and after?
Good.
That is what the whole excersize is all about.
Do you see any intelligence arising from the depths
of that membraine?
Good.
I am glad we have such a dedicated public servant.
jc
>I haven't seen the proponent's response at my site yet, so I'll
>be responding through this message as well...
>
>acoftil <gnn4...@zpacbell.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 May 2001 21:56:35 +0000, Usenet Cabal <usene...@usenetcabal.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>> >Newsgroup line:
>>>> >news.admin.moderation The evils caused by tinhorn dictators.
>>>>
>>>> The group description does not describe the topic space of the group.
>>>> Is it about administering moderated news groups?
>>>
>>>It is for users who have experienced moderated group administration
>>>to their posts and other peoples posts. This is not intended to
>>>exclude moderators from participating, but this is not an exclusive
>>>club for moderators only. They each have their own bully pulpits.
>
>Then the proponent should replace "The evils caused..." with a shortened
>version of this statement. Something like, "Readers' moderation issues".
Good.
One more idiot to observe.
I kinda like the "tin horn totalitarian dictators".
Puts a nice artistic touch on the whole thing.
Pretty creative, I'd say.
You know why?
Well, because they ARE!
So, you feel better now?
>>So, this is a proposal for a gripe group?
>
>Hey, if there are enough readers that like to gripe and want a place
>to do it, they are welcome to their group according to Big-8 policies.
Good. So we have one more "yes" "vote"?
Not that they mean anything on the first place.
Because that fuehrer of big-8, David Lawrence,
aka tale, has the "final" word on the whole thing.
This is an excersize in futility anyway.
Zo...
Have zome fun.
>>And how would poster's issues be
>>communicated to the appropriate moderator on the appropriate ng? If the ng is
>>just a gripe group, no moderator in his/her right mind would ever visit. We
>>have enough to do without getting attacked on an open ng.
>
>And vice versa, if no moderator reads the group, it is just a gripe
>group.
Good. That will show who these so called moderators are.
One more time:
"Tin horn totalitarian dictators".
Except I'd add "with amoeba sized brains".
Or "blood boiling idiots".
But, unfortunately, the RFD is in.
The discussion is in progress.
Have zome fun for once in your meaningless life then.
> If the only purpose of the group is to gripe and folks are
>happy enough with that, fine.
Good.
So we do have a "yes" vote, I presume?
> However, I'd recommend renaming it
>so that it doesn't get confused for a group that intended for more
>technical discussions, for example talk.<something>.moderation,
No, no, no, my humble expert.
Talk is a black hole hierarchy.
It ain't a royal big-8.
> or
>news.admin.moderation.complain... If the purpose of the group is to
>effect a change, or just act as a channel of information to moderators,
A channel to a black hole that is.
>then I think this proposed group will fail to fulfil that purpose.
Good.
Another one of the perfect specimen.
>There needs to be a mechanism to control the degree of unuseful
>posting traffic (e.g. flames, trolls,...) and to focus the discussions
>on specific problems and suggestions.
Anothewords, to "moderate" the group about the issues
of "moderation", right?
Nice touch.
Must be another pervert.
> Frankly, I'd really like to
>see the evidence that indicates there are enough people that talk
>about this topic.
YOU are the living evidence.
Did you know?
>Proponent, rename the group, do (much) more research, and totally
>rewrite the proposal (use the charter properly).
Zig heil!
Next reincarnation.
If there will be any more of those.
How bout reworking that black hole between your ears?
Any hope for that?
Good.
Keep making the sucking sounds.
Thats a nice background for the whole thing.
>ru
Todd Michel McComb
>And before the group has been created, you ALREADY know the outcome?
No, I do not. But with 15 years of experience, I can guess. If
you want to resolve anything, you are advised to consider how this
proposal can resolve anything. If you simply want a group in which
to perform a new range of antics, then I guess it doesn't matter.
When I said I had no problem, I meant it. I have no intention of
voting.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
jc
Why be so picky.
He'll probably tell you he meant nano-nazis.
jc
>"jc" <jc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9dsk0i$lia$1...@news.ukr.net...
>> In article <9dsg4f$3mn$0...@dosa.alt.net>, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"
><rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Path:
>>
>>news.alt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!bounce
>-
>> >back
>> >
>> >
>> > That is how it looks at Altopia. news.maxwell.syr.edu AFAICT is
>> >Altopia's main text peer inbound. Looks real to me.
>>
>> The discussion has began.
>> The issues are real.
>> The need for the group is real.
>>
>> What kind of reality are these "moderators" talking about here?
>
>
> The proponent here would actually be better of creating
>alt.censorship.moderation.
No way. Don't shit it to alt hierarchy.
DISA (Defense Information Systems Agency) needs these
archives. Those dudes, analyzing the information streams
are bored as hell, chasind Saddam, Adam and all the other
"evil" dudes.
They need some fun once in a while.
I bet they'll read this group as soon, as they get
to work. Even before they have their first cop-o-coffee.
Zo...
Have mercy.
Otherwise, they may send a wrong "message" to that
man, holding his fat finger on a big red button
of nukelar [yep, thats the right spelling nowadays.
Even the highest ranks in U.S. military congress
spell it] button.
> The problem in the Big 8 is you can get proposals
>shot down with votes.
Yes, the group creation sabotage it is called.
Sabotage of the information streams.
Good.
That is what the whole excersize is all about.
To show the REAL face of your so called democracies.
> Not that many news admins honor alt.* rmgroups, but
>with this guy be able to draft this good of an RFD, he could get this NG in
>alt.* by proposing it in alt.config likely without even any of the mostly
>ignored rmgroups.
You must be some kind of a "newbie".
