FAQ: "Rogue Sites" on the Internet
Alex Matulich 03T1
In article <5q5q94$39l$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>,
Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ric...@paranoia.com> wrote:
[editorial non-FAQ snipped]
First time I saw this, I thought it was a joke by somebody with an axe
to grind. Now, the guy is so persistent I think he may be in need o
psychological help.
Irrelevant newsgroups trimmed (well, for this so-called FAQ, they're all
irrelevant, I suppose).
--
"These are MY words, not my employer's" /|
-- Alex Matulich -- __. __=#|| ___ _o--
matu...@marlin.navsea.navy.mil ____##_/_____|==###===###____
\____________________________\
Onno Hovers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In news.admin.misc Alex Matulich 03T1 <matu...@marlin.navsea.navy.mil> wrote:
> In article <5q5q94$39l$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>,
> Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ric...@paranoia.com> wrote:
> [editorial non-FAQ snipped]
> First time I saw this, I thought it was a joke by somebody with an axe
> to grind. Now, the guy is so persistent I think he may be in need o
> psychological help.
Unfortunately, Richard Hector Gonzales is not the only kook in dire need
of psychological help. :-(
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM9P1WdFSxJxWaqlJAQHoLQQAocK35/i9CKwJQb70plFbik4M3j1ivebQ
zXHGUiI2/YgiEL+eVhq2U0os+bYJ+6eTcJsTQwpkHAGOpYwSZ0IRY9ckxa86jw6n
QcTPQLRCFNZXYpSmb4/HE9K4qeAZtSohBpom40nayL943HSrpwuzvQMMMa2ytJ/O
eszRWnZPrmI=
=jcvH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
< >-> Onno Hovers (on...@stack.nl http://www.stack.nl/~onno/)
Student physics at the University of Technology Eindhoven
A loser is someone who has lost, just like a luser is someone ...
No, I do not want ANY unsollicited bulk e-mail
Devin L. Ganger
<sneck -- Followups to nana-misc>
In news.admin.net-abuse.misc Ricardo Hector Gonzales
<ric...@primus.paranoia.com> wrote:
: Onno Hovers (on...@surfer.xs4all.nl) wrote:
: : Unfortunately, Richard Hector Gonzales is not the only kook in dire need
: : of psychological help. :-(
: Not unexpectantly, Onno Hovers is not the only person who uses ad hominem
: techniques to label people and make personal attacks instead of entering
: into a rational discussion of ideas. It looks like he's afraid he's wrong
: so he attacks people instead of talking about ideas.
While I don't condone the personal attacks, Ricardo, I think you'd have
to admit that certain individuals on *both* sides of the discussion
engage almost solely in such sort of attacks.
Why don't you give the same scolding to those whose ideas you support?
Sometimes, it can be frustrating to argue ideas with people who refuse
to allow any sort of open-mindedness at all. The most credible
response, once your discussion falls on deaf ears, is to stop repeating
yourself. Others, instead, either fall back on personal attacks,
continue the fight, or try to stand on the fence between the two and
take small potshots in the hopes of prolonging the carnage.
If you were truly interested in a rational discussion of ideas, Ricardo,
I suspect that you would have long ago applied the same standards and
expectation to *all* concerned parties and given the same sort of gentle
admonishment to Mr. Boursy and "Dr." Grubor that you just gave above.
Most of their posts are chock-full to the brim of personal attack and
seething bile.
--
Devin L. Ganger, a.k.a. The Most Arrogant Fictional Dead Man On The Net
http://www.teleport.com/~lewst/ -- The G-Files and other assorted stuff
http://www.teleport.com/~lewst/grue.html -- Join the fight against spam
All unsolicited commercial email will be billed for a $500 handling fee
Ricardo Hector Gonzales
Onno Hovers (on...@surfer.xs4all.nl) wrote:
: Unfortunately, Richard Hector Gonzales is not the only kook in dire need
: of psychological help. :-(
Not unexpectantly, Onno Hovers is not the only person who uses ad hominem
techniques to label people and make personal attacks instead of entering
into a rational discussion of ideas. It looks like he's afraid he's wrong
so he attacks people instead of talking about ideas.
-Ric G.
Official FAQ Maintainer - news.admin hierarchy
"Of all the sins with which a man defiles himself in this world, this is the
sin with which he is most defiled." - M Shabbat 2:6
Peter da Silva
In article <5r3aaf$rg6$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>,
>techniques to label people and make personal attacks instead of entering
>into a rational discussion of ideas. It looks like he's afraid he's wrong
>so he attacks people instead of talking about ideas.
Your post is off topic for news.admin.misc. Please try not to let folks
draw you into irrelevant side issues like this. It does nothing good for
your reputation.
Were you aware that some people even go so far as to deliberately post
messages they know will generate this sort of irrelevant discussion in
order to disrupt newsgroups and reduce the viability of the network? This
sort of net-abuse can't be readily dealt with using the tools that have
unfortunately become standard, but the best you can do is ignore it.
I hope that in the future you will see the wisdom of this approach.
--
Thought for the day:
According to Eileen Harrington of the FTC, out of 283 pieces of spam
received in FTC email in one week, only two were clearly not fraudulent.
If you're a legitimate business, is this the company you want to keep?
Neil Pawson
Ricardo Hector Gonzales wrote:
<snik>
> Not unexpectantly, Onno Hovers is not the only person who uses ad hominem
> techniques to label people and make personal attacks instead of entering
> into a rational discussion of ideas. It looks like he's afraid he's wrong
> so he attacks people instead of talking about ideas.
I'm sorry, could you please post this article again. My newsreader
appears to have deleted your ideas leaving only your personal attack
on Onno Hovers.
--
Yours Virtually,
Neil Pawson I've already told you more than I know - PHB (Dilbert)
.-- .- ... .. - .-- --- .-. - .... - .... . . ..-. ..-. --- .-. - ..--..
Ricardo Hector Gonzales
Peter da Silva (pe...@taronga.com) wrote:
: In article <5r3aaf$rg6$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>,: >Not unexpectantly, Onno Hovers is not the only person who uses ad hominem
: >techniques to label people and make personal attacks instead of entering
: >into a rational discussion of ideas. It looks like he's afraid he's wrong
: >so he attacks people instead of talking about ideas.
: Your post is off topic for news.admin.misc. Please try not to let folks
: draw you into irrelevant side issues like this. It does nothing good for
: your reputation.
:
: Were you aware that some people even go so far as to deliberately post
: messages they know will generate this sort of irrelevant discussion in
: order to disrupt newsgroups and reduce the viability of the network? This
: sort of net-abuse can't be readily dealt with using the tools that have
: unfortunately become standard, but the best you can do is ignore it.
:
: I hope that in the future you will see the wisdom of this approach.
Indeed I do and I thank you for your advice. Would it be possible for
you to remind others when they are guilty of transgressing boundaries?
If you could follow up all posts in this newsgroup that are off topic it
would not only be a useful service, it would also exactly double the
number of posts here!
Peter da Silva
In article <5r5hed$a8l$2...@usenet76.supernews.com>,
Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ric...@primus.paranoia.com> wrote:
>Indeed I do and I thank you for your advice. Would it be possible for
>you to remind others when they are guilty of transgressing boundaries?
I have, frequently, even for people who have been accused of membership
in this imaginary "Cabal" of yours. Is there something wrong with your
news feed? It seems to be remarkably selective.
Generally I only bother when someone has been particularly off-topic or
hypocritical, for example during the "let's bash Steve Boursy's picture"
flame fest... or when you decide that you're going to play net-cop again.
But it doesn't matter what "side" someone's on. If it seems my commentary
has been unbalanced, it's just a problem with your perceptions.
I'm surprised, though, that someone as concerned as you seem to be with
keeping the discussin on-topic would have ignored the meat of my message
to concentrate on the side-comments with which I lead in to the main part
of the thesis. If you have any thoughts on the relevant sections of my
message I would really enjoy hearing them.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Onno Hovers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In news.admin.misc Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ric...@primus.paranoia.com> wrote:
> Onno Hovers (on...@surfer.xs4all.nl) wrote:
> : Unfortunately, Richard Hector Gonzales is not the only kook in dire need
> : of psychological help. :-(
> Not unexpectantly, Onno Hovers is not the only person who uses ad hominem
> techniques to label people and make personal attacks instead of entering
> into a rational discussion of ideas. It looks like he's afraid he's wrong
> so he attacks people instead of talking about ideas.
Sensible discussions about what? That all of usenet (or even all of the
internet) has to read and pay for all those spams? Discussions about
how people that select postings or even newsgroups for their readership
are censors?
If you want to be a real freedom knight, then you should create a place
on usenet where you can have your absolute freedom. Call it free.*
or uncensored.*, or whatever. But please leave us, the people that
want to read unspammed news, or even selected news alone.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM9ekodFSxJxWaqlJAQH46gP/ZJLERcFDlRMD57H6k9RC3QxnF6AOnZFK
HYjOJZopdB+9M47OdcUkX4gY0UQN25/8h4vnKGGj2LxrgEAvvMqmVI1ROg0x7FK5
9Mifj9j8yyJWZS8Fbx/Idomoqrs2trJBPoG88kD7SZk4w7ppWotuGs5MtVaG3aGu
Dj1VyF73INc=
=qSSU
J Durbin
Onno Hovers <on...@surfer.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>In news.admin.misc Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ric...@primus.paranoia.com> wrote:
>> Not unexpectantly, Onno Hovers is not the only person who uses ad hominem
>> techniques to label people and make personal attacks instead of entering
>> into a rational discussion of ideas. It looks like he's afraid he's wrong
>> so he attacks people instead of talking about ideas.
>
>Sensible discussions about what? That all of usenet (or even all of the
>internet) has to read and pay for all those spams? Discussions about
>how people that select postings or even newsgroups for their readership
>are censors?
>
>If you want to be a real freedom knight, then you should create a place
>on usenet where you can have your absolute freedom. Call it free.*
>or uncensored.*, or whatever. But please leave us, the people that
>want to read unspammed news, or even selected news alone.
No. You see, that would require effort on the part of Ric and his
cohorts and would allow others not to toe Ric's party line.
That of course is unacceptable.
jd
--
jason durbin
slot...@poisson.com
stop reading here <---
Kevin Podsiadlik
In article <5r88b6$7...@s.surfer.xs4all.nl>, on...@stack.nl wrote:
>If you want to be a real freedom knight, then you should create a place
>on usenet where you can have your absolute freedom. Call it free.*
>or uncensored.*, or whatever. But please leave us, the people that
>want to read unspammed news, or even selected news alone.
Oh, but you see, if he tried to do that, the Big Bad Cabal (tinc) would
get him kicked off his account! At least that's what he's said the last
half dozen times someone suggested that to him.
Ric's the Usenet equivalent of the professional victim. Complains
without end about his situation, but won't do thing one to actually
change it. In his spare time (since people willing to play that game
with him are in short supply), he plays imP's game, pretending that
Grubor and Boursy are fine upstanding citizens inexplicably receiving
the scorn of a legion of rabid Netters.
At least Ric's dropped the Jew/goyim gig. That was beneath contempt.
--
Kevin Podsiadlik (or, just "KJP")
"Oh, brother, like a Zippo lighter without any flint...!"
-- Crow T. Robot
Peter da Silva
In article <5r8tqu$ska$2...@usenet76.supernews.com>,> I never claimed to be a Freedom Knight. I just don't want people like
> you to censor news because you don't think a particular article is
> appropriate.
Ah, and to do that you engage in a one-sided war of personal attacks and
deception, complaining about off-topic messages but *only* when they're
made by the members of this imaginary cabal of yours.
Most noble of you.
> I also don't want power takeovers of hierarchies
Then I wish you'd do something about the folks who've *already* taken over
most of the groups in news.admin by sheer volume of messages. Or do takeovers
only count if they're done by people you disagree with?
Oddly, these people seem upset that the regulars they chased out have gone.
A couple have been stalking me, for example, in completely different
hierarchies.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
Michael Martinez
In article <5r8tqu$ska$2...@usenet76.supernews.com>, ric...@primus.paranoia.com (Ricardo Hector Gonzales) wrote:
>I never claimed to be a Freedom Knight. I just don't want people like
>you to censor news because you don't think a particular article is
>at the klan of moderators in teh news hierarchy for example).
>
>-Ric G.
>Official FAQ Maintainer - news.admin hierarchy
And just exactly who made you "Official FAQ Maintainer" for the news.admin
hierarchy O "I also don't power takeovers of hierarchies"?
Time to change your .sig to something more truthful, don't you think?
And please quit cross-posting your nonsense all over the Usenet (sci.meow?
Give us a break!). You're acting like a full-fledged, bona fide member of the
(Kook) cabal.
Oh -- you ARE one. Sorry.
Forgot about that while you were sensibly discussing things.
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
|| v ||ichael Martinez (mma...@basis.com)
++ ++------------------------------------------------------
Decklin Foster
Quoth ric...@primus.paranoia.com (Ricardo Hector Gonzales):
>Not unexpectantly, Onno Hovers is not the only person who uses ad hominem
>techniques to label people (...)
I think you meant, "unexpectedly".
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva):
Devin L. Ganger
In news.admin.net-abuse.misc Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
: Peter da Silva wrote:
: > Ah, and to do that you engage in a one-sided war of personal attacks and
: > deception, complaining about off-topic messages but *only* when they're
: > made by the members of this imaginary cabal of yours.
