SILENT MAJORITY UNITE AGAINST DENEBEIM!!
Steven Grimm
as you imply, what possible motivation does *he* have to tell the same
story JMS does when the question comes up at conventions? The promise of
a bit part in one episode and a guest spot in another a year and a half
later?
It's your suspicion that doesn't hold water.
Show us one piece of evidence to support the assertion that O'Hare's
departure didn't occur as JMS said it did. Just one. You must have some
evidence to back up such a strong belief, right? If not, why is your
accusation more plausible than the consistent statements of everyone
involved in the actual event who's commented in public on it?
You say Joe isn't as honest as other producers on the net. How, exactly,
do you believe those other producers would respond if you posed a similar
list of questions to them? "Are you a control freak? Do you leave your
directors free to do their jobs? Fess up, liar, and tell us what really
happened at your casting meeting, because I think you're just giving us
a PR snow job." Go ahead, go over to alt.tv.nowhere-man and ask Larry
Hertzog all that. I'm sure he'll give you an honest response, all right.
I agree with Jay. This sort of message is what I'd rather not spend time
wading through. If JMS comes to the moderated group, fine; if not, I
get plenty of information about the show from his CompuServe messages,
and I can ask him questions there or via E-mail, so that's fine too.
Reading a B5 group free of flamewars and unfounded accusations is reward
enough. JMS's presence would be a nice bonus, but not a necessary one
as far as I'm concerned.
If you choose not to believe me, that's your right, of course. But it's
the truth.
-Steve
John Schilling
[vague accusations deleted]
Quite ironic - a post calling for a "silent majority", with an all-caps
subject line, repeated three times.
Sounds more like a vocal, obnoxious minority to me. But that's just my
opinion.
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *
David Stinson
:
<CLIPPED>
Has anyone else noticed that Amy T. & A.J. Tucker (Porkmatzoh) both of
usa.pipeline.com have very similar writing styles????
************************************************************************
** David A. Stinson ** Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves *
** dsti...@ix.netcom.com***********************************************
** DA...@procom.com ** "Gonna need another Timmy!" -Baby Sinclair *
** dast...@aol.com ******************************* Dinosaurs! *
************************************************************************
David Stinson
dsti...@ix.netcom.com (David Stinson) wrote:
:In article <4h57il$u...@news1.usa.pipeline.com>, am...@usa.pipeline.com wrote:
::
:
:<CLIPPED>
:
:Has anyone else noticed that Amy T. & A.J. Tucker (Porkmatzoh) both of
:usa.pipeline.com have very similar writing styles????
>From: am...@usa.pipeline.com
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
>Subject: SILENT MAJORITY UNITE AGAINST DENEBEIM!!
>Date: 29 Feb 1996 21:58:45 GMT
>Organization: Pipeline USA
>Lines: 126
>Message-ID: <4h57il$u...@news1.usa.pipeline.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pipe12.h1.usa.pipeline.com
>X-PipeUser: amyt
>X-PipeHub: usa.pipeline.com
>X-PipeGCOS: (Amy Tucker)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>X-Newsreader: Pipeline USA v3.4.0
>Status: N
NHorow1829
fact, Mr. O'Hare was forced out by Warner Brothers, Mr. O'Hare is
contractually obligated not to say or do anything which may be construed
as being harmful to the show. This type of clause is very common in
contract law. (My husband is a lawyer. And please, no lawyer jokes). I
know that the fans of the show, of which I am one, are extremely loyal to
the show and everyone involved with it. Still, the argument is sound. If
they were to make a change, it had to be done early, before they got too
far into the arc and the series. And the choice of Mr. Boxleitner, a
handsome recognizable and television and movie veteran, and a good actor,
was an excellent choice to replace Mr. O'Hare. Mr. O'Hare is also
good-looking, but his acting left something to be desired, and his
recognizability factor was missing, at least in the States.
And as far as your comments regarding Mr. Hertzog, it's kind of funny,
because I remember reading a post of his which *did* answer the very
question which you sarcastically dismiss. He stated that he *is* a
control freak, and is not ashamed to admit it. Check the search engines (
I think it's called DejaNews, or something similar), and you should be
able to read this particular post. In fact, his posts are 180 degrees from
JMS, in that Mr. Hertzog is very candid about the inside workings of the
show, and of his various disputes with UPN (Paramount) executives
concerning the direction of the show. While I can tell that you dislike
Nowhere Man, which is very much your right, don't dismiss Mr. Hertzog. He
is unbelievably candid and very funny to boot. Two things that JMS is
not. I enjoy Babylon5, but moderation is not for me. If somebody wants
to rip an aspect of Babylon5, so long as it is done in an articulate
manner, I say let the venom flow. It is that individual's right to have
an opinion, regardless of it differs from the opinion of JMS, your
opinion, the opinion of Mr. Denebeim, or of every individual in this
newsgroup, for that matter. And I sense that if somebody attempted to
post an opinion which did not concur, it would be moderated (read:
censored). Sorry, no can do. Sign me up as a member of the no longer
Silent Majority.
Robert Holland
>
> So riddle me this. If Michael O'Hare was kicked off the show for ratings
> as you imply, what possible motivation does *he* have to tell the same
> story JMS does when the question comes up at conventions? The promise of
> a bit part in one episode and a guest spot in another a year and a half
> later?
Steve, I want to thank you for your excellent work on Lurker website.
I enjoy it immensely.
The answer, of course, can be found in O'Hare's continued ability
to earn $3000 to $5000 per appearance at sci-fi cons as the official
Babylon 5 spokesperson. It's a nice parachute and he still attends
these affairs.
This is the quid pro quo that fits well with JMS's official release
on the matter. JMS didn't lie and he didn't tell the whole tale.
Simple enough.
Is that enough evidence for Jay's moderated newsgroup?
--RH
robin d thomas
been to harass me either on the newsgroup or in email, much like some of the
other responses to your post. These facts clearly point to the true and almost
universal motivation for "moderation" (aka censorship):...power and control.
Whatever clothes they try to put on it to cover it up, their goal is to control
what is said and who says it. I find it ironic that JMS, whose writings clearly
rail against censorship and tyranny, would condone and support these people by
suggesting (and he has) that he would return if moderation passed. Someone should
inform him of what intellectual honesty means
Robin Thomas
robin d thomas
robin d thomas
Robert Holland
>
> In article <4h5p5c$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> NHorow1829 <nhoro...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I think that I am able to respond to your post. More than likely, if, in
> >fact, Mr. O'Hare was forced out by Warner Brothers, Mr. O'Hare is
> >contractually obligated not to say or do anything which may be construed
> >as being harmful to the show.
>
> gone on record saying things very much like what you're accusing
> happened to O'Hare. This is in print, not just talking with people.
> O'Hare on the other hand has said precisely the opposite both in
> public and in private. Ms. Thompson's position is much more
> precarious than Mr. O'Hare's is, her husband is still on the show. If
> jms was the vindictive type you seem to imply above, what she's been
> saying in the magazines would risk her husband's job.
Oh, LORDY, you do love to talk about THIS subject, Jay! Guess you'll
just have to drop back to good ol' rastb5.
(Yahoo! I just voted a big fat YES to your moderated group.)
Anyway, do you have evidence to prove that anything Andrea Thompson
does has the least effect on her husband's contract with JMS? Or is
this just your baseless speculation? Do you think JMS put a gag clause
in Jerry's contract that says his wife has to keep mum about
behind-the-scenes activities? What libertarian would believe that?
Once JMS quit paying Andrea, their contract was done. She now has
other work, so the family income is right back up there again.
You'll note Andrea was said nothing negative when she was on
JMS's payroll.
O'Hare has an ongoing agreement with JMS to appear at sci-fi cons
as the official B5 ambassador. He can earn up to $5000 per gig.
He's on the payroll and will not deviate from the script. What
incentive does he have to tell you the truth?
OR, maybe we can jump to this conclusion: Filming for third season is
nearly complete, and maybe, for some reason, Andrea now feels free to
expound on her B5 experience. That reason could be that her husband
no longer has a contract with JMS because his character has been killed
in the show. How's that for baseless speculation? Good, huh?
Is vindictive a good word to describe JMS? I dunno, go ask the actor
who played General Hague.