Do you know what it takes to create a group in alt?
Well, just post the control message and its done.
Sure, they also have their own dictators, making
fuss about these "proposals" that don't even worth
the paper they are written on.
Sure, they also want to create their own equivalent
of a totalitarian dictatorship.
Who doesn't crave for power, control, oppression
and domination nowadays?
> The justification is there in terms of daily posts on this
>topic. In fact, alt.censorship.moderation likely would be a
>high traffic NG.
>Yer doing this in the wrong patch of Usenet.
Not to worry.
Just have zome fun.
jc
Good. So you are here to do what again?
You are not here to "vote".
Are you interested in intellecutal torture then?
Its a "fun" place to hang out?
Good.
Be my guest.
>Todd McComb
>mcc...@medieval.org
>
Todd Michel McComb
>So you are here to do what again?
To address any constructive proposals for improving the results of
group moderation. If our interests do not intersect, then we can
easily cease the conversation.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
> In article <9dsnnv$npv$0...@dosa.alt.net>, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"
<rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote:
> > The problem in the Big 8 is you can get proposals
> >shot down with votes.
>
> Yes, the group creation sabotage it is called.
> Sabotage of the information streams.
>
> Good.
>
> That is what the whole excersize is all about.
>
> To show the REAL face of your so called democracies.
So, basically you *want* an open forum for discussion of censorship via
moderation shot down when you can easily have it in alt.*? This proposal is
self sabotaged.
> > Not that many news admins honor alt.* rmgroups, but
> >with this guy be able to draft this good of an RFD, he could get this NG
in
> >alt.* by proposing it in alt.config likely without even any of the mostly
> >ignored rmgroups.
>
> You must be some kind of a "newbie".
>
> Do you know what it takes to create a group in alt?
Yep. Created a couple successful alt.drugs.* NGs. Considering this topic
of censorship with NG moderation has some people passionately arguing about
it, alt.censorship.moderation would likely be a very active NG.
> Well, just post the control message and its done.
>
> Sure, they also have their own dictators, making
> fuss about these "proposals" that don't even worth
> the paper they are written on.
>
> Sure, they also want to create their own equivalent
> of a totalitarian dictatorship.
>
> Who doesn't crave for power, control, oppression
> and domination nowadays?
Actually, alt.* is mostly censorship proof. I doubt there are a material
number of news admins who would refuse to add alt.censorship.moderation if
even one customer asked for it. Are you aware that alt.* in fact was created
as a reaction to perceived censorship of Usenet. alt.drugs was created
precisely because of censorship in the managed hierarchies. This NG
absolutely belongs in alt.* Fight back against power, control, oppression
and domination nowadays
> > The justification is there in terms of daily posts on this
> >topic. In fact, alt.censorship.moderation likely would be a
> >high traffic NG.
> >Yer doing this in the wrong patch of Usenet.
>
> Not to worry.
>
> Just have zome fun.
Trolling can be fun. ;)
jc
>In article <9dspj1$16nm$3...@news.ukr.net>, jc <jc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>So you are here to do what again?
>
>To address any constructive proposals for improving the results of
>group moderation.
By doing what again?
Flapping your elefant sized ears?
What about the democracy?
How do you express your opinion?
No voting?
Just making the hissing sounds?
Nice.
> If our interests do not intersect, then we can
>easily cease the conversation.
Nice.
>Todd McComb
>mcc...@medieval.org
>
jc
>"jc" <jc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9dspfh$16nm$2...@news.ukr.net...
>> In article <9dsnnv$npv$0...@dosa.alt.net>, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"
><rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote:
>
>> > The problem in the Big 8 is you can get proposals
>> >shot down with votes.
>>
>> Yes, the group creation sabotage it is called.
>> Sabotage of the information streams.
>>
>> Good.
>>
>> That is what the whole excersize is all about.
>>
>> To show the REAL face of your so called democracies.
>
> So, basically you *want* an open forum for discussion of censorship via
>moderation shot down when you can easily have it in alt.*? This proposal is
>self sabotaged.
Slow down. The show is barely begun.
>> > Not that many news admins honor alt.* rmgroups, but
>> >with this guy be able to draft this good of an RFD, he could get this NG
>in
>> >alt.* by proposing it in alt.config likely without even any of the mostly
>> >ignored rmgroups.
>>
>> You must be some kind of a "newbie".
>>
>> Do you know what it takes to create a group in alt?
>
> Yep. Created a couple successful alt.drugs.* NGs. Considering this topic
>of censorship with NG moderation has some people passionately arguing about
>it, alt.censorship.moderation would likely be a very active NG.
Fine, go start one.
I don't mind.
Since you have all the experience required
and know how to create a successful group.
>> Well, just post the control message and its done.
>>
>> Sure, they also have their own dictators, making
>> fuss about these "proposals" that don't even worth
>> the paper they are written on.
>>
>> Sure, they also want to create their own equivalent
>> of a totalitarian dictatorship.
>>
>> Who doesn't crave for power, control, oppression
>> and domination nowadays?
>
> Actually, alt.* is mostly censorship proof. I doubt there are a material
>number of news admins who would refuse to add alt.censorship.moderation if
>even one customer asked for it. Are you aware that alt.* in fact was created
>as a reaction to perceived censorship of Usenet. alt.drugs was created
>precisely because of censorship in the managed hierarchies.
Oh, so it is not just some "evil" people that perceive
this evillest of all evil system of totalitarianism,
pretending to serve the public interests worldwide?
Good.
> This NG
>absolutely belongs in alt.* Fight back against power, control, oppression
>and domination nowadays
Fight?
Nope.
YOU fight if you want.
I am into something different.
Just don't ask what is it.