: That's a personal attack, Peter.
How is what Peter said a "personal attack?" A simple search through
DejaNews, or even your recent news spool, will start to clearly document
the behavior that Peter is pointing out: namely, that Ricardo ignores
the worst excesses from your "freedom Knights" of the fvery same sort
that he vehemently condemns others, whom he perceives to be enemies of
the forementioned group (and has stated in the past are members of this
"cabal"), for engaging in.
At the same time, a quick search will reveal that Peter is not engaged
in idly lobbing stones from glass houses; he has on many occasionas in
the past, and I am sure will again in the future, publicly admonished
so-called "cabal" members for their tactics and postings.
If there are going to be standards, they need to be applied fairly and
across the board. Ricardo, unfortunately, does not appear to have a
grasp on that concept, as I well know from even my own, to-this-date
limited personal interaction with him. He's stated quite clearly that
he holds quite different standards of behavior for "goyim" and Jews (by
birth or conversion).
: You cannot "take over" a newsgroup with volume. You can do this with
: moderation, which is what you Cabal (TISACSMF) people want.
Go explain that to people who don't use certain newsgroups anymore
because of the high volume of non-topic messages. Taking over a
newsgroup is *not* necessarily about *overt* control, Mr. Hayes, and I
suspect that you're quite well aware of that.
When I first read your FAQ, I was impressed with some of your ideas;
however, your execution of said ideas leaves you and your so-called
Freedom Knights, unfortunately, looking like terrorists and criminals.
You abuse the very people that you are loudly proclaiming your wish to
fight for, and your practice of your "freedoms" makes it nigh-impossible
for any others to do so reasonably.
Are your ideals so important that they're worth losing the moral high
ground over? That's what you've done, with the help of Boursy, Grubor,
Ricardo, and various other self-appointed guardians of *my* freedom.
There's a reason that public opinion is largely in support of
third-party cancels, moderation, and other methods of external control,
Mr. Hayes -- thanks to the fact that your associates and fellow "Freedom
Knights" have shown themselves completely incapable or unwilling of any
sort of *internal* control.
There is no freedom that comes without a tandem responsibility to
practice self-control and self-moderation of the pursuit of that
freedom, Mr. Hayes. Unfortunately, if such self-control will not be
wielded, then the next best alternative is external controls. Peter,
Chris Lewis, Tim Skirvin, and others have publicly stated that they do
not *want* to have to exercise control over irresponsible net denizens.
They'd *love* it if people could resolve their differences of opinion
without the need for outside intervention. However, as long as you have
people who continue to insist that *their* way is best, without any
consideration of other ways, without any meeting in the middle or
willingness to bend on details while staying firm on principles, without
staying responsible and accountable to themselves and others, then there
will continue to be a need for other people to clean up the collective
chins and snotty noses of NetNews.
: Won't you ever learn Peter Da Silva?
Won't you ever learn, Mr. Hayes?
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Dave Hayes wrote:
> You cannot "take over" a newsgroup with volume.
Of course you can--and your failure to recognize this makes you an
unwitting helper of a different and dangerous brand of censorship (Now you
know why I got into spam cancelling). Saturate a newsgroup with enough
posts and, unchallenged, you can cause other posts to be *deleted* and,
for many newsgroup readers, cease to exist. The problem with your concept
of "True Free Speech" is that it demands only the bounds of infinity--and
we have less of that in terms of disk space.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM+doW5yiGl9g1kgJAQFG1AP9EkIj51UMNbvXsud/Ns/duynY4dYkleaD
oQvmYcHMaFzxwQwQBk+2LXsjCYPTavPJ0CWSGwshraOnTGlPApHpMH3YWGqc5FyL
Z4Tki0cjBIEi3fksfAS8FkthsEoMNDlRqBApcL665j5+Azu4rgTL7W27EvahoEcJ
oN2M073DrkQ=
=mvam
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <5s80rk$j9j$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
Matt Dillon <dil...@flea.best.net> wrote:
> The only avenue of escape for the anarchist, then, is to attempt to
> create their own network. We are hearing noises about 'free.*' now.
> Gee, remember how alt.* got started? Wanna guess what's going to
> happen to free.* ? ...
Indeed. There are already alt.* newsgroups that are open to
virtually any kind of post. But spammers want to use newsgroups
*inappropriate* to their posts, because those are the ones people
actually read. People read them because they *currently* have an
adequate ratio of *appropriate* posts. Once that ends, so does
the participation. Thus, spammers destroy what they need.
(Which doesn't bother them, as long as they are one of the ones
to exploit it early, or as long as others pick up the cost.)
Russell
--
An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that
there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that
the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence
on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
Fluffy(R)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
{Kindly note the requested Followups.}
Onno Hovers <on...@surfer.xs4all.nl> wrote:
{chomp}
> Talking about restricting free speech and censorship is always a slippery
> slope. People should at least be able to give eachother the information
> they want or need. The problem with spammers and advertisers is, that
> these people are trying to force information, I (and many others) do
> not want, into my throat.
Indeed. Since it seems to be America's Consitution that is usually
mentioned in these Arguments, Fluffy often wonders why another Liberty
offered in that First Amendment -- to Peaceably Assemble -- is so
frequently overlooked. Notice that Riots and Like Disturbances are
*not* protected.
Spam is an Attempt to disrupt the Peaceable Assembly that is a
Newsgroup. Spam Deletion is an Attempt to maintain those Assemblies, by
ejecting those who would willfully interfere with them.
So, which Liberty is the more important? The Answer, of Course, is that
the Two must be Balanced. Do not underestimate the Importance of
protecting those Assemblies. Without them, of what Use is that Freedom
to Express Ideas? To Meow to No One is to not Meow.
Mw.,
F.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM+eW2sbziQAzdTzZAQGDrAQAmcCRKbrgcuz4jupPZfozvyNKbrK8cRr+
GmurFkApZhwTnu6ACysEzYejAq//D462gMXpe4KWRWB7jKIoYE1NInREGxDEWd9x
oNB680VR+/8+oNc1qd0qTmV9gIeN1KpYtFShfyIr8RMIF3+U3Xl8z8cTImDiBDRC
9miQWXII7yc=
=06cA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rahul Dhesi
In <5s80rk$j9j$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com> dil...@flea.best.net (Matt Dillon)
writes:
> There are a lot of people in this world who mistakenly equate anarchy
> with freedom, and many more who mistakenly equate rules (of any sort)
> with a loss of freedom.
...
> The only avenue of escape for the anarchist, then, is to attempt to
> create their own network.
I agree with everything else that you said, but not with your
terminology. The term you are looking for is "fascist", i.e., one who
believes that his rights prevail over the rights of others.
An "anarchist" simply believes in not having a government by fiat, not
necessarily in having the unlimited right to violate others. There are
not many good examples of working anarchies, but in the history of the
USA, the short years of the much-romanticized wild west came close. So
does today's Usenet.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
a2i communications, a quality ISP with sophisticated anti-junkmail features
** message body scan immune to fake headers *** see http://www.rahul.net/
Vernon Schryver
In article <5s89on$4...@samba.rahul.net>,
Rahul Dhesi <c.c....@60.usenet.us.com> wrote:
> ...
>I agree with everything else that you said, but not with your
>terminology. The term you are looking for is "fascist", i.e., one who
>believes that his rights prevail over the rights of others.
> ...
Please don't contribute to the delution of the language, and check a
dictionary. Perhaps most fascits fit your description, but there are
many who fit your description and are not fascists. Despot, monarch,
dictator, oligarch, terrorist, patriot, freedom fighter, communist, and
fascist are not synonyms.
Or were you just evoking (not invoking) Godwin's Law?
Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com
Dave Hayes
Peter da Silva wrote:
> Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ric...@primus.paranoia.com> wrote:
> > I never claimed to be a Freedom Knight. I just don't want people like
> > you to censor news because you don't think a particular article is
> > appropriate.
> deception, complaining about off-topic messages but *only* when they're
> made by the members of this imaginary cabal of yours.
That's a personal attack, Peter.
> Then I wish you'd do something about the folks who've *already* taken over
> most of the groups in news.admin by sheer volume of messages. Or do takeovers
> only count if they're done by people you disagree with?
You cannot "take over" a newsgroup with volume. You can do this with moderation,
which is what you Cabal (TISACSMF) people want.
Won't you ever learn Peter Da Silva?
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
A cat and a dog were fighting. A man asked them what they were doing.
They said: "The winner will decide which of us is a rat."
"You are both wrong," said the man.
So they set upon him and put him to flight.
Dave Hayes
Onno Hovers wrote:
> In news.admin.misc Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ric...@primus.paranoia.com> wrote:
> > Onno Hovers (on...@surfer.xs4all.nl) wrote:
> > : Unfortunately, Richard Hector Gonzales is not the only kook in dire need
> > : of psychological help. :-(
> > into a rational discussion of ideas. It looks like he's afraid he's wrong
> > so he attacks people instead of talking about ideas.
> Sensible discussions about what? That all of usenet (or even all of the
> internet) has to read and pay for all those spams?
They have to read and pay for your postings too. Shall we discuss their
value to the majority of the public?
> If you want to be a real freedom knight, then you should create a place
> on usenet where you can have your absolute freedom. Call it free.*
> or uncensored.*, or whatever. But please leave us, the people that
> want to read unspammed news, or even selected news alone.
Ahem. If you want to be a real Freedom Knight, read my FAQ. And that
free.* hierarchy is a damn good idea.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Till we lose ourselves there is no hope of finding ourselves. --Henry Miller
Matt Dillon
There are a lot of people in this world who mistakenly equate anarchy
with freedom, and many more who mistakenly equate rules (of any sort)
the USENET is simply due to the global nature of the USENET. It's like
having each person on the USENET get the entire world's supply of
street corner speeches all at once. Very different from your normal
street corner speech which is only limited to people within shouting
distance.
There is a good reason why such people are in the minority and
very, very rarely given administrative control over a medium. It's
really simple: they self-destruct whatever they touch. In their quest
for 'freedom' they lose sight of the fact that a single person exercising
what he believes is his god given right to do whatever the hell he pleases
inteferes with other people's belief that THEY have the god given
right to do whatever the hell they please. Such people also mistakenly
believe that small-group social dynamics scale to larger groups. This
does not work simply due to the fact that a *single* person can screw up
a hundred or a thousand other people's lives, and in a large group you
will, statistically, always have a couple such people. The result is
chaos, of course.
Freedom is a two way street, and so is the USENET. If you abuse your
freedom on the USENET, counter forces will always appear when the rest
of the people assert THEIR freedom to wall themselves off from you.
There is no cabal and there is no state... the seeds of your
destruction may come from your own womb, so to speak.
It is vastly amusing to me that the very people who yell and scream that
their free-speech rights are being violated are the same people who
believe that their ability to do whatever they want is more important then
anyone else's ability to do whatever THEY want. Without rules to govern,
they become their own worst enemies.
This whole SPAM and SPAM-CANCEL war is an excellent example of the
problem. It is almost a self-governing problem because, ultimately,
the spammers are getting their asses shot off by the admins and spam
cancellers. Very little actual spam makes it to my newsreader boxes :-)
The only avenue of escape for the anarchist, then, is to attempt to
create their own network. We are hearing noises about 'free.*' now.
Gee, remember how alt.* got started? Wanna guess what's going to
happen to free.* ? Ultimately, the anarachists may indeed wind up
creating their own network free of all rules... but I can tell what
form it will take. It will take the form of a few disparate 'private'
networks containing limited numbers of people. Anything larger and
those dreaded 'rules' will start to squirt in to keep the system
from falling apart and then it wouldn't be 'free', now would it!
-Matt
Stan Kalisch III
Original message cancelled by rogue, unidentified canceller.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Dave Hayes wrote:
> You cannot "take over" a newsgroup with volume.
Of course you can--and your failure to recognize this makes you an
Dave Hayes
Onno Hovers wrote:
> in news.admin.misc Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> > Onno Hovers wrote:
> > [...]
> > Ahem. If you want to be a real Freedom Knight, read my FAQ. And that
> > free.* hierarchy is a damn good idea.
> > --
> > Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
> > >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
> > Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Imagine that.
> Many constitutions throughout the world have a chapter about free speech.
> Most of these laws 'guaranteeing' free speech are nothing more than a joke.
I agree with you there.
> There are laws about copyright, trade secrets, libel, socalled racism,
> pornography, fraud, advertising, advocating crimes, insulting religions,
> and insulting the queen in the Netherlands. And the U.S. also has a lot
> of laws telling you what you may (or may not) say (or write).
None of which do I agree with. But that's outside the scope of Usenet,
where I would like to see True Free Speech practiced by everyone.
> I think it is not censorship when my law tells me, that I may not use
> a 35.000 Watt amplifier to put the sound of my opinions into every home
> in my town. Spam or binaries are the usenet equivalent of such a 35.000
> Watt amplifier.
This is a common analogy with the same flaw. Usenet is not every home
in your town. You cannot use a megaphone here, because of the fact that
you have to select messages to read. Megaphones work regardless of what
you are doing, but to see Spam you have to actually open a news reader.
> But I think it's outragious that I may not publish secret documents of the
> Church of Scientology that prove how fraudulent they are.