--RH
Jay Denebeim
robin d thomas <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>>In article <4h5gl6$q...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
>>robin d thomas <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>I have stated in several posts my objections to moderation. The response has
>>>been to harass me either on the newsgroup or in email, much like some of the
>>>other responses to your post.
>>That's a very interesting allegation. I don't recall seeing any
>>flames at you,
>
>for example,
>
>>but with your attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if you
>>got them.
That's not a flame, that's a statement of fact, or did you expect
people to just sit still while you called them Nazis. (which, in fact
they did, as I pointed out in the half-hour's research I did that you
snipped)
>> As far as e-mail goes, I doubt any of the proponants would
>>do something like that, I know them all pretty well, and it doesn't
>>sound like something they'd do. Just who is it that has supposedly
>>been harassing you in mail?
>
>two did
Sorry, there is noone known as 'two' on the proponants list. Perhaps
you're confusing someone else as a proponant? They're listed on the
RFD, feel free to look 'em up.
>> Now, in usenet
>>arguments the unofficial rule is once someone brings up the Nazis,
>>they automatically forfit their argument, but we'll leave that alone
>>for the time being.
>
>so the arguments made in acclaimed 'Schindler's List' should have been forfeited
>in your view, hmmmm...
I was unaware that 'Schindler's List' had anything to do with usenet,
also, as I clearly stated above, I am not of that opinion. If I was,
I would not have researched the reply you cut to ribbons.
>> Suffice it it say, you insulted us in about the
>>strongest terms anyone can use.
>
>It's ashame that, when anyone brings up an argument that does not support your
>view it is deemed an insult.
You can't honestly say that calling someone a Nazi is anything other
than an insult.
Jay
--
Jay Denebeim dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us
duke.edu!wolves!deepthot!denebeim
Fuck censorship! Oh *shit* there goes another 100, er $200,000
Jay Denebeim
Emery Calame <eme...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4h62f5$5...@deepthot.cary.nc.us> dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay
>Denebeim) writes:
>>
>>In article <4h5gl6$q...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
>>robin d thomas <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>I think your claim that you know all the proponents is a bit fatuous
>eh?
Sure I do, they're listed in the RFD, here they are:
Proponents:
Chris Carter <car...@teleport.com>
David Stinson <dsti...@ix.netcom.com>
G. O. Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu>
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us>
John Pietrzak <piet...@escalante.cs.byu.edu>
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu>
And for good measure, the supporters as well:
Supporters:
Bill Zimmer <z...@ibx.com>
Cheryl Thompson <Cheryl....@mvs.udel.edu>
Ian J. Ball <IJB...@aol.com>
J. Potts <nav...@xnet.com>
Jaime M. De Castellvi <3c...@qlink.queensu.ca>
Julian P. Graham <jpgr...@starfury.demon.co.uk>
Malinda <sco...@POST.Almac.Co.UK>
Michael J. King Sr. <kin...@primenet.com>
Morgan <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk>
Nathan Mates <nat...@cco.caltech.edu>
Patricia A. Swan <zaf...@aol.com>
Peter Seebach <se...@intran.xerox.com>
Sue Phillips <s.phil...@genie.com>
Teresa Hehir <Ter...@sidhen.demon.co.uk>
Teresa Lhotka <kem...@winternet.com>
Wesley Struebing <str...@aol.com>
>Actaully I got harrassed just for saying it sounded like a ghastly
>group in a rather friendly way. ABout fourteen messages. I didn't
>bother to read who they were from or respond. I'm not actually against
>the group, or for it. I got harrassed by peiople against too. You folks
>are all acting crazy over it.
Not from me you didn't. Again, Emery, if you wouldn't mind, I'd
appreciate it if you'd go through DejaNews and find an example of me
doing it. For most people I'd just blow it off, but you're someone
who generally knows what the heck he's talking about and it buggs me
to see you saying that I said stuff I don't think I did.
>I would classify it as harrassment. As in you dumb mother-%$&er. Now
>JMS is gone and this is our one chance to get him back! or the other
>more scathing ones that say that "I couldn't have read the RFD since
>I'm so incredibly stupid, gullible etc. The one from the against side
>weren't much nicer. One called me a good little future nazi.
That doesn't sound like the proponants to me, which one did this?
>That uofficial rule is too unofficial to mean much and you know it.
>It's not "usenet" so much as "the folks I chat with on usenet".
It's pretty prevelant though. I've heard it used many times on
news.groups and other places. People don't pay much attention to it
though.
>>Our responses to you were as follows:
>>
>>Malinda responded using a 'choice' based response, quoted Jefferson
>>and gently chastised you for using a Nazi insult.
>>
>>I responded telling you that nobody is requireing you to read the new
>>group, and then suggested that if people wanted it we could crosspost
>>all messages to the old newsgroup. (I also remarked I considered it
>>silly)
>>
>>Ian corrected your historical inaccuracies and then wondered why
>>you're trying to impose your views on everyone while talking about
>>freedom.
>>
>>Hardly what I'd call harassment. I would assume that any e-mail you
>>theoretically received was similar since you treated them as
>>equivilent.
>
>Your aassumption would be wrong Jay. YOu lie by omission and don't seem
>to care.
Not quite Em, I went into Deja News and read all three replies. Go
ahead and do it yourself. Her post only garnered the three replies.
THOSE replies started flame-fests, Malinda and Joe Cochren went at it
about 10 levels deep, and Karen Lee flamed me for using a common
colloquialisim. (I phrased 'requiring you to read the new newsgroup'
as "Nobody's holding a gun to your head")
Jay Denebeim
Emery Calame <eme...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>mostly they all involve a third party censoring input
>from a source.
>
>That this is such a bad thing in a news group I don't know. Probably
>isn't. This news-group is still what it is. I sometimes think this net
>community thing gets taken way way too far....
Em, remember that the moderators in this case are mostly libertarians,
and all freedom lovers. To us 'censor' is a very bad word. That's
why we put stuff like the unanomous consent clause in the posts we
bounce.
Jay Denebeim
>I have stated in several posts my objections to moderation. The response has
>been to harass me either on the newsgroup or in email, much like some of the
>other responses to your post.
That's a very interesting allegation. I don't recall seeing any
flames at you, but with your attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if you
got them. As far as e-mail goes, I doubt any of the proponants would
do something like that, I know them all pretty well, and it doesn't
sound like something they'd do. Just who is it that has supposedly
been harassing you in mail?
(BTW from the way you've been talking, I kinda doubt you know what the
term harassment means. It does not mean disagree.)
So, let's take a look at history a bit here, this is your second post,
in your first post you accused us of being Nazis. Now, in usenet
arguments the unofficial rule is once someone brings up the Nazis,
they automatically forfit their argument, but we'll leave that alone
for the time being. Suffice it it say, you insulted us in about the
strongest terms anyone can use.
Our responses to you were as follows:
Malinda responded using a 'choice' based response, quoted Jefferson
and gently chastised you for using a Nazi insult.
I responded telling you that nobody is requireing you to read the new
group, and then suggested that if people wanted it we could crosspost
all messages to the old newsgroup. (I also remarked I considered it
silly)
Ian corrected your historical inaccuracies and then wondered why
you're trying to impose your views on everyone while talking about
freedom.
Hardly what I'd call harassment. I would assume that any e-mail you
theoretically received was similar since you treated them as
equivilent.
Jay
robin d thomas
unacceptable by whatever criteria they believe to be valid.
David Stinson
:unacceptable by whatever criteria they believe to be valid.
Just as a note, but the CFV will be rolling through here later today
presumably, so look at it for yourself to determine if it says what you think
it does.
robin d thomas
>In article <4h5gl6$q...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
>>been to harass me either on the newsgroup or in email, much like some of the
>>other responses to your post.
>
>That's a very interesting allegation. I don't recall seeing any
>flames at you,
for example,
>but with your attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if you
>got them.
> As far as e-mail goes, I doubt any of the proponants would
>do something like that, I know them all pretty well, and it doesn't
>sound like something they'd do. Just who is it that has supposedly
>been harassing you in mail?
two did
>
> Now, in usenet
>arguments the unofficial rule is once someone brings up the Nazis,
>they automatically forfit their argument, but we'll leave that alone
>for the time being.
so the arguments made in acclaimed 'Schindler's List' should have been forfeited
in your view, hmmmm...