Isn't this a double standard? Certainly the CoS does not want you to have
that kind of free speech. Why is free speech ok for this case and not
for the case of spam?
-----
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Imagination is not a talent of some men, but it is the health of every man
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Dave Hayes wrote:
> > But I think it's outragious that I may not publish secret documents of the
> > Church of Scientology that prove how fraudulent they are.
>
<...> Certainly the CoS does not want you to have that kind of free speech.
Indeed. And the CoS has almost certainly used spam as a form of
censorship in the past to accomplish that end.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM+lm3ZyiGl9g1kgJAQE79AQAqv/B3t1f6wcr/CYhWaYKuvI1mERSQjsw
dTrh0Ne571SSZYBnOglSCLVa3mcGQnt8IM+ivC6zdzfbbQakJRmMuaI0tS3ChDb7
gFS8tg2SlJJ3ECsV5ZlvEiHZArbptI0SiRC/e6DpmMn0CN+bT+0AL0e8AGtMgy0C
HGIHivMZorM=
=P9um
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Onno Hovers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> > I think it is not censorship when my law tells me, that I may not use
> > a 35.000 Watt amplifier to put the sound of my opinions into every home
> > in my town. Spam or binaries are the usenet equivalent of such a 35.000
> > Watt amplifier.
> This is a common analogy with the same flaw. Usenet is not every home
> in your town. You cannot use a megaphone here, because of the fact that
> you have to select messages to read. Megaphones work regardless of what
> you are doing, but to see Spam you have to actually open a news reader.
Tell my UUCP newsfeed to leave out the spam. I am pretty gratefull for the
spamcancellers, that they can cancel 80% of the spam before it get's into
my newsfeed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM+p1Nsdk30GRiZppAQEp5AP+Me0DsRLclS+Zv+QzMauDs8lFQRjULh5Z
ovPxt2gSAQmV8bjSvvRvrMMAcMqT8NqOX0HGZE6ZyswZs6RPNcpO2lsgZ1/2y2bp
F9EEgnKKE7N1YQMNz3ma6+aA0iEb2NuEbP3M+jIUaOBRbYrhx8h3fpZg298UcUoP
eLzZ/bKUSX4=
=tved
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
< >-> Onno Hovers (on...@stack.nl http://www.stack.nl/~onno/)
Student physics at the University of Technology Eindhoven
Don Porter
In article <5s89on$4...@samba.rahul.net>,
c.c....@60.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
>There arenot many good examples of working anarchies, but in the history of the
>USA, the short years of the much-romanticized wild west came close. So
>does today's Usenet.
I dunno, Rahul. I thought the Jimmy Carter years also came pretty close, at
least within his administration. <g>
Chris Westbury
Nice to have you back, Mr. Hayes!
In article <33E983F1...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>
> No one has the power to control what another person can filter out.
> You can put 100,000 spams and 1 message in a group, and I bet I can
> find that 1 message.
Of course you _can_, but who would _want_ to?
The point is, I could too, but I don't have the time, and neither does
anyone else, so there is never going to be a second message in that
newsgroup. So Usenet loses. So everybody loses, even the spammers,
though they don't lose enough to make them stop.
Were I ever to attain your advanced state of enlightenment, I am sure I
could "enjoy" a meal in a dining hall during a food fight. However, as
it is, I would simply eat somewhere else. Furthermore, I think that
ignoring an ongoing food fight instead of seeking more peaceful
surroundings is a character flaw, not an accomplishment to be cultivated.
I think you are concentrating too much on the "free" part of "free
speech" and are not giving the "speech" part its due. If you don't say
anything, it may be "free" but it's not "speech". Those 100,000 spams
are no more "free speech" because they use words and they are in a
newsgroup than food fights are "dining" because they use food and they
take place in a dining hall.
--
Christopher Westbury, Midtown Associates, 15 Fallon Place, Cambridge, MA 02138
Peter da Silva
In article <33E6FFED...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>> > you to censor news because you don't think a particular article is
>> > appropriate.
>> Ah, and to do that you engage in a one-sided war of personal attacks and
>> deception, complaining about off-topic messages but *only* when they're
>> made by the members of this imaginary cabal of yours.
>That's a personal attack, Peter.
It's an on-topic response, and it's not part of a one-sided war of
deception. You are perfectly well aware that I have upbraided people
in this imaginary Cabal you're talking about when they've engaged in
similar tactics. Please don't dishonor yourself with arguments you know
to be deliberately misleading like this one.
>You cannot "take over" a newsgroup with volume.
Go tell that to the Church of Scientology.
>Won't you ever learn Peter Da Silva?
Please spell my name correctly.
Dave Hayes
Chris Westbury wrote:
> Nice to have you back, Mr. Hayes!
Thank you. It's actually nice to be back...I missed my continual lessons
on tolerance, human nature, and communications. ;)
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> > No one has the power to control what another person can filter out.
> > You can put 100,000 spams and 1 message in a group, and I bet I can
> > find that 1 message.
> Of course you _can_, but who would _want_ to?
Hey, I wouldn't want to either.
> The point is, I could too, but I don't have the time, and neither does
> anyone else, so there is never going to be a second message in that
> newsgroup. So Usenet loses. So everybody loses, even the spammers,
> though they don't lose enough to make them stop.
Granted that this happens. The point I keep making is, regardless of what
we want our convienences to be, one free speech transgression and we might
as well make censors out of all of us. I feel it is worth it to take the
pain of searching through 100K messages than to endure the dishonor of
-one- message being cancelled out of content.
> Were I ever to attain your advanced state of enlightenment, I am sure I
> could "enjoy" a meal in a dining hall during a food fight. However, as
> it is, I would simply eat somewhere else. F
Neither am I so enlightened that I wouldn't participate in the food fight either.
Perhaps when I can let go of more of my desires... ;-)
> Furthermore, I think that
> ignoring an ongoing food fight instead of seeking more peaceful
> surroundings is a character flaw, not an accomplishment to be cultivated.
Hmm. I suppose, then, you would need to be in a food fight until you
-could- ignore it instead of seeking more peaceful surroudings.
This presumes you are seeking enlightement, of course.
> I think you are concentrating too much on the "free" part of "free
> speech" and are not giving the "speech" part its due. If you don't say
> anything, it may be "free" but it's not "speech". Those 100,000 spams
> are no more "free speech" because they use words and they are in a
> newsgroup than food fights are "dining" because they use food and they
> take place in a dining hall.
Are you applying a standard of what is and is not appropriate content here?
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Unless you alone become enough, nothing will be enough for you.
Dave Hayes
Peter da Silva wrote:
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >Peter da Silva wrote:
> >> Ricardo Hector Gonzales <ric...@primus.paranoia.com> wrote:
> >> > I never claimed to be a Freedom Knight. I just don't want people like
> >> > you to censor news because you don't think a particular article is
> >> > appropriate.
> >> Ah, and to do that you engage in a one-sided war of personal attacks and
> >> deception, complaining about off-topic messages but *only* when they're
> >> made by the members of this imaginary cabal of yours.
> >That's a personal attack, Peter.
> It's an on-topic response,
But still an attack.
> and it's not part of a one-sided war of deception.
How would I know this, since your intent has been to deceive? You have attempted
this with me in the past, after all.
> You are perfectly well aware that I have upbraided people
> in this imaginary Cabal you're talking about when they've engaged in
> similar tactics.
Where? And if it is imaginary, then aren't the upbraids in the same class?
> >You cannot "take over" a newsgroup with volume.
> Go tell that to the Church of Scientology.
I simply cannot speak to an entire Church at once, I'd cause a riot.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving and
that's your own self.
Kevin Podsiadlik
>Peter da Silva wrote:
>> >That's a personal attack, Peter.
>> It's an on-topic response,
>
>But still an attack.
Is there some law that says Peter must be on defense?
>> and it's not part of a one-sided war of deception.
>
>How would I know this, since your intent has been to deceive? You have
attempted
>this with me in the past, after all.
>
>> You are perfectly well aware that I have upbraided people
>> in this imaginary Cabal you're talking about when they've engaged in
>> similar tactics.
>
>Where? And if it is imaginary, then aren't the upbraids in the same class?
Dave, don't be dense. Peter obviously means the people you accuse of
being part of The Reisno Cabal.
>> >You cannot "take over" a newsgroup with volume.
>> Go tell that to the Church of Scientology.
>
>I simply cannot speak to an entire Church at once, I'd cause a riot.
Really? I thought you didn't have a problem with causing riots with speech.
But again, you're either ignorant or being obtuse again. The CoS attempted,
with at least temporary success, to completely shut down the newsgroup
alt.religion.scientology by article-bombing. Just four weeks ago these
very newsgroups (excepting news.groups) were briefly shut down in a similar
fashion. Had it been up to you, I imagine these newsgroups would still be
asking if "Literature Is Good For Your Soul".
--
Kevin Podsiadlik (or, just "KJP")
"Tell me, why is it so hard to see
If he's really a man, or just a tree?"
-- "Al Gore Paradise"
Devin L. Ganger
In news.admin.net-abuse.misc Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
: > How is what Peter said a "personal attack?"
: Simple. I define it to be. And if that's not good enough, then neither
: is it good enough for Peter da Silva to claim .
Ah, so you redefine the terms until they mean what you want.
However, all it takes is a look back on some of Ricardo's recent
postings to find out that Peter is not making baseless accusations. He
*is* stating the facts. Perhaps you missed some of these postings
during your recent absence?
: > the behavior that Peter is pointing out: namely, that Ricardo ignores
: > the worst excesses from your "freedom Knights"
: Om. They are not -my- freedom knights. Om. <repeat as needed until you
: get it>
Considering the fact that this is our first conversation, that might
have come across a bit snide and rude -- hardly a compelling point for
your argument. However, given that you seem to be discussing in good
faith and avoiding personal abuse, I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt.
The "your" was associative, not possessive, Mr. Hayes.
: > If there are going to be standards, they need to be applied fairly and
: > across the board.
: You don't do that, by the above label of "personal attacks". Why start now?
If Peter starts making comments at other posters that are personal in
nature and not productive to the topic at hand, that are unrelated to
the issue that he's been discussing, and that are completely baseless or
an attempt to shift the discussion away from an argument he cannot back
through facts, logic, and dialogue, then I'll label it a personal attack
and castigate him just as much as I do Ricardo when *he* indulges in it.
However, Ricardo should *know* better, since he purportedly holds dear
the concept of True Free Speech. True Free Speech hardly gives the
faithful practitioner the license to attempt to censure others for *any*
words they speak, yet Ricardo, Boursy, Grubor, and others who supposedly
claim to believe as you do have time and time again spoken out that they
would, if they had the power, silence those who disagree with them.
It would seem that your disciples have much to learn. Perhaps a
(re)boot to the head is in order? :)
: > Go explain that to people who don't use certain newsgroups anymore
: > because of the high volume of non-topic messages. Taking over a
: > newsgroup is *not* necessarily about *overt* control, Mr. Hayes, and I
: > suspect that you're quite well aware of that.
: Nope. No one has the power to control what another person can filter out.
Filtering is a reaction, *not* an action -- it is *precisely* an attempt
to *regain* some control that the person who posts the messages that
require such filtering initially has taken away.
: You can put 100,000 spams and 1 message in a group, and I bet I can
: find that 1 message.
Well, now, that would depend on the size of those spams, the amount of
free space on that news spool, the expire policies, and whether or not
that message was on-topic in the given group, if the group in question
happened to be moderated. Don't forget your choice of news spool,
because not all news servers are created equal. Not all news admins
have the budget to support oodles of free HD space, or the bandwidth to
transfer it, or the CPU power to process it.
100,000 spams on any one group in any period less than a week would
probably obliterate that one single message before most people waded
through the noise. Don't be so deliberately obtuse about the technical
side of the disucssion, Dave -- you're smarter than that.
: You did not read my FAQ or you wouldn't be making references to my
: ownership of a non-existant organization. I suggest you reread the
: FAQ, leaving your impressions aside since those emotions will interfere
: with your perception of the knowledge within. Then come back and
: attempt to debate me.
I had no such impressions when I first read your FAQ. And for you to
imply that I am a liar ("You did not read my FAQ...") because of my use
of the word "your" in a perfectly valid associative, rather than
possessive, sense (I wish you *did* own them, Dave, because they'd be
much more pleasant to share the Net with) makes it appear that you are
again being willfully obtuse, trying to pick a fight, or so eager for
implied insult that you are incapable of reading dissenting views
without seeing what you *want* to be there.
I read your FAQ and I rejected your ideas because, whether you like it
or not, no one human being is completely and utterly unfettered. Rights
don't come without responsibilities, and the refusal of the latter can
and *should* result in the denial of the former, for the good of the
individual *and* society.
: You are absolutely correct in your assessment of the Cabal of Usenet.
Just as I am absolutely correct in my assessment of the Freedom Knights.
The difference is, the Cabal at least admits that they're not being
open-minded. They also acknowledge that, at some point, you can't be
open-minded without being more destructive than it's worth.
: Note that you are insisting that your way is best, not properly considering
: other ways, not meeting in the middle, and not being responsibile enough
: to attempt to communicate before posturing. I suggest that you read your
: post to yourself, in front of a mirror, and see if you cannot see your
: own irony.