> Suffice it it say, you insulted us in about the
>strongest terms anyone can use.
It's ashame that, when anyone brings up an argument that does not support your
view it is deemed an insult.
>--
Emery Calame
Stinson) writes:
>
>In article <4h57il$u...@news1.usa.pipeline.com>, am...@usa.pipeline.com
wrote:
>:
>
><CLIPPED>
>
>Has anyone else noticed that Amy T. & A.J. Tucker (Porkmatzoh) both of
>usa.pipeline.com have very similar writing styles????
>
That is supposed to be a conspiracy? Looks like the same name to me.
What's your point? Conspiracy? Maybe her middle initial is J? Okay.
Cool.
Em
Raymond Francis Fitzpatrick
> I think that I am able to respond to your post. More than likely, if, in
> fact, Mr. O'Hare was forced out by Warner Brothers, Mr. O'Hare is
> contractually obligated not to say or do anything which may be construed
> as being harmful to the show. This type of clause is very common in
> contract law. (My husband is a lawyer. And please, no lawyer jokes). I
> know that the fans of the show, of which I am one, are extremely loyal to
> the show and everyone involved with it. Still, the argument is sound. If
> they were to make a change, it had to be done early, before they got too
> far into the arc and the series. And the choice of Mr. Boxleitner, a
> handsome recognizable and television and movie veteran, and a good actor,
> was an excellent choice to replace Mr. O'Hare. Mr. O'Hare is also
> good-looking, but his acting left something to be desired, and his
> recognizability factor was missing, at least in the States.
While I agree on all the above statements, all I can say is this:
Watch. Listen. Learn.
Then laugh alot when you look back at all this.
Americanized Zen.
>
> not. I enjoy Babylon5, but moderation is not for me. If somebody wants
> to rip an aspect of Babylon5, so long as it is done in an articulate
> manner, I say let the venom flow. It is that individual's right to have
> an opinion, regardless of it differs from the opinion of JMS, your
> opinion, the opinion of Mr. Denebeim, or of every individual in this
> newsgroup, for that matter. And I sense that if somebody attempted to
> post an opinion which did not concur, it would be moderated (read:
> censored). Sorry, no can do. Sign me up as a member of the no longer
> Silent Majority.
Now, if anyone's paid attention to my posts throughout the newsgroup, you
may have noticed I usually lose my sense of humour with Jay. Those of you
able to read me like a book would be able to tell that I am not one of
Jay's friends.
Implication understood? Good. Because it's important that my next
statements do not get lumped into the "Friends of N Carolina Moderators
as Dictated by Jay D" extremism I've been seeing. Depending on my moods,
I've been tempted to either sit down with some carmel popcorn & a tall
glass of something cool and laugh at some of this <exon>, or apologize to
the world for being a fan of a show in which other fans bicker worse than
two SCA'ers over a heraldic device.
According to the charter, and from what I've seen of the defense of it
(and I freely admit I may have missed some key evidence), the whole point
is NOT stop EXACTLY what the above poster (whose post, BTW, *is* well
written and NOT an example of the *exon* I was refering to above, neither
being a flame nor a troll. WHile I obviously dont agree with the second part of
the post, if I was a moderator I'd not only allow it, I'd put it in neon
as an example of how to protest without sinking to a level of absurdity)
was suggesting would be stopped, but rather regulate spoilers and cut out
flames and trolls. As I have currently been up for 36 hrs, I'm a bit
fuzzy on the next sentence: On the subject of trolls and flames, the
poster would be notified that their post is a troll, under the conditions
listed in the charter. Poster could then reword the post to avoid being
classified as a flame or troll (but the moderators wouldnt do it) if they
wish, and say the same thing, if possible.
This does NOT mean any negative opinions towards the show or JMS or the
moderators will be censored as long as they are not structured as flames
or trolls. In other words *gasp* semi-civilized discussion! Now there's a
concept.
Yes, it's entirely possible this is all a scam to gain control.
But what if it isn't?
And here's the kicker:
WHAT DOES IT MATTER?
Is this the only B5 newsgroup? I don't think so. Do you have to chose
whether to stay with moderation or another newsgroup? Pick one over the
other? Hmmm. Possible, but I doubt it. We're not talking citizenship here.
Or even something that costs extra.
We're talking about something that's an effort to regain some semblance
of something. (Wow. That sounded vaguer than the CDA...) If it turns into
the nazi regime, great, wonderful, everyone bails & regroups elsewhere
and they're left with themselves in a sandbox. No skin of our nose, and
you get the added joy of saying "Toldja so..." These people are self
appointed because they volunteered their time. I've yet to see someone go
up to a MUSH (an online role-playing game) and call the entire staff a
bunch of power-hungry self-appointed dictators; if a staff doesnt work
out, they bail and regroup on another MUSH.
If the US federal government cant keep a grip on the denizens of the net,
what makes you think these volunteers are going to tie everyone's mouth shut?
What have you really got to lose people? Having to unsubscribe to a group
that spends most of its time arguing over whether it should be moderated,
if time travel is possible, and whether purple and green are spelled
correctly?
Jay Denebeim
Emery Calame <eme...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4h5fcn$7...@news2.cais.com> be...@cais2.cais.com (TheW...@Endor.com)
>writes:
>>
>>am...@usa.pipeline.com prude, net.stalker, and possible troll wrote:
Also probably AKA Porkmatzoh.
I don't have either Beth's or Pork^H^H^H^HMs. Tucker's posts here yet,
so I don't have the complete context.
>>Uhm no. In fact I will quote your much reviled friend:
>>
>>". . .the -truth- is that the creation of a moderated group -is- about
>>getting JMS back on Usenet."
>
>That is an opinion, and if libelous meant untrue or unproven you might
>have a point. Mainly a libel is a tract or point or statement that
>conveys a bad impression unjustifiably.
Emery, you've been over in news.groups. You know that the proponants
have been stressing since day one that we are, in fact, *NOT* doing
this primarily to get jms back. Franklin has been there as well,
therefore his statement has indeed made "a tract or point or statement
that conveys a bad impression unjustifiably." He is accusing us of
lying hundreds of times over a span of three months.
>It could actually be a sincere statement of his beliefs and Franklin
>might have some (anecdotal) evidence to offer in it's support.
Could be, I've seen nothing but vague accusations and arguing one
thing while going out of his way to do the exact opposite on the
newsgroup.
The proponants have not been acting in this mannor, if anyone is a
hypocrite around here, it's Franklin. (I'm referring to his flaming
us for not including spoiler protection for people who have not asked
for it while REMOVING spoiler protection from his replies here) This
is something easily demonstrable, unlike his and porkie's accusations
which have not basis in reality and therefore no proof.
>I don't think that you and Jay are the paragons of adulthood (on the
>net) that you seem to think this new group will become a safe haven
>for.
Never said I was. However, you might want to go and look at the
things I've flamed people on. Admittedly I do come accross as
somewhat arrogant when talking to clueless newbies, however the people
I flame generally deserve it. (Assuming you don't consider arrogance
flamage)
>Both sides
>of this thing have done some absolutely awful things in the name of
>progress and victory.
Other than some rather inflamatory exchanges with Joe Cochren near the
beginning of the debate and my rather sarcastic reply to Franklin of a
couple of days ago, I don't believe you'll be able to find anything
I've posted. Certainly nothing awful. I realize it's a big job, but
go ahead and search DejaNews, I'll hapilly admit I was wrong if you
can find something.
>>still subscribe and post to rastb5.mod, because I'm tired of ignorant
>>posters like you, I'm tired of the flames, and I'm tired of the
>>UNPROTECTED SPOILERS that have been littering this newsgroup for the
>>last 4 weeks.
>
>That's all fine except those things go way back.
That's why she's tired of them. Also, the spoilers have been the
absolute worse they've ever been this time around. Don't take my word
for it, look for yourself.
>Depends on your definition of crap. We have idiots, we have bullshit,
>we have allegations that Amy has not read x. We have school yard bullie
>libel.
If it was read, it's just as bad because it's being totally ignored.
>>Boy you certainly are campaigning hard to try to get people to vote
>no. Are
>>you sure it's not sour grapes, Amy? BTW, I'd like to take this
>>opportunity to state that if the proponents had pulled half the shit
>that
>>opponents have in this newsgroup over the last week, they would have
>been
>>crucified. Sort of says something about the characters of people on
>>both sides of the issue, yes?