Your failure to consider that I *have* considered your alternatives,
tried to meet in the middle, attempted communication that was rebuffed,
and eventually come to my own decision of what the best was, merely
because of the fact that my definition of "best" disagrees with *yours*,
is precisely what I was writing about.
: All I ever do is learn. Thank you for the demonstration of the fallibility
: of human nature.
Ah, yes, that rancid taste of smug superiority. No matter how hard you
try to climb out of the middens of humanity, Dave, you're right in here
with the rest of us and still subject to the same hubris and arrogance
that we all have. The sooner you learn to admit it, the better off
you'll be.
Dave Hayes
Kevin Podsiadlik wrote:
> Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >Peter da Silva wrote:
> >> You are perfectly well aware that I have upbraided people
> >> in this imaginary Cabal you're talking about when they've engaged in
> >> similar tactics.
> >Where? And if it is imaginary, then aren't the upbraids in the same class?
> Dave, don't be dense.
Gee, another attempt to win a point by appealing to my ego. This doesn't
work anymore, so you might as well cease.
> Peter obviously means the people you accuse of being part of The Reisno Cabal.
I was referring to the Reisoa Cabal, actually.
> >> >You cannot "take over" a newsgroup with volume.
> >> Go tell that to the Church of Scientology.
> >
> >I simply cannot speak to an entire Church at once, I'd cause a riot.
> Really? I thought you didn't have a problem with causing riots with speech.
Just because I am free to do something does not mean I will choose to do
something.
> But again, you're either ignorant or being obtuse again. The CoS attempted,
> with at least temporary success, to completely shut down the newsgroup
> alt.religion.scientology by article-bombing. Just four weeks ago these
> very newsgroups (excepting news.groups) were briefly shut down in a similar
> fashion. Had it been up to you, I imagine these newsgroups would still be
> asking if "Literature Is Good For Your Soul".
Ya know, I saw those actually. They didn't affect my re-entrance here, so
I didn't consider that they shut down these groups.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Nasrudin walked into a teahouse and declaimed, "The moon is more useful
than the sun." "Why?", he was asked. "Because at night we need the
light more."
Dave Hayes
Devin L. Ganger attempted to pontificate:
> In news.admin.net-abuse.misc Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> : > How is what Peter said a "personal attack?"
> : Simple. I define it to be. And if that's not good enough, then neither
> : is it good enough for Peter da Silva to claim .
> Ah, so you redefine the terms until they mean what you want.
As an approach to communication, this is valid enough when
there aren't words for what you want to say.
> However, all it takes is a look back on some of Ricardo's recent
> postings to find out that Peter is not making baseless accusations. He
> *is* stating the facts. Perhaps you missed some of these postings
> during your recent absence?
Facts, Sir, do not always come from postings. People can and will post
anything.
> : > the behavior that Peter is pointing out: namely, that Ricardo ignores
> : > the worst excesses from your "freedom Knights"
>
> : Om. They are not -my- freedom knights. Om. <repeat as needed until you
> : get it>
>
> Considering the fact that this is our first conversation,
And this is important because....?
> that might have come across a bit snide and rude -- hardly a compelling point for
> your argument.
The validity of an argument has absolutely nothing to do with the tone
you presume it was presented in.
> However, given that you seem to be discussing in good
> faith and avoiding personal abuse, I'll give you the benefit of the
> doubt.
Gee, thanks.
> The "your" was associative, not possessive, Mr. Hayes.
The context was possessive, however. Granted I might have misunderstood the
intent, but I do get the possessive implication all too often.
> : > If there are going to be standards, they need to be applied fairly and
> : > across the board.
> : You don't do that, by the above label of "personal attacks". Why start now?
> If Peter starts making comments at other posters that are personal in
> nature and not productive to the topic at hand, that are unrelated to
> the issue that he's been discussing, and that are completely baseless or
> an attempt to shift the discussion away from an argument he cannot back
> through facts, logic, and dialogue, then I'll label it a personal attack
> and castigate him just as much as I do Ricardo when *he* indulges in it.
Except that you are not Peter da Silva, who has repeatedly argued that
personal attacks are "wrong". Obviously, everyone has their own personal
standard of what constitutes a personal attack.
> However, Ricardo should *know* better, since he purportedly holds dear
> the concept of True Free Speech. True Free Speech hardly gives the
> faithful practitioner the license to attempt to censure others for *any*
> words they speak, yet Ricardo, Boursy, Grubor, and others who supposedly
> claim to believe as you do have time and time again spoken out that they
> would, if they had the power, silence those who disagree with them.
I suspect you are expecting some arbitrary standard of consistency here.
Regardless of the merits of consistent positions, I think you are
misunderstanding their intent.
I have observed that the overriding opinion among this anti-Cabal group is
that these people who disagree with them are incapable of understanding logic
and dialogue, prefering posture and rhetoric instead. Thus, it is
possible that they have concluded that the only thing these people will
listen to is a "taste of their own medicine".
Of course, any halfway decent attempt to see things out of eyes not their
own would have revealed this to anyone who dared look.
> It would seem that your disciples have much to learn.
All disciples do, that is the nature of a disciple. Still, what does
this have to do with Ricardo, Boursy, Grubor, and others?
> Perhaps a (re)boot to the head is in order? :)
Isn't that a personal attack, sir?
> : > Go explain that to people who don't use certain newsgroups anymore
> : > because of the high volume of non-topic messages. Taking over a
> : > newsgroup is *not* necessarily about *overt* control, Mr. Hayes, and I
> : > suspect that you're quite well aware of that.
>
> : Nope. No one has the power to control what another person can filter out.
>
> Filtering is a reaction, *not* an action -- it is *precisely* an attempt
> to *regain* some control that the person who posts the messages that
> require such filtering initially has taken away.
There is an incorrect presumption of loss of control here. The existence
of newsreaders that thread, present articles on a menu for selection,
and killfiles tend to counter that presumption in a big way.
> : You can put 100,000 spams and 1 message in a group, and I bet I can
> : find that 1 message.
> Well, now, that would depend on the size of those spams, the amount of
> free space on that news spool, the expire policies, and whether or not
> that message was on-topic in the given group, if the group in question
> happened to be moderated.
It also presumes that I know the message is there, and that I am sufficiently
motivated to find it.
> Don't forget your choice of news spool,
> because not all news servers are created equal. Not all news admins
> have the budget to support oodles of free HD space, or the bandwidth to
> transfer it, or the CPU power to process it.
I think they should, but that is my opinion.
> 100,000 spams on any one group in any period less than a week would
> probably obliterate that one single message before most people waded
> through the noise. Don't be so deliberately obtuse about the technical
> side of the disucssion, Dave -- you're smarter than that.
However big my ego is, appealing to it does not force acceptance of a point.
The counter example here is 100,000 on-topic posts. I contend that there
is really no essential difference between the two scenarios, too much
-good- traffic is just as obliterating as too much -bad- traffic (for
any value of "good" or "bad"), and hence this argument fails when
applied to the premise that "spam is bad because it destroys newsgroups".
> : You did not read my FAQ or you wouldn't be making references to my
> : ownership of a non-existant organization. I suggest you reread the
> : FAQ, leaving your impressions aside since those emotions will interfere
> : with your perception of the knowledge within. Then come back and
> : attempt to debate me.
> I had no such impressions when I first read your FAQ. And for you to
> imply that I am a liar ("You did not read my FAQ...")
Whoa raht thar pardner. I did not intend to imply that you are a liar.
I attempted to point out that you did not understand what I meant by
a "Freedom Knight" if you are asserting my ownership of that organization.
> because of my use
> of the word "your" in a perfectly valid associative, rather than
> possessive, sense
Forgive my less than adequate mastery of the English language, but
I am quite unaware of an associative use of "your". Most people read
"your" as a possessive sort of thing, that being a possessive pronoun.
> (I wish you *did* own them, Dave, because they'd be
> much more pleasant to share the Net with)
Even if I could own a human, it goes against my personal codes of conduct
to tell them what to do.
> I read your FAQ and I rejected your ideas because, whether you like it
> or not, no one human being is completely and utterly unfettered. Rights
> don't come without responsibilities, and the refusal of the latter can
> and *should* result in the denial of the former, for the good of the
> individual *and* society.
It is this viewpoint which holds in place the lack of responsibility so
prevalent in the human race. True responsibility only comes from within,
it must be voluntary (or it is not responsibility), and it must be
freely given. Only then does it mean anything other than coercion and
slavery.
Maybe you don't want to call it responsibility, maybe you want to call
it "enforced codes of conduct"...
> : You are absolutely correct in your assessment of the Cabal of Usenet.
> Just as I am absolutely correct in my assessment of the Freedom Knights.
I'm not so sure.
> The difference is, the Cabal at least admits that they're not being
> open-minded.
Where?
> They also acknowledge that, at some point, you can't be
> open-minded without being more destructive than it's worth.
Where? I'd like to see this, and I also think that this is just as self
defeating as enforcing responsibility.
> : Note that you are insisting that your way is best, not properly considering
> : other ways, not meeting in the middle, and not being responsibile enough
> : to attempt to communicate before posturing. I suggest that you read your
> : post to yourself, in front of a mirror, and see if you cannot see your
> : own irony.
> Your failure to consider that I *have* considered your alternatives,
Your messages do not reflect that possibility, though I could be wrong.
> tried to meet in the middle, attempted communication that was rebuffed,
> and eventually come to my own decision of what the best was, merely
> because of the fact that my definition of "best" disagrees with *yours*,
> is precisely what I was writing about.
So use this as an example. This is precisely how the anti-Cabal sees the
Cabal. Since you know how this feels, imagine what it is like when the other
person feels this way. Perhaps that will help your understanding.
> : All I ever do is learn. Thank you for the demonstration of the fallibility
> : of human nature.
> Ah, yes, that rancid taste of smug superiority.
Where? Do you really ever read what I write?
> No matter how hard you
> try to climb out of the middens of humanity, Dave, you're right in here
> with the rest of us and still subject to the same hubris and arrogance
> that we all have.
I never said anything different, sir. I have an ego, I get angry and upset,
and I take a crap just like anyone else. I see things that most people do
not, but that does not make me better or worse because I don't compare
much anymore. I know the ultimate folly that such comparisons bring.
I also never cease to be amazed at how, when I assert things I consider
virtues like self-control and responsibility, people generally get upset
and posture as if I was attempting to be better or worse than someone because
of my assertions.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
If you want to strengthen an enemy -- hate them.
Ricardo Hector Gonzales
Devin L. Ganger (le...@linda.teleport.com) wrote:
: However, Ricardo should *know* better, since he purportedly holds dear
: the concept of True Free Speech. True Free Speech hardly gives the
: faithful practitioner the license to attempt to censure others for *any*
: words they speak, yet Ricardo, Boursy, Grubor, and others who supposedly
: claim to believe as you do have time and time again spoken out that they
: would, if they had the power, silence those who disagree with them.
This is yet another cheap lie and fraudulent attack that you guys always
try to pass off to justify your content-based cancelling raids.
I have never censored anyone nor do I intend to unless they first censor
me and others. Censorship is like a violent attack and if I am attacked
I will defend myself by "any means necessary."
-Ric G.
Official FAQ Maintainer - news.admin hierarchy
"Of all the sins with which a man defiles himself in this world, this is the
sin with which he is most defiled." - M Shabbat 2:6
Peter da Silva
In article <5stdm6$3lg...@thepope.basis.com>,
Michael Martinez <mich...@swcp.com> wrote:
>After all -- censorship only happens when a government steps in,
That's not true. Perhaps the government is the most EFFECTIVE censor,
but I'd say the Church of Scientology hasn't been doing too badly...
and neither has Reverend Moon's Unification Church (which, by the
way, as been funding the fundies to the tune of billions... you
haven't heard about that, have you?).
Michael Martinez
In article <5src0n$kl8$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>, ric...@primus.paranoia.com (Ricardo Hector Gonzales) wrote:
>Devin L. Ganger (le...@linda.teleport.com) wrote:
>: the concept of True Free Speech. True Free Speech hardly gives the
>: faithful practitioner the license to attempt to censure others for *any*
>: words they speak, yet Ricardo, Boursy, Grubor, and others who supposedly
>: claim to believe as you do have time and time again spoken out that they
>: would, if they had the power, silence those who disagree with them.
>
>try to pass off to justify your content-based cancelling raids.
>
>I have never censored anyone nor do I intend to unless they first censor
>me and others. Censorship is like a violent attack and if I am attacked
>I will defend myself by "any means necessary."
And so far, we haven't seen any examples of censorship on Usenet, have we?
After all -- censorship only happens when a government steps in, and the last
attempt at censorship of the Usenet in the US was defeated in the US Supreme
Court. I don't know if it's happening in other countries.
>-Ric G.
>Official FAQ Maintainer - news.admin hierarchy
And you're still telling lies, we see.
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
|| v ||ichael Martinez (mich...@swcp.com)
++ ++------------------------------------------------------
ISP Ratings
-Devin L. Ganger (le...@linda.teleport.com) wrote:
-
-: However, Ricardo should *know* better, since he purportedly holds dear
-: the concept of True Free Speech. True Free Speech hardly gives the
-: faithful practitioner the license to attempt to censure others for *any*
-: words they speak, yet Ricardo, Boursy, Grubor, and others who supposedly
-: claim to believe as you do have time and time again spoken out that they
-: would, if they had the power, silence those who disagree with them.