>
>Are you sure that it is? Are you sure that the proponents haven't?
I'm sure. David has been impeccable during the entire debate, Malinda
has done almost as well. Those are the two responsable for about 90%
of the posting on the part of the proponants. I pretty much sat it
out.
>I remember and took part in the Let's kick Ford, Fuller, Fuller
>and Holland thread myself.
As did I, however the extent of what I did was to respond to
responders asking them to please just ignore them. Go back and look,
I know I didn't do more than that.
>The characters of the posters on both sides have mainly been shown in
>their posts. Some seemed less evil than others. The proponents enjoy no
>immunity. The opponents seem to generally not like Jay. That's a
>generalization, but as long as we are all feeling comfortably
>libelous... :)
Again, go back and read what I said in november/december, I'm sure
you'll find that I said none of the things I've been accused of. I do
tend to respond in kind though, although for the most part I only give
back 1/10th of what I get.
> I'll probably exclusively read JMS posts there(if he returns as
> not-promised) and avoid the rest. It seems a bit to much like an
> historical muse or clique for my part.
*sigh* even you, eh? Emery, trust me, this is not going to be like
what you aparently think it will be. The extent of what we'll be
moderating is personal attacks and trolls, that's it. That's what
we've been saying for three months, and that's what we're going to
do.
>>: Oh, before I conclude, there's one more thing I forgot to ask. Just
>why
>>: did Denebeim post in the alt.personals.bondage newsgroup? Is there
>more to
>>: Jay than just Babylon5?
>
>Aaaammmyyyyy. Sigh. Like this soup needed more urine slipped in it?
Just more traif comments, what did you expect. It does show that he
doesn't know me at all. It should be quite obvious to anyone that
reads this newsgroup that I'm a rather kinky individual. I lurk for
the most part in the personals groups, the transgender groups, and the
space groups. I post, generally help with technical problems, in the
Amiga and Linux groups, although I haven't read them in quite awhile,
too much traffic to keep up with in addition to this group.
I'm very open, I always use my real name, I never post from behind my
SO's account, and I always stand behind my opinions.
For the record, that post to APB was crossposted to all of the
personals groups. It was a script that automatically writes letters
to spammers and their sysadms. If you've ever read those newsgroups,
you'd find that they're full of spam and there's hardly ever any
interesting posts there anymore.
>>Honey, I know Jay. He wouldn't be interested in anything you might
>have
>>to offer. So I'd stop with the net.stalking.
Oh, I don't know. I'm not all that choosy when it comes to partners,
besides maybe it would put him/her in a better mood.
>>: I'm sure that he has a ready-made "explanation" up his sleeve. By
>the
>>: way, Jay, this is not defamation or libel. This factwas revealed in
>>: one of the search engines.
>
>Hmmm. Still awfully cheap Amy. Cheap like a plastic paperclip.
I didn't find it all that bad, of course it tells us more about her
than me. With her obvious disapproval of people who enjoy life, she's
certainly not someone who I'd like to see moderating this group. The
BDSM crowd are a pretty cool bunch of people, they're all lovers of
freedom and they don't give a damn about what other people think of
them. Although I'm not really into their kink, our outlook on life is
quite similar and I get along with them quite well.
Jay
B Amini
>
> I have stated in several posts my objections to moderation. The response has
> Whatever clothes they try to put on it to cover it up, their goal is to control
> what is said and who says it.
> Robin Thomas
>
I was just wondering...the existance of the moderated group doesn't
negate the existance of this unmoderated group...does it? If not,
then I don't really see the logic employed by opponents who claim that
having a moderated newsgroup contitutes "censorship". People who want
to say things without submitting to the moderator's "control" would
still have a forum for their views, and an appropriate one at that.
The opponents might argue that people won't read the unmoderated group
if a moderated one exists, but that isn't a valid reason to kill the
moderated group. If the postings on the unmoderated group are worth
reading, they'll be read. If not, well that pretty much justifies the
moderated group now, doesn't it? Freedom of speech does not include
the right to force people to listen to what you have to say.
Basically I think we should have both a moderated and unmoderated
group and let the people choose which they want to read from and post
to. This should meet everybody's needs.
David Mattes Orr
TheW...@Endor.com <be...@cais2.cais.com> wrote:
>
>am...@usa.pipeline.com prude, net.stalker, and possible troll wrote:
>: I have had it. I will stay silent about this subject no longer. You are
>: despicable, Jay. Franklin's allegations were defamatory??? Franklin's
>: allegations were libelous???
>
>Well, they certainly were against the proposed charter.
>
>: What Franklin expressed was clearly an OPINION that in no way, shape or
>: form was in violation of any law, or in violation of the charter, for that
>: matter. He stated that the true reason the vast majority of people will
>: vote for moderation is because it would induce JMS to return to Usenet.
>Uhm no. In fact I will quote your much reviled friend:
>
>". . .the -truth- is that the creation of a moderated group -is- about
>getting JMS back on Usenet."
>
>
>technical. I suppose I could break this down to more simple terms but
>I've got to cook dinner, and there's so much more to deal with.
Ok, I'm not really interested in submerging myself in this flame war,
but I just thought I interject a little fact.
Libel is defined in Webster's as:
1. li.bel \'li--b*l\ n [ME, written declaration, fr. MF, fr. L
libellus, dim. of liber book 1: a handbill
esp. attacking or defaming someone 2a: a written or oral defamatory
statement or representation that conveys an unjustly
unfavorable impression 2b1: a statement or representation published
without just cause and tending to expose another to
public contempt 2b2: defamation of a person by written or
representational means 2b3: the publication of blasphemous,
treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures 2b4: the act,
tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
Saying something that is untrue, for instance that the raison d'etre
of a moderated newsgroup revolves around JMS, does not constitute
libel. This especially applies if the truth is not necessarily known
to the person speaking. Thus if someone believes that the point of
the moderated newsgroup is to regain JMS's presence, and they aren't
saying that to "convey and unjustly unfavorable impression" of a
private individual to the world.
Having reviewed all of the posts in this thread, I would have to say
that there are no libelous statements or posts. This is distinct
from saying that there are no untrue posts; this is also distinct
from saying that there is no malicious intent (the alt.personals.
bondage bit is irrelevant and shows malicious intent).
Note that saying that someone is committing libel is also not libel.
Neither is name-calling.
Oh, and also, libel has to be targeted. So if for instance, one were to
say that all watchers of DS9 slaughter small babies, and even if one
were to say that on national television with the deliberate intent to
make the viewers of DS9 look bad, one still has not committed libel.
It must be more narrowly targeted.
Just to keep the record straight.
Please drop the libel accusations. They are ungrounded and uneducated.
Thanks,
Dave
(I'll just go back to lurking...)
--
*** GCS/O d s+:- !g-* au+ a- v++ c++ M-- -po+ t+ R+ G++ b+++ tv-- e+ u+ y+ ***
"The only man completely at peace |
is a man without a navel." | dm...@leland.stanford.edu
-- Old Two Rivers Saying |
De Castellvi Jaime M
: I have had it. I will stay silent about this subject no longer. You are
: despicable, Jay.
: In fact, the only individual who is violating the law (and probably the
: charter) is YOU. Take a look at your signature line, which is blatantly in
: violation of current federal law, regardless of the fact that it is not
: presently being enforced. I deplore censorship myself, but why do you see
: the need to use vulgar language? I think that your use of it in every post
: is absolutely disgusting. What is your defense? Tourette's syndrome?
: Just what are you attempting to prove? Why can't you express your opinion
: in a more articulate and less profane manner?
: I have been silent for months, but I will be silent no longer. DENEBEIM IS
: A LAP DOG! COME ON PEOPLE! FRANKLIN AND I AREN'T ALONE!. HAVE SOME GUTS!
: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! DON'T TOLERATE CENSORSHIP!
I'll take Jay's posts over your raving hysteria any time Porky. I may not
have a fetish for the man as you appear to do, but at least he is not
given to uncontrollable spasms of "aolis digitalis".
: Oh, before I conclude, there's one more thing I forgot to ask. Just why
: did Denebeim post in the alt.personals.bondage newsgroup? Is there more to
: Jay than just Babylon5? I'm sure that he has a ready-made "explanation" up
: his sleeve.
Why, he had a date with you and he chose to stand you up and post to
alt.personals.bondage instead? Can't say that I blame him... He's got a
parrot already and, besides, who would want to date the yapping
Amy-tville horrour?
Get a life!
: Amy
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Jaime M. de Castellvi ^ <<
>> 3c...@qlink.queensu.ca ^ 'That is not what I meant at all. <<
>> http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3cjmd ^ That is not it, at all.' (T.S.E.) <<
>>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^//////////////////////////////////////<<
>> 'When my uncle saw the note, he tugged out the flag of his <<
>> handkerchief and blew such a hubbub of trumpets that the plates on <<
>> the dresser shook. "It's the same every year," he said. And then he <<
>> looked at me. "But this year it's different..." ' (D.T.) <<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
robin d thomas
<snip>
>
>
>Make no mistake. In the newsgroup world moderation does mean censorship
>by some party according to some standard as out-lined in the RFD. It's
>cool. Just realize that it is a different term than in your dicitonary.
>Moderation can also mean not drinking very much, working out conflicts
>through a neutral third party, presiding over and enforcing the rules
>of a debate... mostly they all involve a third party censoring input
>from a source.
>
>That this is such a bad thing in a news group I don't know. Probably
>isn't. This news-group is still what it is. I sometimes think this net
>community thing gets taken way way too far....
>
>Em
>
You may be right on that last note. I'm just particularly sensitive to cries
for banning the "indecent" that are ubiquitous in society today, e.g., the
recent telecommunications bill indecency clause. I see calls made everywhere for
protecting us (or our children, whatever the mascot is) from ideas that are deemed
offensive. I feel my libertarian self being backed into a corner, and maybe I have
over-reacted alittle here. But, there is the (true) parable about the frog who,
when tossed into boiling water will jump out immediately; but when put in cool water
that is slowly heated to boiling will sit there and die. So when cries for clamping
down on free speech are made at so many levels of society, I just want to turn the
heat down somewhere before we boil.
Robin
be...@cais2.cais.com
: In <4h5fcn$7...@news2.cais.com> be...@cais2.cais.com (TheW...@Endor.com)
<stuff about libel snipped, I'm no lawyer, I could be wrong. I haven't
seen Emery's law degree either, so I'm not going to debate the issue>
: >Ok, JUST THIS ONCE, let's *pretend* that you're right. Since there
: are a
: >number of you who believe this, your collective reaction is most
: >educational. You all clearly believe that the proposal was written to
: get
: >jms back (even though it wasn't), you all just as clearly believe that
: >jms will return. It sounds to me like *big time* sour grapes on your
: >part, that in order to participate again with JMS a number of you are
: >going to have to <gasp> ACT LIKE ADULTS, rather than the schoolyard
: >bullies you've made yourselves out to be on a fairly regular basis
: here
: >on rastb5. Otherwise, why would any of you care so much? What the
: >proponents and supporters of rastb5.mod want is a different forum.
: JMS
: >may come back there. I will clue you in. If JMS never shows up, I'll
: I don't think that you and Jay are the paragons of adulthood (on the
: net) that you seem to think this new group will become a safe haven
: for. In fact you've both played school yard bullie on ocasion. Not that
: I haven't but lets not play this pure and moral game okay? Both sides
: of this thing have done some absolutely awful things in the name of
: progress and victory.
Uhm, I've never claimed moral purity, or a massive amount of maturity.
This is one of the reasons I didn't volunteer to moderate. Frankly, I
can't think of a time when I've posted a flame that was unprovoked. You
may know of one or more. However, my habits on USENET, don't negate the
validity of wanting a forum in which we ALL act like adults. I've never
meant to take some kind of moral highground as far as maturity and
flaming are concerned. I do get really pissed off when others decide to
show their opposition to something THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM by attacking
my friends. Sometimes my response is more mature than others.
: >still subscribe and post to rastb5.mod, because I'm tired of ignorant
: >posters like you, I'm tired of the flames, and I'm tired of the
: >UNPROTECTED SPOILERS that have been littering this newsgroup for the
: >last 4 weeks.
: That's all fine except those things go way back.
I beg your pardon? What exactly are you attempting to say here?
: The problem is: this
: is a fairly ignorant flame(in that you've made no attempt to do
: anything but butt-slam your opponent with labels and such while loudly
: and contemptuosly decrying her prior use of those same tactics) and
: probably shouldn't be tolerated on the future group as per the RFD and
: thus one might suppose that the moderation will be flawed if it's
: proponents have engaged in the behavior they claim to be trying to
: eliminate.
Look, you can call me any name and imply anything you feel. The woman
wrote some lousy cheap shots about a friend of mine, with no
supportable facts other than to say that she saw a post of his over in
one of the personals newsgroups. The entire tenor of the post reeked of an
attack rather than sincere worries. At that point, my response was to
treat her post for what I believe it was. Another smear on people that I
respect. I'm under no obligation to educate her, or treat the excrement
that passes for posting as anything other than an object for derision. I
need not justify that to you or anyone.
Would I get away with it on the moderated newsgroup? No. But then a
post like hers wouldn't get through in the first place therefore making
the argument moot.
: >Boy you certainly are campaigning hard to try to get people to vote
: no. Are
: >you sure it's not sour grapes, Amy? BTW, I'd like to take this
: >opportunity to state that if the proponents had pulled half the shit
: that
: >opponents have in this newsgroup over the last week, they would have
: been
: >crucified. Sort of says something about the characters of people on
: >both sides of the issue, yes?
: Are you sure that it is? Are you sure that the proponents haven't? I'm
: not.
Yes I am sure the proponents haven't. I've read every thread that has
started over moderation. I've read everyone over in news.groups. Did
you read the one where it was implied that the proponents were somehow
responsible for something that someone on a listserve posted? Do you
think that it wouldn't have been a *big* topic over in news.groups if any
of the proponents had written something here saying "SILENT MAJORITY
UNITE, VOTE YES TO MODERATION"?
: I remember and took part in the Let's kick Ford, Fuller, Fuller
: and Holland thread myself. That's when this got started mostly. That's
: hwen the support came. Proponents did imply that the moderated group
: would have JMS support and did get just as nasty and low as the
: opponents.
I was lurking then and read all the nastiness directed at fffh. I know
that many of the proponents were upset and flaming. However, I don't
remember them being moderation proponents at the time that the major
flaming was going on. If I remember correctly, they were participants in
a newsgroup, that had just had a major upheaval and were understandably
pissed off. I don't remember seeing them trying to solicit support, I do
remember them trying to find out if support was already there. There is
a difference.
: The characters of the posters on both sides have mainly been shown in
: their posts. Some seemed less evil than others. The proponents enjoy no
: immunity. The opponents seem to generally not like Jay. That's a
: generalization, but as long as we are all feeling comfortably
: libelous... :)
You got me. There have been opponents who've been quite honorable in
their opposition. However, I really can't think of a proponent who has
done anything like the posts I've seen here in the past two weeks.
: >:
: >: I have been silent for months, but I will be silent no longer.
: DENEBEIM IS
: >: A LAP DOG! COME ON PEOPLE! FRANKLIN AND I AREN'T ALONE!. HAVE
: SOME GUTS!
: >: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! DON'T TOLERATE
: CENSORSHIP!
: Nothing for me to get worked up over though.
: >Can you spot the Defammatory Comment in the above? Can you say,
: eleventh
: >hour vote swinging attempt?
: No. It's quite beyond me Beth. I yield to thy superior intellect.
: Surely the coming utopia will silence all who dissent against thy
: perfect and inviolate will. Please forgive me for falling so short of
: your estimation of my brains. Unworthy as they are I never sought to
: hurt thee so.
You're forgiven dear, it sounds more to me like a lower level of cyncism
than inferior intellect on your part. But you would know best. So
it's ok for people to sound off in a way that I find odious, but if I
respond, then I'm implying that my will is perfect and inviolate? Did I
get that one right? Is the implication then, that I shouldn't respond
since the way I respond clearly offends you and perhaps others? Keeping
in mind that this isn't a moderated group, perhaps I'm giving those who
call for me to sit back and "take it" a chance to practice what they
preach?