-
-This is yet another cheap lie and fraudulent attack that you guys always
-try to pass off to justify your content-based cancelling raids.
Indeed--in fact the cabal takes cheap shots and then tries to prevent
responses by forging cancels--they have no sence of morality. Take
a look at this small sample.
Subject: cancel <33f1fd72...@news.alt.net>
From: Stephen Boursy <bou...@alt.net>
Date: 1997/08/11
Message-Id: <33EF46...@alt.net>
Control: cancel <33f1fd72...@news.alt.net>
References: <33f1fd72...@news.alt.net>
Newsgroups:
misc.legal,news.admin.censorship,alt.censorship,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,alt.politics.reform,can.general,alt.wired,alt.forgery,alt.culture.usenet,alt.firefly.mailing-lists,alt.journalism,alt.uunet.anti-trust,alt.sage.john-grubor
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.
Subject: cancel <33ed656e...@news.alt.net>
From: Stephen Boursy <bou...@alt.net>
Date: 1997/08/11
Message-Id: <33EF46...@alt.net>
Control: cancel <33ed656e...@news.alt.net>
References: <33ed656e...@news.alt.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.wired,misc.legal,alt.politics.datahighway,news.admin.censorship,alt.uunet.anti-trust,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,news.admin.net-scum,sci.meow,alt.forgery,alt.politics.reform,alt.journalism,alt.webgod,alt.evil,alt.support.agis,alt.god.grubor
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.
Subject: cancel <5s9p8l$e8a$1...@news.thecia.net>
From: Stephen Boursy <bou...@shell.thecia.net>
Date: 1997/08/11
Message-Id: <33EF45...@shell.thecia.net>
Control: cancel <5s9p8l$e8a$1...@news.thecia.net>
References: <5s9p8l$e8a$1...@news.thecia.net>
Newsgroups:
news.admin.censorship,alt.god.grubor,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,alt.support.crossposting,alt.culture.usenet,alt.webgod,news.groups,alt.uunet.anti-trust,alt.firefly.mailing-lists,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.support.agis,alt.sage.john-grubor,alt.forgery,alt.wired,alt.journalism,misc.legal
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.
Subject: cancel <5s9rfj$e8a$3...@news.thecia.net>
From: Stephen Boursy <bou...@shell.thecia.net>
Date: 1997/08/11
Message-Id: <33EF46...@shell.thecia.net>
Control: cancel <5s9rfj$e8a$3...@news.thecia.net>
References: <5s9rfj$e8a$3...@news.thecia.net>
Newsgroups:
news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.censorship,alt.censorship,news.admin.misc,alt.support.agis,talk.politics.misc,alt.god.grubor,alt.wired,alt.motherjones,alt.politics.reform,misc.legal,alt.forgery,alt.uunet.anti-trust,alt.journalism
[Fewer Headers]
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.
[...]
-
-I have never censored anyone nor do I intend to unless they first censor
-me and others. Censorship is like a violent attack and if I am attacked
-I will defend myself by "any means necessary."
Well it does demonstrate to all that they are just full of shit regarding
spam--it's content that they differ that they are really after and that's
what this is all about. They just use spam as a cover--an emotional
key word to hide their filthy little deeds.
Anyone seeing any content cancels in the news.admin
arena should forward them to the FBI--it's quite likely
there is a connection between them and the recent
system cracking around cyberpromo--and that's jail time.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
-
--Ric G.
-Official FAQ Maintainer - news.admin hierarchy
-"Of all the sins with which a man defiles himself in this world, this is the
-sin with which he is most defiled." - M Shabbat 2:6
Martin Hannigan
In article <5suumh$9...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <33f290e6...@news.alt.net>,
|> ISP Ratings <keep_...@onuse.net> wrote:
|> > Indeed--in fact the cabal takes cheap shots and then tries to prevent
|> >responses by forging cancels--they have no sence of morality. Take
|> >a look at this small sample.
|> >This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.
|>
|> inconsistent with the MO of any of the known spam-cancellers. Methinks
|> some third party's involved.
That'd kind of be like the CEO of Ford driving a Hyundai in regards
to spam cancelling..Hmm..I've have to take a look and see if the
browser is that broke where it allows any beef jerky toting
citizen to easily forge a cancel.
Hey Bump, you may have someone giving you a run for your
money. This ought to be fun to watch.
--
Martin Hannigan (hann...@tiac.net) Voice: 617-932-2000
TIAC - Network Operations Semper Cabalis
Network Engineer www.tiac.net
Peter da Silva
In article <33f290e6...@news.alt.net>,
ISP Ratings <keep_...@onuse.net> wrote:
> Indeed--in fact the cabal takes cheap shots and then tries to prevent
>responses by forging cancels--they have no sence of morality. Take
>a look at this small sample.
[...]
>This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.
I can't imagine any of them using Netscape to issue cancels. That's quite
inconsistent with the MO of any of the known spam-cancellers. Methinks
some third party's involved.
--
Michael Martinez
In article <5stqhg$6...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>In article <5stdm6$3lg...@thepope.basis.com>,
>Michael Martinez <mich...@swcp.com> wrote:
>
>but I'd say the Church of Scientology hasn't been doing too badly...
>and neither has Reverend Moon's Unification Church (which, by the
>way, as been funding the fundies to the tune of billions... you
>haven't heard about that, have you?).
What they were doing wasn't censorship. By definition censorship can only
come from a government or upon its authority.
Peter da Silva
In article <5t00o0$1gk...@thepope.basis.com>,
Michael Martinez <mich...@swcp.com> wrote:
>In article <5stqhg$6...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>>In article <5stdm6$3lg...@thepope.basis.com>,
>>Michael Martinez <mich...@swcp.com> wrote:
>>>After all -- censorship only happens when a government steps in,
>>That's not true. Perhaps the government is the most EFFECTIVE censor,
>>but I'd say the Church of Scientology hasn't been doing too badly...
>What they were doing wasn't censorship. By definition censorship can only
>come from a government or upon its authority.
Now *there's* glory for you.
Devin L. Ganger
Nice non-personal attack, Mr. Hayes.
: > Ah, so you redefine the terms until they mean what you want.
: As an approach to communication, this is valid enough when
: there aren't words for what you want to say.
There are plenty of words that mean what you want to say. The problem
is that you know your ideas have no merit when expressed in such words,
so you need to redefine the words while they're being used.
If you're sincerely attempting to explain your ideas to me, Dave, then
you need to make clear when *your* definition of words differs from the
norm. Otherwise, you're being dishonest.
: > However, all it takes is a look back on some of Ricardo's recent
: > postings to find out that Peter is not making baseless accusations. He
: > *is* stating the facts. Perhaps you missed some of these postings
: > during your recent absence?
: Facts, Sir, do not always come from postings. People can and will post
: anything.
I'm not talking about some nebulous "always," Dave -- I'm talking about
a specific case in which the facts themselves *are* the postings.
Stop beating around the bush and address my point -- Ricardo made claims
that a trivial amount of research will show to be false. By a great
coincidence, Peter made some claims that the very same amount of trivial
research will show to be true.
Since you, admittedly, were not around during that period of time, you
really don't have *any* clue as to what went on, and you're merely going
on the reputation of the two gentlemen in question until you acquaint
yourself with the facts.
: > Considering the fact that this is our first conversation,
: And this is important because....?
Because you're being *awfully* condescending and superior in tone for
someone who apparently has not a superior bone in his body.
: > However, given that you seem to be discussing in good
: > faith and avoiding personal abuse, I'll give you the benefit of the
: > doubt.
: Gee, thanks.
Sarcasm does not become you, Dave.
: > The "your" was associative, not possessive, Mr. Hayes.
: The context was possessive, however. Granted I might have misunderstood the
: intent, but I do get the possessive implication all too often.
The context was not possessive, considering that the *entire* context
hinged upon the single word of "yours", which was being used in an
associative manner.
: Except that you are not Peter da Silva, who has repeatedly argued that
: personal attacks are "wrong". Obviously, everyone has their own personal
: standard of what constitutes a personal attack.
To use your own phrase, you're beginning to understand.
You have yet to demonstrate that Peter was indulging in a personal
attack. He *was* pointing out the hypocrisy of Ricardo, who regularly
seems to loudly denounce members of the imagned Cabal for "personal
attacks" while ignoring such behavior from those whom he chooses to be
associated with, and yet engages in such attacks himself.
Pointing out hypocrisy is *not* a personal attack.
: I have observed that the overriding opinion among this anti-Cabal group is
: that these people who disagree with them are incapable of understanding logic
: and dialogue, prefering posture and rhetoric instead. Thus, it is
: possible that they have concluded that the only thing these people will
: listen to is a "taste of their own medicine".
I would offer the alternate hypothesis that they mistake disagreement
with their own ideas as the inability to understand logic. I would also
postulate that many of these same people do not have a firm
understanding of the technical issues involved in Usenet and only the
loosest of grasps on the social issues, preferring instead the path of
easy gain.
Most systems administrators and computer scientists are actually quite
highly developed in the areas of logic and reasoning. It's a necessary
prerequisite for success in the field.
: Of course, any halfway decent attempt to see things out of eyes not their
: own would have revealed this to anyone who dared look.
I see much more attempts to do just this on the side of your
(possessive) imaginary Cabal than on that of the anti-Cabalists.
What you and many others fail to realize is that just because you look
out of another person's eyes or walk a mile in their shoes does not mean
you will then automatically agree with them or excuse their conduct.
Such moral relativism is a slippery slope.
: > Perhaps a (re)boot to the head is in order? :)
: Isn't that a personal attack, sir?
Are you totally incapable of parsing a smiley, or recognizing a bad pun
when you see one, sir?
: > Filtering is a reaction, *not* an action -- it is *precisely* an attempt
: > to *regain* some control that the person who posts the messages that
: > require such filtering initially has taken away.
: There is an incorrect presumption of loss of control here. The existence
: of newsreaders that thread, present articles on a menu for selection,
: and killfiles tend to counter that presumption in a big way.
I will cheerfully indulge in a tiny bit of moral superiority here in
offering my pity to you for not being able to understand exactly why the
above statements by yourself are wrong.
: > Don't forget your choice of news spool,
: > because not all news servers are created equal. Not all news admins
: > have the budget to support oodles of free HD space, or the bandwidth to
: > transfer it, or the CPU power to process it.
: I think they should, but that is my opinion.
Fine. You can underwrite my forthcoming purchases of hardware and
dedicated connections. I'll be thrilled to accept your largesse in
purchasing my T-3, a few hundred GB of disk space, and a decent
SparcStation or 2 in exchange for running a news site that you would be
proud to call a Site of Virtue.
Or are you actually indulging in elitism by actually meaning that no one
should run a newsserver unless *they* have access to bottomless
pockets?
: > 100,000 spams on any one group in any period less than a week would
: > probably obliterate that one single message before most people waded
: > through the noise. Don't be so deliberately obtuse about the technical
: > side of the disucssion, Dave -- you're smarter than that.
: The counter example here is 100,000 on-topic posts. I contend that there
: is really no essential difference between the two scenarios, too much
: -good- traffic is just as obliterating as too much -bad- traffic (for
: any value of "good" or "bad"), and hence this argument fails when
: applied to the premise that "spam is bad because it destroys newsgroups".
Oh, stop playing stupid. *Any* group that was anywhere *close* to that
many on-topic posts per week would long ago have split into much
narrower groups, each of which would have only a portion of that
traffic.
There is only so much traffic that is manageable. If there is enough
discussion in a given group that traffic levels get sufficiently high,
new groups form to split that traffic out. Case in point -- the
creation of rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan out of rasfw.
: > I had no such impressions when I first read your FAQ. And for you to
: > imply that I am a liar ("You did not read my FAQ...")
: Whoa raht thar pardner. I did not intend to imply that you are a liar.
Then you need to be more careful in your choice of wording, sir, because
whether you intended to or not, that is what you accomplished.
: I attempted to point out that you did not understand what I meant by
: a "Freedom Knight" if you are asserting my ownership of that organization.
: > because of my use
: > of the word "your" in a perfectly valid associative, rather than
: > possessive, sense
: Forgive my less than adequate mastery of the English language, but
: I am quite unaware of an associative use of "your". Most people read
: "your" as a possessive sort of thing, that being a possessive pronoun.
Then I would direct you to some good grammar texts, since I doubt you'll
take my word for it and, unfortunately, my references are all at home.
: > I read your FAQ and I rejected your ideas because, whether you like it
: > or not, no one human being is completely and utterly unfettered. Rights
: > don't come without responsibilities, and the refusal of the latter can
: > and *should* result in the denial of the former, for the good of the
: > individual *and* society.
: It is this viewpoint which holds in place the lack of responsibility so
: prevalent in the human race. True responsibility only comes from within,
: it must be voluntary (or it is not responsibility), and it must be
: freely given. Only then does it mean anything other than coercion and
: slavery.
So what, then, do you do for those individuals who just flat out don't
want to learn? Allow them to hijack the rest of society for their own
selfish whims?
Whether you like it or not, there is a time and place for punishment and
negative reinforcement in the development of self-control.
: > Your failure to consider that I *have* considered your alternatives,
: Your messages do not reflect that possibility, though I could be wrong.
They also don't reflect the countless other ideas I've considered and
discarded during my lifetime. Nor do your articles reflect all those
*you've* discarded. Our articles reflect those values that we currently
hold.
: > tried to meet in the middle, attempted communication that was rebuffed,
: > and eventually come to my own decision of what the best was, merely
: > because of the fact that my definition of "best" disagrees with *yours*,
: > is precisely what I was writing about.
: So use this as an example. This is precisely how the anti-Cabal sees the
: Cabal. Since you know how this feels, imagine what it is like when the other
: person feels this way. Perhaps that will help your understanding.
Fine, I can understand their feelings of frustration.
What I do *not* condone, in any way, is their choice of methodology.
The ends do *not* justify the means. There *are* actions that are flat
out wrong, and there is *no* excuse for taking such actions. And
whether you want to admit it or not, for the betterment of society and
the protection of all concerned, even those who cross the lines, there
are lines that when crossed need to be followed with immediate negative
consequences.
I will assume that any person is a rational, self-controlled adult until
he proves otherwise. Then I will treat him like a child.
The anti-Cabalists such as Boursy, Grubor, and their ilk react in
precisely the opposite manner -- unless you exhibit the sort of behavior
they demand from you, and spout the party line, they immediately brand
you as being part of the Cabal.
Go back and re-read the articles surrounding my introduction here, Dave,
for a good example of what I'm talking about. You should only have to
search back two or so months.
: > : All I ever do is learn. Thank you for the demonstration of the fallibility
: > : of human nature.
: > Ah, yes, that rancid taste of smug superiority.
: Where? Do you really ever read what I write?
Yes. Do you?
: > No matter how hard you
: > try to climb out of the middens of humanity, Dave, you're right in here
: > with the rest of us and still subject to the same hubris and arrogance
: > that we all have.
<snip>
: I also never cease to be amazed at how, when I assert things I consider
: virtues like self-control and responsibility, people generally get upset
: and posture as if I was attempting to be better or worse than someone because
: of my assertions.
Here's a pointer then -- it's because of your presentation. You do not
have a very humble way of stating your assertions. Your phrasing
*consistently* comes across as snide and smug.
Andrew Gierth
>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Hannigan <hann...@tiac.net> writes:
Martin> Hmm..I've have to take a look and see if the browser is that
Martin> broke where it allows any beef jerky toting citizen to easily
Martin> forge a cancel.
Yes, Netscape is that broke. Probably a majority of rogue cancels are
generated by various versions of Netscape.
--
Andrew.
Peter da Silva
In article <kjpodsia-150...@dal-tsa5-21.cyberramp.net>,
Kevin Podsiadlik <kjpo...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>Dave, you constantly remind me of Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty.
>Specifically, one memorable line from him: "My words mean exactly what
>I choose them to mean, nothing more or less." It was intended to
>illustrate high-brow nonsense then and it still holds today.
Like I said, "there's glory for you".
Kevin Podsiadlik
In article <33F400BA...@jetcafe.org>, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>> What they were doing wasn't censorship. By definition censorship can only
>> come from a government or upon its authority.
>
>By -your- definition, of course.
>
>I suppose I could call the Cabal the Usenet Government...
I suppose you could call the Washington Monument a wedge of cheese.
Doesn't make it one.
Dave, you constantly remind me of Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty.
Specifically, one memorable line from him: "My words mean exactly what
I choose them to mean, nothing more or less." It was intended to
illustrate high-brow nonsense then and it still holds today.
--
Kevin Podsiadlik (or just "KJP")
Rachel Kadel
In article <33F11F61...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>> 100,000 spams on any one group in any period less than a week would
>> probably obliterate that one single message before most people waded
>> through the noise. Don't be so deliberately obtuse about the technical
>> side of the disucssion, Dave -- you're smarter than that.
>
>However big my ego is, appealing to it does not force acceptance of a point.
>The counter example here is 100,000 on-topic posts. I contend that there
>is really no essential difference between the two scenarios, too much
>-good- traffic is just as obliterating as too much -bad- traffic (for
>any value of "good" or "bad"), and hence this argument fails when
>applied to the premise that "spam is bad because it destroys newsgroups".
When I was in high school, I read news on a system that kept only 50 posts
at a time on any newsgroup that it carried (of which there were very few
- we only had a 20meg hard drive), and connected to the newsserver only
twice a day (uucp over a 2400baud modem). Because of these technical
limitations, I could only read a small fraction of the posts to the
newsgroups I read, selected basically at random. Nevertheless, because at
the time nearly all the posts were on-topic, I was able to read things
that were of interest to me and participate in a fairly meaningful way in
the discussions on the newsgroups.
If I were in a similar newsreading situation now, well, I wouldn't read
news, because I wouldn't be able to find things I wanted to read in among
the trash.
It's a *different* experience to read a newsgroup in which only a fraction
of the on-topic posts are available to you, but it's not necessarily
fruitless.
Rachel
Let geek who is without geek geek the first geek.
-- Joev Dubach
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
In <5t00o0$1gk...@thepope.basis.com> mich...@swcp.com (Michael Martinez) writes:
[...]
>What they were doing wasn't censorship. By definition censorship can only
>come from a government or upon its authority.
This is not true. have you not herd the term self-censorship, and what
about those peaple hired by the network to stop smut getting out what
are thay called? Censors I think. There is nothing in the defintion that
says that a govermnet is the only group that can do it.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. Buy easter bilbies.
Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay? ex-net.scum and proud
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument
Devin L. Ganger
(Newsgroups line trimmed, follow-ups set to nana-misc)
In news.admin.net-abuse.misc Ricardo Hector Gonzales
<ric...@primus.paranoia.com> wrote:
: Devin L. Ganger (le...@linda.teleport.com) wrote:
: : However, Ricardo should *know* better, since he purportedly holds dear
: : the concept of True Free Speech. True Free Speech hardly gives the
: : faithful practitioner the license to attempt to censure others for *any*
: : words they speak, yet Ricardo, Boursy, Grubor, and others who supposedly
: : claim to believe as you do have time and time again spoken out that they
: : would, if they had the power, silence those who disagree with them.
: This is yet another cheap lie and fraudulent attack that you guys always
: try to pass off to justify your content-based cancelling raids.
This is yet another cheap lie and fradulent attack that you are now
trying to pass off to justify your personal attacks upon myself as part
of your campaign against cancelling.
Put *one* post out there that shows that I have been involved in *any*
cancellation of articles other than those I have posted...
-- OR --
Apologize for calling me a content-based cancellor.
: I have never censored anyone nor do I intend to unless they first censor
: me and others. Censorship is like a violent attack and if I am attacked
: I will defend myself by "any means necessary."
Have you so quickly forgotten the FAQ that you maintain?
Quoted from:
Subject: FAQ: 'Rogue Sites' on the Internet
From: ric...@paranoia.com (Ricardo Hector Gonzales)
Date: 1997/07/22
Message-Id: <5r3aq9$sne$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>
> 8. How do we fix USENET?
>
> A major step towards fixing USENET would include removing the people
> who control it and have led it into its current condition. But this
> is only part of the solution. More toleration, freedom, and
> intelligent and thoughtful approaches are also necessary.
So, you *are* a censor. You're also, apparently, a liar.
How's about those great Jewish morals you're so proud of?
Dave Hayes
Michael Martinez wrote:
> What they were doing wasn't censorship. By definition censorship can only
> come from a government or upon its authority.
By -your- definition, of course.
I suppose I could call the Cabal the Usenet Government...
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness
of a child at play.
Peter da Silva
In article <33F4005F...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>You cannot determine facts from postings, postings are most always people's
>opinions. You can only say "A posted B", you cannot say "B is true because
>A posted it".
But you can, apparently, say that "B is false because A posted it".
Dave Hayes
Devin L. Ganger wrote:
> In news.admin.net-abuse.misc Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> : Devin L. Ganger attempted to pontificate:
> Nice non-personal attack, Mr. Hayes.
Thank you.
> : > Ah, so you redefine the terms until they mean what you want.
> : As an approach to communication, this is valid enough when
> : there aren't words for what you want to say.
> There are plenty of words that mean what you want to say. The problem
> is that you know your ideas have no merit when expressed in such words,
> so you need to redefine the words while they're being used.
That would presume you could understand my ideas when communicated using
inadequately defined words, in fact you cannot.
> If you're sincerely attempting to explain your ideas to me, Dave, then
> you need to make clear when *your* definition of words differs from the
> norm. Otherwise, you're being dishonest.
Nice non-personal attack, Mr. Ganger.
> : > However, all it takes is a look back on some of Ricardo's recent
> : > postings to find out that Peter is not making baseless accusations. He
> : > *is* stating the facts. Perhaps you missed some of these postings
> : > during your recent absence?
> : Facts, Sir, do not always come from postings. People can and will post
> : anything.
> I'm not talking about some nebulous "always," Dave -- I'm talking about
> a specific case in which the facts themselves *are* the postings.
You cannot determine facts from postings, postings are most always people's
opinions. You can only say "A posted B", you cannot say "B is true because
A posted it".
> Stop beating around the bush and address my point -- Ricardo made claims
> that a trivial amount of research will show to be false. By a great
> coincidence, Peter made some claims that the very same amount of trivial
> research will show to be true.
Research where? Dejanews? You presume they are reliable, eh? My news spools?
Even those are not reliable. Where, then?
> : > Considering the fact that this is our first conversation,
>
> : And this is important because....?
>
> Because you're being *awfully* condescending and superior in tone for
> someone who apparently has not a superior bone in his body.
Are you sure you are not reading tone into words where no similar tone
was presented? I suspect strongly that you are seeing a reflection of
your own intent...
> : > However, given that you seem to be discussing in good
> : > faith and avoiding personal abuse, I'll give you the benefit of the
> : > doubt.
> : Gee, thanks.
> Sarcasm does not become you, Dave.
Don't presume sarcasm where there was none.
> : Except that you are not Peter da Silva, who has repeatedly argued that
> : personal attacks are "wrong". Obviously, everyone has their own personal
> : standard of what constitutes a personal attack.
>
> To use your own phrase, you're beginning to understand.
>
> You have yet to demonstrate that Peter was indulging in a personal
> attack. He *was* pointing out the hypocrisy of Ricardo, who regularly
> seems to loudly denounce members of the imagned Cabal for "personal
> attacks" while ignoring such behavior from those whom he chooses to be
> associated with, and yet engages in such attacks himself.
>
> Pointing out hypocrisy is *not* a personal attack.
I disagree. In fact, this is one of the foremost attacks used on Usenet,
especially when used to prevent someone from changing because they have
learned something new.
To be fair, I have seen it used without a personal attack involved. I have
used it in this regard as well. You simply cannot tell sometimes on Usenet.
> : I have observed that the overriding opinion among this anti-Cabal group is
> : that these people who disagree with them are incapable of understanding logic
> : and dialogue, prefering posture and rhetoric instead. Thus, it is
> : possible that they have concluded that the only thing these people will
> : listen to is a "taste of their own medicine".
>
> I would offer the alternate hypothesis that they mistake disagreement
> with their own ideas as the inability to understand logic.
Are you looking in a mirror again?
> I would also postulate that many of these same people do not have a firm
> understanding of the technical issues involved in Usenet and only the
> loosest of grasps on the social issues, preferring instead the path of
> easy gain.
Tell me, what do the "kooks" have to gain by constant derision and abuse?
> Most systems administrators and computer scientists are actually quite
> highly developed in the areas of logic and reasoning. It's a necessary
> prerequisite for success in the field.
And most of this group (to which I belong as a matter of fact) forget that
these faculties are not an end in themselves, they simply enable a person
to operate in a certain manner.
When confronted with those who do not have these faculties developed
as well (or those who just don't operate that way), the typical reaction
is to label the non-logicals as "kooks".
> : Of course, any halfway decent attempt to see things out of eyes not their
> : own would have revealed this to anyone who dared look.
> I see much more attempts to do just this on the side of your
> (possessive) imaginary Cabal than on that of the anti-Cabalists.
Are you really attempting to imply that I possess this Cabal?
> What you and many others fail to realize is that just because you look
> out of another person's eyes or walk a mile in their shoes does not mean
> you will then automatically agree with them or excuse their conduct.
I have not been able to do either of those things, and yet I can still
find points to agree with them on or reasons to forgive their conduct.
> Such moral relativism is a slippery slope.
To what?
> : > Perhaps a (re)boot to the head is in order? :)
>
> : Isn't that a personal attack, sir?
>
> Are you totally incapable of parsing a smiley, or recognizing a bad pun
> when you see one, sir?
Does a smiley excuse your conduct, sir? What if spammers put smileys in
all their spam, would you excuse them for their conduct then?
> : > Filtering is a reaction, *not* an action -- it is *precisely* an attempt
> : > to *regain* some control that the person who posts the messages that
> : > require such filtering initially has taken away.
>
> : There is an incorrect presumption of loss of control here. The existence
> : of newsreaders that thread, present articles on a menu for selection,
> : and killfiles tend to counter that presumption in a big way.
>
> I will cheerfully indulge in a tiny bit of moral superiority here in
> offering my pity to you for not being able to understand exactly why the
> above statements by yourself are wrong.
You may damage yourself all you like with your emotional attachement to
disagreeing with my assertion, but you still have not refuted my assertion.