: Actually she could've just used a search engine to look up places Jay
: has posted between two dates...... Still I"ve always had a fondness for
: the old "all homophobes are secretly gay" argument. Mainly I like it
: because it would imply that all homosexuals are in fact heterosexual
: and that we are living in a Stanislaw Lem shortstory, which be make
: going to work tommorow a bit more fun.
I'm soooo confused. ;)
: Let's infer whatever the hell we want to and add it quietly to the
: bible shall we? The above would work nicely in the abridgements to The
: Gospel of Saint John. Then let's post this to the new group(if it
: passes) see if it gets moderated out. Okay? Or let's just drop it back
: to reasonable levels.
Ok, so can I consider my hand slapped and we go on our merry way, or
is this something that's going to continue anytime I decide to flame in
kind?
--
Beth
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Write your senators and urge them to support Senator Leahy's Bill (Senate
Bill 1567 to repeal section 502 of the CDA). You can get your senators'
e-mail address at http://www.senate.gov.
According to the Communications Decency Act, these are the words you may
no longer use in your Internet correspondence: Shit, piss, fuck, cunt,
cock-sucker, mother-fucker and tits. The use of shit, piss, fuck, cunt,
cock-sucker, mother-fucker and tits, may now earn you a substantial fine
as well as possible jail time, since President Clinton has signed this
Bill into law. Please refrain from using shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cock-
sucker, mother-fucker and tits, to protect your children as well as
others, from their evil influence, thus keeping America "ideologically
pure".
Jim Sorenson
> Oh, before I conclude, there's one more thing I forgot to ask. Just why
> did Denebeim post in the alt.personals.bondage newsgroup? Is there more to
> Jay than just Babylon5? I'm sure that he has a ready-made "explanation" up
> his sleeve. By the way, Jay, this is not defamation or libel. This fact
> was revealed in one of the search engines. Hey, maybe your next project
> can be the moderation of the search engines. Jay "Purveyor of Purity"
> Deneheim. Our self-annointed leader.
Now, no matter what you said earlier, where Jay chooses to post is up to
him, and he certainly does not need to explain himself to you. While
there is nothing wrong with revealing where Jay posts, I would like to
know where you get the authority to condem him for it.
-Galvatron, almighty leader of the Decepticons-
* * * * * * * * *
* "Accidents happen!" *
* -J.T. Marsh *
* * * * * * * * *
De Castellvi Jaime M
: Mr. O'Hare is also
: good-looking, but his acting left something to be desired, and his
: recognizability factor was missing, at least in the States.
I have been talking to some people who, like myself, have some
extensive experience working as part of a military chain of command both
in garrison and field (by which I do not mean somebody like a civilian
civil servant working in some military HQ). None of us finds Mr. O'Hare's
acting to be "wooden" or particularly poor. During the first few eps,
there was some stiffness both in dialogue and demeanour, but that got
sorted out with the mileage and didn't last long (whereas after 7 years
of TNG, Jonathan Frakes has yet to shed his woody-fibrosis, and as for
Voyager's Ms. Muldaur, well...). Furthermore Mr. O'Hare *knew* how to use
his voice.
Then again, military deportment and demeanour could be perceived as
"wooden" by an outside civilian. Me, and my military friends find Mr.
O'Hare's acting in the role of Sinclair to be truly exceptional. He
incorporates features which each of us has seen in different military
officers ranking from Major and above remarkably well (I was told
yesterday that the actor has a brother who is a naval Captain, which
would certainly help explain things). In particular, he incorporates
several traits and gestures remarkably like those of one of the best COs
I have ever served with (Lieutenat Colonel by rank, which in ship terms
would make him *exactly* a Commander).
I've said before and I'll say it again. I would love to see Mr. O'Hare
return. I think there is plenty of room for both himself and Mr.
Boxleitner in the B5 universe. But things shall be as they may...
Cheers,
Jaime
be...@cais3.cais.com
: In <4h79os$f...@news2.cais.com> be...@cais2.cais.com (TheW...@Endor.com)
: writes:
: >
: >
: >Uhm, I've never claimed moral purity, or a massive amount of maturity.
: Okay, me neither. But criticizing opponents for lack of same and acting
: like you need some place to go to where we can all be adults is a bit
: "amusing" to me.
And I post only to amuse. However, if someone acts like a bully, I'll
respond in kind. If someone posts a polite (or reasonably so) argument,
I'll respond to that in a like fashion.
:
: >This is one of the reasons I didn't volunteer to moderate. Frankly, I
: >can't think of a time when I've posted a flame that was unprovoked.
: Oh, well that's easy. I would think no one anywhere has posted an
: uprovoked flame. started an unprovoked war, etc. Just so you realize
: that your reponse was about as bad as mine, or Amy's. That's about all
: I was trying to point out. To many stones and glass houses are about
: for this sort of thing to continue.
Don't mistake me. If someone posts another ignorant piece of shit
attacking someone I consider a friend, I'll respond, and I'll probably use
the same tactics the poster did. I do believe that turnabout is fair play.
While I appreciate your willingness to be my own personal Jiminy
Cricket, it's sort of a waste of your time. But if it amuses you, feel
free to continue.
: You
: >may know of one or more. However, my habits on USENET, don't negate
: the
: >validity of wanting a forum in which we ALL act like adults. I've
: never
: >meant to take some kind of moral highground as far as maturity and
: >flaming are concerned. I do get really pissed off when others decide
: to
: >show their opposition to something THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM by
: attacking
: >my friends. Sometimes my response is more mature than others.
: I think you can express being pissed off without acting like a net
: bully.
If someone pushes me or someone I care about, I'll push back and more
likely harder. I've found that silence does nothing but allow
others to think that their behavior is tolerated. You may feel as if
your response to me is in that same vein. I'd disagree, but you're
within your rights to continue.
: I can. Not that I always do, but it seems to me that a moderator
: isn't going to solve your promlems here (or mine) when we can't
: consistently do so ourselves. We would need a miracle moderator to do
: so. I'm not attacking you for being rotten, but rather for being rotten
: and accusing someone else of being rotten and portaying this mess as
: the true analog of the rfd battle.
Let's see. Someone posted what I felt was a personal attack and
propaganda designed to sway votes. I responded by saying it was a
personal attack, calling the poster ignorant, (as her post clearly showed
her to be) and giving my opinion of her. I suppose you can look on that
as rotten behavior, but if the same situation occurs, I'll do it again.
What I do find interesting is that you choose to attack me, for
defending a friend, rather than focusing on the original poster for
needlessly attacking Jay. Why is that? I'd also call that an
unprovoked flame, thereby negating your earlier assertion that there are no
"unprovoked flames".
: >
: >: >still subscribe and post to rastb5.mod, because I'm tired of
: ignorant
: >: >posters like you, I'm tired of the flames, and I'm tired of the
: >: >UNPROTECTED SPOILERS that have been littering this newsgroup for
: the
: >: >last 4 weeks.
: >
: >: That's all fine except those things go way back.
: >
: >I beg your pardon? What exactly are you attempting to say here?
: Unprotected spoilers, flames, and ignorant posters have been on rastb5
: for a long time. If you are that tired of them then you don't belong
: here. Take a break or stick to mod. But don't act like it's the evil
: ways of decadent rastb5 that forced you to consider retreating. If you
: don't like it here that's perfectly reasonable. I think it's a bit of a
: stretch to say that you are a victim of ignorance and callousness
: though. I just can't seem to hear those fiddles playing.
I challenge you to provide a quote where I said I was a victim of
anything. Yes I'm tired of the spoilers and the ignorant posters, as
well as a number of other things. But until the new group is created,
here I will stay, and I will continue to talk about why I want to
see rastb5.mod created everytime someone decides to put out there own
version of propaganda as to why people should vote no. I find it
"amusing" that you would deny me the same avenue to voice my opinion,
while you vehemently defend other's "rights" to lie and vilify people
whose only sin is to decide to create a new group. Not to sway anyone
(at least I don't think that's my motive, if it is it'd be a pretty
stupid way to go about it), but to voice *my* side. Depending on how
factual and polite the opposing viewpoint is, will most likely dictate
how I will respond. It's also going to depend on my mood. I saw the
original post before I had eaten dinner, it was rainy and nasty, and I
almost fell in a mud puddle while I was running, therefore, I was more
quick to lauch a counter-attack rather than a well thought out
refutation. Frankly, I still don't believe the post merited anything
other than the response I gave it.