> : > Don't forget your choice of news spool,
> : > because not all news servers are created equal. Not all news admins
> : > have the budget to support oodles of free HD space, or the bandwidth to
> : > transfer it, or the CPU power to process it.
>
> : I think they should, but that is my opinion.
>
> Fine. You can underwrite my forthcoming purchases of hardware and
> dedicated connections. I'll be thrilled to accept your largesse in
> purchasing my T-3, a few hundred GB of disk space, and a decent
> SparcStation or 2 in exchange for running a news site that you would be
> proud to call a Site of Virtue.
Someday, I may take you up on that.
> Or are you actually indulging in elitism by actually meaning that no one
> should run a newsserver unless *they* have access to bottomless
> pockets?
I'm saying I am willing to pay my perceived price to run a Site of Virtue.
What others do is their business, though I will offer my suggestions whereever
I can.
> : > 100,000 spams on any one group in any period less than a week would
> : > probably obliterate that one single message before most people waded
> : > through the noise. Don't be so deliberately obtuse about the technical
> : > side of the disucssion, Dave -- you're smarter than that.
>
> : The counter example here is 100,000 on-topic posts. I contend that there
> : is really no essential difference between the two scenarios, too much
> : -good- traffic is just as obliterating as too much -bad- traffic (for
> : any value of "good" or "bad"), and hence this argument fails when
> : applied to the premise that "spam is bad because it destroys newsgroups".
>
> Oh, stop playing stupid.
Who's playing? :)
> *Any* group that was anywhere *close* to that
> many on-topic posts per week would long ago have split into much
> narrower groups, each of which would have only a portion of that
> traffic.
Besides this being a straw man to the original premise, at some point
you cannot continue to split groups.
> There is only so much traffic that is manageable. If there is enough
> discussion in a given group that traffic levels get sufficiently high,
> new groups form to split that traffic out. Case in point -- the
> creation of rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan out of rasfw.
This also prevents cross-fertilization of topics, since crossposting
is quite rudely rejected by many Cab...er...net people.
> : > I had no such impressions when I first read your FAQ. And for you to
> : > imply that I am a liar ("You did not read my FAQ...")
>
> : Whoa raht thar pardner. I did not intend to imply that you are a liar.
>
> Then you need to be more careful in your choice of wording, sir, because
> whether you intended to or not, that is what you accomplished.
So my intent doesn't matter, which means I can say what I want. If you
actually want to know, however...those words were not constructed with
that intent in mind.
Implication is usually a mirror...I don't imply that for this case however.
> : > I read your FAQ and I rejected your ideas because, whether you like it
> : > or not, no one human being is completely and utterly unfettered. Rights
> : > don't come without responsibilities, and the refusal of the latter can
> : > and *should* result in the denial of the former, for the good of the
> : > individual *and* society.
>
> : It is this viewpoint which holds in place the lack of responsibility so
> : prevalent in the human race. True responsibility only comes from within,
> : it must be voluntary (or it is not responsibility), and it must be
> : freely given. Only then does it mean anything other than coercion and
> : slavery.
>
> So what, then, do you do for those individuals who just flat out don't
> want to learn?
Honor them by respecting their wishes? Realize that not everyone must learn
the things I know?
> Allow them to hijack the rest of society for their own selfish whims?
Really. Do you think they would?
> Whether you like it or not, there is a time and place for punishment and
> negative reinforcement in the development of self-control.
Not for all people, certainly not for many criminals, and definately not
for this society since our percentage of jailed criminals is constantly
growing.
Different people need different medicine.
> : > Your failure to consider that I *have* considered your alternatives,
> : Your messages do not reflect that possibility, though I could be wrong.
> They also don't reflect the countless other ideas I've considered and
> discarded during my lifetime. Nor do your articles reflect all those
> *you've* discarded. Our articles reflect those values that we currently
> hold.
An arbitrary subset of a non-orthogonal vector space which is infinite.
Why -that- subset?
> : > tried to meet in the middle, attempted communication that was rebuffed,
> : > and eventually come to my own decision of what the best was, merely
> : > because of the fact that my definition of "best" disagrees with *yours*,
> : > is precisely what I was writing about.
> : So use this as an example. This is precisely how the anti-Cabal sees the
> : Cabal. Since you know how this feels, imagine what it is like when the other
> : person feels this way. Perhaps that will help your understanding.
> Fine, I can understand their feelings of frustration.
Then you can see why they choose actions which are the most annoying to you?
> What I do *not* condone, in any way, is their choice of methodology.
Of course not. If you condoned it, they would change until you didn't.
> The ends do *not* justify the means.
The ends may eliminate the need for the means you dislike, however.
> There *are* actions that are flat
> out wrong, and there is *no* excuse for taking such actions.
For some arbitrary value of "wrong" derived out of the arbitrary subset
described above.
> whether you want to admit it or not, for the betterment of society and
> the protection of all concerned, even those who cross the lines, there
> are lines that when crossed need to be followed with immediate negative
> consequences.
If you said "I will follow said actions with immediate consequences", I'd
accept that. To use the "betterment" of society and "protection" of all
as arguments makes you sound like a tyrant.
> I will assume that any person is a rational, self-controlled adult until
> he proves otherwise. Then I will treat him like a child.
Regardless of what is appropriate, eh?
> : I also never cease to be amazed at how, when I assert things I consider
> : virtues like self-control and responsibility, people generally get upset
> : and posture as if I was attempting to be better or worse than someone because
> : of my assertions.
> Here's a pointer then -- it's because of your presentation. You do not
> have a very humble way of stating your assertions.
To state my assertions with the notions of humility that you seem to expect
would fail to have the necessary effect.
> Your phrasing *consistently* comes across as snide and smug.
I think you are looking in a mirror.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Nasrudin walked into a teahouse and declaimed, "The moon is more useful
Keith M. Lucas
In article <33F4005F...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Devin L. Ganger wrote:
>> In news.admin.net-abuse.misc Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>> : Devin L. Ganger attempted to pontificate:
>> Nice non-personal attack, Mr. Hayes.
>
>Thank you.
>
>> : > Ah, so you redefine the terms until they mean what you want.
>> : As an approach to communication, this is valid enough when
>> : there aren't words for what you want to say.
>> There are plenty of words that mean what you want to say. The problem
>> is that you know your ideas have no merit when expressed in such words,
>> so you need to redefine the words while they're being used.
>
>That would presume you could understand my ideas when communicated using
>inadequately defined words, in fact you cannot.
*Cough*
Hayes -- what is your native language then ?
Only the human brain is really only capable of delaing with "higher"
concepts by using language. Therefore, language is not only
sufficient, but actually larger than, the higher concepts expressible
in it.
Any other concepts, not expressible in language, are, by dint of the
processing medium, not capable of being considered by your rational
mind, and therefore are, dy definition, irrational.
We'll leave aside the staggering ego problem of simply deeming the
whole of humanity incabable of understanding the reasons that you
should be elevated to Godhood over us all.
>> If you're sincerely attempting to explain your ideas to me, Dave, then
>> you need to make clear when *your* definition of words differs from the
>> norm. Otherwise, you're being dishonest.
>
>Nice non-personal attack, Mr. Ganger.
No. If you're using words in a non-normal context in such a fashion
that they may be interpreted in a misleading way and have failed to
communicate this fact, they you are in fact, being dishonest.
If you hold up a red box and say "this is green", you're either lying,
or using the word "green" in a new fashion.
If you tell someone "there green box is the one not full of semtex",
and don't tell them that by "green" you mean "red", when you are fully
aware that you mean something different (as you've demonstrated above)
then you are being deceitful.
>Tell me, what do the "kooks" have to gain by constant derision and abuse?
Public attention. A craving to have someone pay attention to one is
often satisified by "constant derision and abuse" in personality types
of that ilk. It often comes from a basically introverted personality
type which cannot attract attention any other way.
>I'm saying I am willing to pay my perceived price to run a Site of Virtue.
>What others do is their business, though I will offer my suggestions whereever
>I can.
Cool. So your thing about "cancels must end" is only a suggestion ?
Thanks. We'll take you up on it. One day.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sillywiz at excession . demon.co.uk -"It's not a personality..it's a bulldozer"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Great boiling hell, Jones, what happened ?" "Er.. I think my pants exploded."
---------------------------------------------------------- Captain Star -------
Douglas Adams
In article <5t00o0$1gk...@thepope.basis.com>, mich...@swcp.com says...
> In article <5stqhg$6...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
> >In article <5stdm6$3lg...@thepope.basis.com>,
> >Michael Martinez <mich...@swcp.com> wrote:
> >>After all -- censorship only happens when a government steps in,
> >
> >That's not true. Perhaps the government is the most EFFECTIVE censor,
> >but I'd say the Church of Scientology hasn't been doing too badly...
> >way, as been funding the fundies to the tune of billions... you
> >haven't heard about that, have you?).
>
> come from a government or upon its authority.
Bullshit.
I just looked up both censorship and censor in a dictionary (Webster's
New Universal Unabridged). Nowhere in the multiple definitions provided
does it state that only government can censor. In fact, anyone or any
organization can act as a censor. I won't quote directly here -- it would
be good exercise (both mental and physical) for you to pick up one of
these good books and see for yourself. Besides, there'd be too much
typing involved. :)
--
Douglas Adams
Fight spam -- Join CAUCE
http://www.cauce.org/
Michael Martinez
In article <33F400BA...@jetcafe.org>, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>> What they were doing wasn't censorship. By definition censorship can only
>> come from a government or upon its authority.
>
Nope. I don't own any definitions. And if I did, I probably would sell them.
>I suppose I could call the Cabal the Usenet Government...
You can imagine whatever you wish. That won't make you any less deluded or
relieve your desperate need for a standard English dictionary.
Dave Hayes
Elias Halldor Agustsson wrote:
> Svo mælti Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>:
> # Devin L. Ganger attempted to pontificate:
> # > because of my use
> # > of the word "your" in a perfectly valid associative, rather than
> # > possessive, sense
> #
> # Forgive my less than adequate mastery of the English language, but
> # I am quite unaware of an associative use of "your". Most people read
> # "your" as a possessive sort of thing, that being a possessive pronoun.
> What about _your_ friends, Dave?
I do not own them.
> # > (I wish you *did* own them, Dave, because they'd be
> # > much more pleasant to share the Net with)
> #
> # Even if I could own a human, it goes against my personal codes of conduct
> # to tell them what to do.
> Oh, you don't have any.
Certainly not. Slavery is against my internal codes of conduct.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
If you want to get rid of somebody,
just tell them something for their own good.
Dave Hayes
Rachel Kadel wrote:
> When I was in high school, I read news on a system that kept only 50 posts
> at a time on any newsgroup that it carried (of which there were very few
> - we only had a 20meg hard drive), and connected to the newsserver only
> twice a day (uucp over a 2400baud modem). Because of these technical
> limitations, I could only read a small fraction of the posts to the
> newsgroups I read, selected basically at random. Nevertheless, because at
> the time nearly all the posts were on-topic, I was able to read things
> that were of interest to me and participate in a fairly meaningful way in
> the discussions on the newsgroups.
>
> If I were in a similar newsreading situation now, well, I wouldn't read
> news, because I wouldn't be able to find things I wanted to read in among
> the trash.
What if the groups you read contained on-topic posts you weren't interested
in?
Also, arguing tht news (1GB/day of articles roughly) should be available to
a user with a 20meg hard drive is...well...kind of pointless.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Due to circumstances beyond your control, you are master of your fate
and captain of your soul.
Dave Hayes
> >inadequately defined words, in fact you cannot.
> Hayes -- what is your native language then ?
English, of course. Nevertheless, it is woefully inadequete.
Ever played "telephone"? Get a group of 10 or more people in a circle,
whisper a sentence to the person on your left. Listen to what you whispered
when it comes back.
Then you may proceed to tell me how "rational" the language is.
> We'll leave aside the staggering ego problem of simply deeming the
> whole of humanity incabable of understanding the reasons that you
> should be elevated to Godhood over us all.
Never said anything of the sort, actually. Thank you for demonstrating
the inaccuracy of language.
> >Tell me, what do the "kooks" have to gain by constant derision and abuse?
> Public attention.
That is not a positive thing, though.
> It often comes from a basically introverted personality
> type which cannot attract attention any other way.
How would you know this?
> >I'm saying I am willing to pay my perceived price to run a Site of Virtue.
> >What others do is their business, though I will offer my suggestions whereever
> >I can.
> Cool. So your thing about "cancels must end" is only a suggestion ?
Yep.
> Thanks. We'll take you up on it. One day.
Bullshit.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
What seems to be absurdity and is not,
is better than the ignorance of the man who thinks it is absurd.
Elias Halldor Agustsson
Svo mælti Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>:
# Devin L. Ganger wrote:
# >
# > Pointing out hypocrisy is *not* a personal attack.
#
# I disagree. In fact, this is one of the foremost attacks used on Usenet,
# especially when used to prevent someone from changing because they have
# learned something new.
That is assuming that the accusation was unwarranted. Pointing out
hypocrisy can be a crucial part of a debate.
# To be fair, I have seen it used without a personal attack involved. I have
# used it in this regard as well. You simply cannot tell sometimes on Usenet.
Well, you can tell it often enough. When you see it, it would be an
oversight not to point it out.
# > Most systems administrators and computer scientists are actually quite
# > highly developed in the areas of logic and reasoning. It's a necessary
# > prerequisite for success in the field.
#
# And most of this group (to which I belong as a matter of fact) forget that
# these faculties are not an end in themselves, they simply enable a person
# to operate in a certain manner.
#
# When confronted with those who do not have these faculties developed
# as well (or those who just don't operate that way), the typical reaction
# is to label the non-logicals as "kooks".
Of course. Those who are impervious to logic _are_ kooks, by
definition. Is it in bad form to point out the fact that they
are kooks? Or should we find a new euphemism to refer to them
as? "Logically challenged"?
--
|--Elias Halldor Agustsson----|----http://this.is/bofh/ -------|
| Bastard Operator from Hell | Remember: Down, not across. |
| ro...@BOFH.is EHA3-RIPE | ftp://warez.bofh.is |
|-------Send me unsolicited commercial email and die!!!--------|
Elias Halldor Agustsson
Svo mælti Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>:
# Devin L. Ganger attempted to pontificate:
# > because of my use
# > of the word "your" in a perfectly valid associative, rather than
# > possessive, sense
#
# Forgive my less than adequate mastery of the English language, but
# I am quite unaware of an associative use of "your". Most people read
# "your" as a possessive sort of thing, that being a possessive pronoun.
What about _your_ friends, Dave?
# > (I wish you *did* own them, Dave, because they'd be
# > much more pleasant to share the Net with)
#
# Even if I could own a human, it goes against my personal codes of conduct
# to tell them what to do.
Oh, you don't have any.
--
Michael Martinez
In article <33F7B785...@jetcafe.org>, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Also, arguing tht news (1GB/day of articles roughly) should be available to
>a user with a 20meg hard drive is...well...kind of pointless.
Why? I don't use 1GB/day of my local drive space to browse the news. Are you
advocating some sort of inefficient, outdated technology along with your
discredited nonsense?
Peter da Silva
In article <33F7B6EC...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Ever played "telephone"? Get a group of 10 or more people in a circle,
>whisper a sentence to the person on your left. Listen to what you whispered
>when it comes back.
This is a party-line, Dave.
Elias Halldor Agustsson
Svo mælti Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>:
# Elias Halldor Agustsson wrote:
# > Svo mælti Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>:
# > # Devin L. Ganger attempted to pontificate:
# > # > because of my use
# > # > of the word "your" in a perfectly valid associative, rather than
# > # > possessive, sense
# > #
# > # Forgive my less than adequate mastery of the English language, but
# > # I am quite unaware of an associative use of "your". Most people read
# > # "your" as a possessive sort of thing, that being a possessive pronoun.
# > What about _your_ friends, Dave?
#
# I do not own them.
My point.
#
# > # > (I wish you *did* own them, Dave, because they'd be
# > # > much more pleasant to share the Net with)
# > #
# > # Even if I could own a human, it goes against my personal codes of conduct
# > # to tell them what to do.
# > Oh, you don't have any.
#
# Certainly not. Slavery is against my internal codes of conduct.
What are your external ones?
--
|--Elias Halldor Agustsson----|-Implementation: The fruitless struggle-|
| Unix System Administrator | of the talented poor to fulfill what |
| University of Iceland | the ignorant rich have promised. |
|--Tel. +354 525 4903-- http://www.hi.is/~elias -----------------------|
Keith M. Lucas
>> Thanks. We'll take you up on it. One day.
>
>Bullshit.
No it's not. We'll take you up on it when THE WHOLE of humanity, and
not just the majority, can be trusted not to destroy usenet given the
opportunity afforded them by lack of cancels.
Michael Martinez
>whisper a sentence to the person on your left. Listen to what you whispered
>when it comes back.
>
Why not have them stand 10 feet apart and then instead of whispering you speak
in a voice loud enough to be heard clearly and distinctly so that the next
person doesn't have to try and decipher what you just garbled?
>> We'll leave aside the staggering ego problem of simply deeming the
>> whole of humanity incabable of understanding the reasons that you
>> should be elevated to Godhood over us all.
>
>Never said anything of the sort, actually. Thank you for demonstrating
>the inaccuracy of language.
It's not the *language* which is at fault in your continued state of delirium.
Politas
On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 19:43:45 -0700, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>
wrote:
Devin L. Ganger
>> 100,000 spams on any one group in any period less than a week would
>> probably obliterate that one single message before most people waded
>> through the noise. Don't be so deliberately obtuse about the technical
>> side of the disucssion, Dave -- you're smarter than that.
Dave Hayes
>However big my ego is, appealing to it does not force acceptance of a point.
>The counter example here is 100,000 on-topic posts. I contend that there
>is really no essential difference between the two scenarios, too much
>-good- traffic is just as obliterating as too much -bad- traffic (for
>any value of "good" or "bad"), and hence this argument fails when
>applied to the premise that "spam is bad because it destroys newsgroups".
But with 100,000 on-topic posts, you aren't wading through noise,
your'e selecting signal. I may not be able to read 100,000 on-topic
posts to find a particular post, but I will enjoy reading a number of
those posts. I will not enjoy wading through a bunch of slightly
customised posts advertising the same website, over and over again!
And anyway, this is unlikely to be a recurring situation, as new
groups would be created to split up the subject, so that I could
choose which sub-topics I wanted to see.
>> I read your FAQ and I rejected your ideas because, whether you like it
>> or not, no one human being is completely and utterly unfettered. Rights
>> don't come without responsibilities, and the refusal of the latter can
>> and *should* result in the denial of the former, for the good of the
>> individual *and* society.
>
>It is this viewpoint which holds in place the lack of responsibility so
>prevalent in the human race. True responsibility only comes from within,
>it must be voluntary (or it is not responsibility), and it must be
>freely given. Only then does it mean anything other than coercion and
>slavery.
>
>Maybe you don't want to call it responsibility, maybe you want to call
>it "enforced codes of conduct"...
Are you saying that no one should ever be prevented from doing what
they want? That a person's own sense of ethics should be the only
constraint upon their actions? That this should be the case
throughout a person's life?
If so, then I hope you never have children, as you would make a very
bad parent.
- Politas
---------------------------------------------------
Michael Dowling : pol...@dynamite.com.au
Web site: http://www2.dynamite.com.au/politas/
---------------------------------------------------
Any organisation placing its name in the Organisation line
of my message headers obviously agrees with everything I say.
Dave Hayes
> # >
> #
> # I disagree. In fact, this is one of the foremost attacks used on Usenet,
> # especially when used to prevent someone from changing because they have
> # learned something new.
> That is assuming that the accusation was unwarranted. Pointing out
> hypocrisy can be a crucial part of a debate.
Only if you seek to attack the debater. When standards are being argued,
it is more accurate to argue them independently of who follows them,
i.e. on their merits alone.
> # To be fair, I have seen it used without a personal attack involved. I have
> # used it in this regard as well. You simply cannot tell sometimes on Usenet.
> Well, you can tell it often enough. When you see it, it would be an
> oversight not to point it out.
Or merciful. I doubt anyone here understands mercy and compassion much.
> # > Most systems administrators and computer scientists are actually quite
> # > highly developed in the areas of logic and reasoning. It's a necessary
> # > prerequisite for success in the field.
> # And most of this group (to which I belong as a matter of fact) forget that
> # these faculties are not an end in themselves, they simply enable a person
> # to operate in a certain manner.
> #
> # When confronted with those who do not have these faculties developed
> # as well (or those who just don't operate that way), the typical reaction
> # is to label the non-logicals as "kooks".
> Of course. Those who are impervious to logic _are_ kooks, by
> definition.
Sorry, I don't accept that. Logic is -not- a weapon of coercion to the way
of thinking you consider holy. It is simply a process you put knowledge
through.
> Is it in bad form to point out the fact that they are kooks?
Depends entirely on the situation. I should think that if you are
trying to engender a spirit of polite cooperation, that you would
refrain from such labels.
Cooperation is not what Cabal people want, however.
> Or should we find a new euphemism to refer to them as?
> "Logically challenged"?
Yechh. Political correctness sucks.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
"No man is a failure who is enjoying life." - William Feather
Dave Hayes
> # > Svo mælti Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org>:
> # > # Devin L. Ganger attempted to pontificate:
> # > # > because of my use
> # > # > of the word "your" in a perfectly valid associative, rather than
> # > # > possessive, sense
> # > # Forgive my less than adequate mastery of the English language, but
> # > # I am quite unaware of an associative use of "your". Most people read
> # > # "your" as a possessive sort of thing, that being a possessive pronoun.
> # > What about _your_ friends, Dave?
> # I do not own them.
> My point.
Granted in your world. In mine, I typically answer questions like this
with "I don't own them".
> # > # Even if I could own a human, it goes against my personal codes of conduct
> # > # to tell them what to do.
> # > Oh, you don't have any.
> # Certainly not. Slavery is against my internal codes of conduct.
> What are your external ones?
Non-sequitor.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Till we lose ourselves there is no hope of finding ourselves. --Henry Miller
Dave Hayes
Ricardo Hector Gonzales wrote:
> Michael Martinez (mich...@swcp.com) wrote:
> : Are you
> : advocating some sort of inefficient, outdated technology along with your
> : discredited nonsense?
> like to argue. Did you really not understand what he wrote or are
> you purposely being difficult?
Mr. Martinez is being purposely difficult. He has not understood my
demonstration yet, nor do I think he will given the persistant
grinding of his axe.
He does not yet realize that I am not his whetstone...
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
The best way to make your dreams come true is to wake up.
Dave Hayes
Politas wrote:
> But with 100,000 on-topic posts, you aren't wading through noise,
> your'e selecting signal. I may not be able to read 100,000 on-topic
> posts to find a particular post, but I will enjoy reading a number of
> those posts. I will not enjoy wading through a bunch of slightly
> customised posts advertising the same website, over and over again!
Why is an article's acceptance on the servers of the world based on
_your_ enjoyment?
> Are you saying that no one should ever be prevented from doing what
> they want?
Yep.
> That a person's own sense of ethics should be the only
> constraint upon their actions?
This is already the case. You may -think- laws are effective, but people
still break them.
> That this should be the case throughout a person's life?
If people would wake up and see this, there would be a massive change
in society towards mutual cooperation.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Community (n.) - 1. Irrationals unified by hope of the impossible.
Michael Martinez
In article <5t8plk$ljh$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>, ric...@primus.paranoia.com (Ricardo Hector Gonzales) wrote:
>Michael Martinez (mich...@swcp.com) wrote:
> wrote:
>: >Also, arguing tht news (1GB/day of articles roughly) should be available to
>: >a user with a 20meg hard drive is...well...kind of pointless.
>:
>: Why? I don't use 1GB/day of my local drive space to browse the news.
>
>a full feed takes up 1GB/day. You may be reading less than the full
>feed and that's what he's basically talking about. He's saying that
>if don't need a full feed then you don't need a full feed. People
>who want a full feed though will have to make certain allowances
>(e.g. must have more than a 20meg hard drive).
I understand his point. He just doesn't get the issues involved. The people
he says have power over spam do not, in fact, have that power. Nor do people
wish to pay for the privilege of implementing Mr. Hayes' low-tech solution:
the DEL key. ick.
>: Are you advocating some sort of inefficient, outdated technology along
>: with your discredited nonsense?
>
>It looks to me like you're making a pointless argument because you
>like to argue. Did you really not understand what he wrote or are
>you purposely being difficult?
You, of course, are only trying to get an angry reaction because like the rest
of your Kook Cabal your only goal in these discussions is to mislead people.
>-Ric G.
>Official FAQ Maintainer - news.admin hierarchy
Liar.
Colin Douthwaite
Keith M. Lucas (sillywiz@excession_dot.demon_dot.co_dot.uk_no_dot) wrote:
>In article <33F4005F...@jetcafe.org>,
>Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>>Devin L. Ganger wrote:
>>Tell me, what do the "kooks" have to gain by constant derision and abuse?
>Public attention. A craving to have someone pay attention to one is
>often satisified by "constant derision and abuse" in personality types
>of that ilk. It often comes from a basically introverted personality
>type which cannot attract attention any other way.
Absolute poppycock !
Bye,
Dave Hayes
Can't. I'm not a literary scholar.
> Dave - you are not the only person who tries to live an honourable life!
Never said I was.
> Don't imaginge that just because they do not agree with your INTERNAL
> standards that they are somehow less able to understand 'mercy and
> compassion'.
I'm not imagining anything. This comes from my observation of Usenet over
many years.
> >Depends entirely on the situation. I should think that if you are
> >trying to engender a spirit of polite cooperation, that you would
> >refrain from such labels.
> Hmmm.. like labelling me a jealous of spammers cos they were not paying me?
That's not what I intended to so. See the response for details.
> >Cooperation is not what Cabal people want, however.
> In the opinion of whom?
Me. Any more questions? ;)
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
"Better to be safe than to be sorry"
is a remark of value only when these are the actual alternatives.
Dave Hayes
Kevin Podsiadlik wrote:
> Dave Hayes writes:
> >Depends entirely on the situation. I should think that if you are
> >trying to engender a spirit of polite cooperation, that you would
> >refrain from such labels.
> >
> come about without massive, widespread cooperation?
The Reisoa Cabal UDP was active, that means a single cancelbot.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
He is truly wise who gains wisdom from another's mishap.