: >Look, you can call me any name and imply anything you feel. The woman
: >wrote some lousy cheap shots about a friend of mine, with no
: >supportable facts other than to say that she saw a post of his over in
: >one of the personals newsgroups. The entire tenor of the post reeked
: of an
: >attack rather than sincere worries. At that point, my response was to
: I've called you a bit of a hypocrite and prone to the same sorts of
: posts that you don't like to read. I guess that's a name but your post
: did support the charges and really I'm mainly acusing you of blowing
: the whole thing out of proportion. You took equally cheap shots and
: regardless of how you feel about an opponent they are still cheap
: shots. It was an attack.
I haven't denied that I attacked. I did. I will do it again, if I see
something similar. I don't believe that I've tried to pretend that it
was anything other than a MASSIVE PERSONAL COUNTER-ATTACK. Ok?
: Still, you might've done a lot of more
: constructive things than trying to see who's got more net presence.
: A counter attack is not a defense.
What an incredible conclusion you've jumped to. What makes you think I
care one whit about my "net presence"? There are a number of people on
this newsgroup who will tell you I've been here quite a while. Up until
the constant attacks upon Jay started, I was quite content to lurk and
keep my opinions to myself. I've seen people who are intent on becoming
net.legends, it's far too much work for far too little reward in my
opinion.
: I
: >need not justify that to you or anyone.
: You do if you plan to use that as a reason to vote yes. You are trying
: to be influetial here no?
Actually, no. Again, this person decided to attack a friend of mine, I
decided to respond in kind. What part of that answer are you not
understanding?
: >I was lurking then and read all the nastiness directed at fffh. I
: know
: >that many of the proponents were upset and flaming. However, I don't
: >remember them being moderation proponents at the time that the major
: >flaming was going on.
: Within two days of the announcement actually. The RFD was supported
: before it was drafted.
Well, that makes some sense, why would you bother to draft an RFD if you
weren't sure of some support. As I said, they looked to see if there was
any, I didn't see them trying to generate it. I'll defer to you as to
the time frame, though I have my doubts that there was any kind of formal
organization within 48 hours.
: If I remember correctly, they were participants in
: >a newsgroup, that had just had a major upheaval and were
: understandably
: >pissed off.
: Maybe there is a way of looking at things where the opponents are
: justifiably pissed off?
Not when it's personal attacks. I didn't participate in the attacks on
the dustspecks, I've pretty much stayed out of the personal attacks
during the moderation discussion, except when things got out of hand.
Which is another reason that I find it interesting that you seem to think
that I do this a lot. I can think of two other times outside of this
particular thread that I've gone into personal attack mode. While I'm
flattered that you've apparently been keeping tabs on me, I hardly think
that defending a friend by responding *IN KIND* to personal attacks
makes me a bully. I'll go look it up, but it seems to me that my
responses put me pretty squarely on the side of standing up to same
rather than making me one. However, when you see me post something here
with a personal insult in the subject header, I'll stand corrected.
: I don't remember seeing them trying to solicit support, I do
: >remember them trying to find out if support was already there. There
: is
: >a difference.
: Uh yeah. Except there really isn't.
Of course there is. I'm beginning to think that your definitions and my
dictionary's are very different, hence, not much true debate can be had
on a number of issues here.
: >
: >You got me. There have been opponents who've been quite honorable in
: >their opposition. However, I really can't think of a proponent who
: has
: >done anything like the posts I've seen here in the past two weeks.
: I have been shot at by some of them for nothing and less than nothing.
: And the opponents as well.
Frankly, I don't remember seeing posts from you on any of the moderation
threads nor responses, positive or negative, so I can't comment.
: >
: >: No. It's quite beyond me Beth. I yield to thy superior intellect.
: >: Surely the coming utopia will silence all who dissent against thy
: >: perfect and inviolate will. Please forgive me for falling so short
: of
: >: your estimation of my brains. Unworthy as they are I never sought to
: >: hurt thee so.
: >
: >You're forgiven dear, it sounds more to me like a lower level of
: cyncism
: >than inferior intellect on your part. But you would know best.
: With my infereior intellect? Hmmm.... Yet if you say so then I can't be
: right so...error error.....
Norman coordinate. <ducking quickly>
: Keeping
: >in mind that this isn't a moderated group, perhaps I'm giving those
: who
: >call for me to sit back and "take it" a chance to practice what they
: >preach?
: Perhaps. Or perhaps you're running off at a whime. Whatever. I'm just
: excersising my equivalent right to complain.
Well as long as we've got that settled. What's a whime?
: >
: >Ok, so can I consider my hand slapped and we go on our merry way, or
: >is this something that's going to continue anytime I decide to flame
: in
: >kind?
: Not anytime. Just for while till I get bored and my life kicks in
: again. And if you want to consider your hand slapped, well it's better
: than having your head shaved and being forced to march 8 miles with a
: 40 pound satchel on your back everyday.
Do NOT get me started. How about 2-4 miles everyday rain or shine running
among people who pretend you're invisible, or are imagining you with a big
bullseye on your back? Wrist slapping suddenly takes on a whole new appeal.
De Castellvi Jaime M
: *sigh* even you, eh? Emery, trust me, this is not going to be like
: what you aparently think it will be. The extent of what we'll be
: moderating is personal attacks and trolls, that's it. That's what
: we've been saying for three months, and that's what we're going to
: do.
I hate to have to do this. I have not done this since I was a newbie. But
here I go, swallowing my tripes:
Me too!
Honestly, Emery, we are not that at all. I hope we will be able to prove
it to you in time, since not now. I think it is going to be a lot of fun for
all, kind of the way it once used to be (I still have a hard copy I kept
of that "Fnord" comeback you dealt to a guy from Montreal whose
designation was just that -*chuckle*). Cool ;)
be...@cais3.cais.com
<my ignorance and Mr. Orr's correction snipped>
: Please drop the libel accusations. They are ungrounded and uneducated.
I stand corrected, and I apologize for the misuse.
Curious Of All Natures
I have stated in several posts my objections to moderation, too. I
didn't get any response that could be called harassment or flaming.
Perhaps there was a difference in our delivery.
>These facts clearly point to the true and almost
>universal motivation for "moderation" (aka censorship):...power and control.
Or they don't.
-Matthew Ryan, aka Curious Of All Natures
mb...@midway.uchicago.edu http://uhs.bsd.uchicago.edu/~matt/
================================ ====================================
Let us treat men and women well; If you dare to be who you truly want
treat them as if they were real. to be, you risk enjoying every day
Perhaps they are. --R.W.Emerson of your life. --Desmond Atholl
================================ ====================================
Michael J.King Sr.
>the one that says self-selected individuals will screen posts they deem
>unacceptable by whatever criteria they believe to be valid.
Good sidestep. I still want to know WHAT dictionary, not your definition.
You also avoided ascribing motives to me that you can't possibly know.
Waiting to be illuminated. Later.Mike#139
walter lee
>> If somebody wants to rip an aspect of Babylon5,
so long as it is done in an articulate manner, I say let the venom flow. <<
Yes, but sometimes, they are neither articulate, nor rippingly fair...only
venemous...
(Example: You asked us not to make lawyer jokes....but what if I didn't respect you?
Or had a grudge to bear on you, or your husband. You think your request would stop me?
What if you were outnumbered by those that wanted to hurt you, or your reputation?
Wouldn't you want a place where you can state your side of the story without being
drowned out by the sheer vulgarity of your slanderers?
The new group is for you too.
The only reason *those pyschopathic few* don't attack
you at this point is because they feel you are not *that* important to attack...
But the potential exists. Say, the moment you win
the lottery, run for a political office or are associated with someone who does,
or become famous, etc.
>> It is that individual's right to have an opinion, regardless of it differs from the opinion of JMS, your
opinion, the opinion of Mr. Denebeim, or of every individual in this
newsgroup, for that matter. <<
Yes. And it's called rec.arts.tv.sf.babylon5...where you will get your unadulterated
discussions, if you so wish.
This newsgroup will continue to EXIST....free speech will not be curtailed, rather enhaced
because the fear of getting net-mugged will be gone. Allowing those people
that fear such abuse, to lower their guards down, test the waters around the moderated
group, before plunging into the depths of the unmoderated environment.
By some estimates there will be 150 million+ with access to usenet in the next few years...
And why is this such a *bad* thing?
If the new group is not wanted, then nobody will post into it, thus killing it.
And the experiment will be over.
>> And I sense that if somebody attempted to post an opinion which did not concur, it would be moderated (read:
censored). <<
Yes. And you will SCREAM your lungs out on rastb5, and people will listen if your grudge
is a fair one. Notably, ME. And I will instantly volunteer to help you on your cause.
.
>> Sorry, no can do. Sign me up as a member of the no longer Silent Majority.<<
Then in effect, you deny some people's right to a new newsgroup, which you
were not going to use in the first place..
The I guess you belong to the oppressive minority.
Regs,
W..
I urge you to reconsider your vote, as I don't believe you understand the stakes.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
walter lee Internet Technology Systems
gk...@itsnet.com
Internet Access Provided by Internet Technology Systems
porkm...@usa.pipeline.com
DENEBEIM!!>, 'bam...@remdev2.ny.jpmorgan.com (B Amini)' wrote:
>I was just wondering...the existance of the moderated group doesn't
>negate the existance of this unmoderated group...does it? If not,
>then I don't really see the logic employed by opponents who claim that
>having a moderated newsgroup contitutes "censorship". People who want
>to say things without submitting to the moderator's "control" would
>still have a forum for their views, and an appropriate one at that.
>
>
>The opponents might argue that people won't read the unmoderated group
>if a moderated one exists, but that isn't a valid reason to kill the
>moderated group. If the postings on the unmoderated group are worth
>reading, they'll be read. If not, well that pretty much justifies the
>moderated group now, doesn't it? Freedom of speech does not include
>the right to force people to listen to what you have to say.
>
>
>Basically I think we should have both a moderated and unmoderated
>group and let the people choose which they want to read from and post
>to. This should meet everybody's needs.
>
Actually, I agree with you 100%. ONLY so long as the existence of the
moderated newsgroup does not subsequently leave this newsgroup with an
empty room. I cannot be the only one to think that this will be the end
result of a "YES" vote.
Still, before they go, I would like to see some honesty out of these
moderators and get at least one of them to openly admit that the reason
they want the moderation is so that JMS will return. (By the way, has
anyone else noticed that the "Proponents" and "Mentor" are all male? Just
an observation). Since killfiles are readily available to anyone who wants
to eliminate "trolls and flames", their explanation is phony. Plain and
simple. They don't want to subscribe to Compuserve or America Online, so
they want his presence on Usenet. Fine. Even though his posts are
re-posted in this newsgroup, I have no problem with that. If they think
that having direct posting access to JMS will give them a sense of
closeness to the show, fine. What grates me is that they don't want to
come out and say it. What are they ashamed of? It's a valid reason.
Can't say that I agree, but it's no less valid.
I enjoy reading criticism so long as it's done properly. The special
effects in Babylon5 are excellent, but the story and the acting has, at
times, left something to be desired. The moderators are clearly in love
with each and every aspect of the show, and regardless of what they now
claim, will tolerate no serious criticism of any kind. To say that their
judgment will be objective is a pipe dream. And, if I had my choice
between reading long-winded banal discourses about whether or not Ivanova
keeps kosher, (like JMS gives a rat's ass), or reading, say, a Theron
Fuller post, I'll take Theron's post every time. Succinct, witty,
opinionated, critical. I don't always agree, but they're never boring.
And if he takes a shot at somebody, it isn't a vicious and mean-spirited
flame.
No, if you want vicious and mean-spirited flames, with plenty of vulgar
language as a bonus, read the posts of the future moderators, aka "The
Seven Dwarfs". Which leads me to another question: Why isn't
TheWitch@Endor a moderator? Not only would she be able to lend a female
presence to "The Seven Dwarfs", but she is *also* a witch. And maybe
"Beth" could lend JMS a few pointers on how he could spice up the show.
Maybe she could violate the charter and give JMS a story idea for the big
3rd season cliffhanger episode: Delenn, Sheridan and Sinclair are in the
sack together. They're eating a kosher meal, if you know what I mean.
Just at the height of passion, they scream in unison: "Shit, piss, fuck,
cunt, cock-sucker, mother-fucker and tits. The use of shit, piss, fuck,
cunt, cock-sucker, mother-fucker and tits, may now earn you a substantial
fine as well as possible jail time, since President Clinton has signed this
Bill into law. Please refrain from using shit, piss, fuck, cunt,
others, from their evil influence, thus keeping America "ideologically
pure".
her native tongue: "dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us". And simultaneously,
there can be English subtitles on the screen: " Fuck censorship! Oh *shit*
there goes another 100, er $200,000." JMS will really be impressed.
Or, by using "Beth's" and Denebeim's sig. lines, would Warner Bros. and
Babylonian Productions get into copyright infringement? Hope not. 'Cause
as Beavis and Butt-Head would say, that would be cool.
AJ Tucker
porkm...@usa.pipeline.com
Emery Calame
>
>> >Is that enough evidence for Jay's moderated newsgroup?
>> >
>> >--RH
>>
>> Not good evidence. Plausible explanation though.
>
>What?! It has to be good evidence? Golly, we have JMS on record
stating
>how much O'Hare and others were stiffed from their fees by a corrupt
>sci-fi con, and lots of stuff from JMS indicating just how much they
>were stiffed. Mark Hamill was out $5000 and O'Hare somewhat less,
>as I recall.
Yeah. Stuff I never gave a fuck about. You brought it up hoss. You
asked. Cool? Don't go putting words in my head.
>It doesn't get much more accurate than this.
>
>>
>> I'm not that upset over why O'hare left.
>>
>> Em
>
>Me neither. And I fail to see how any of it personally harms anyone.
>
>But I voted yes anyway.
I didn't vote cause I don't care one way or the other. If a lotof
people wanna do it and you're one of em great! Vote yes!
If you think it's a lame mess that no one will care about and a waste
of a valuable rec designation then vote no. Whatever.
Em
Emery Calame
Jaime M) writes:
>
>robin d thomas (roth...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: > As far as e-mail goes, I doubt any of the proponants would
>: >do something like that, I know them all pretty well, and it doesn't
>: >sound like something they'd do. Just who is it that has supposedly
>: >been harassing you in mail?
>
>: two did
>
support your
>: view it is deemed an insult.
>
>manner without bringing in insulting allegations, and yet they get
>self-righteous all over when dealt a good dose of their own medicine.
>Which isn't even the case in this particular instance.
>
>While on the subject of (this time unproved and unsupported)
allegations,
>would you care to provide the names of the two people whom you claim
did
>send you harassing email? I know the people in the list too rather
well
>by now, or at least well enough to know that none of them would stoop
>down to this kind of behaviour. But I will give you the benefit of the
>doubt until you substantiate your claim...
Gee thanks. I've been bugged by rpoponents and opponents alike although
I define the term propent based on the stand illustrated in the posters
missive. Fact is I got bitched at most uncouthly for hardly any
rudeness on my part when mentioning my dstinterest in the whole thing.
As I said before it was from both sides.
As to the uproven and unsupported I believe I offered coroborating
evidence. Confirmation. That is support. Whether you choose to believe
it or not (for whatever reasons) isn't my concern. I didn't bother
keeping names because as with most obnoxious e-mails I generaly read
and pitch them. It simply never occured to me that someone would be
naive enough to simply decide that it probably couldn't have happened
or even that it was terribly important that it had. Never mind then.
I'll know who not to speak to from now on when such things come up.
Em
>Cheers,
>
>Jaime
David Stinson
Rocky Persaud <rocky....@utoronto.ca> wrote:
:porkm...@usa.pipeline.com() wrote:
:>On Mar 01, 1996 23:23:22 in article <Re: SILENT MAJORITY UNITE AGAINST
:>DENEBEIM!!>, 'bam...@remdev2.ny.jpmorgan.com (B Amini)' wrote:
:>
:>
:>>I was just wondering...the existance of the moderated group doesn't
:>>negate the existance of this unmoderated group...does it? If not,
:>>then I don't really see the logic employed by opponents who claim that
:>>having a moderated newsgroup contitutes "censorship". People who want
:>>to say things without submitting to the moderator's "control" would
:>>still have a forum for their views, and an appropriate one at that.
:>>
:>>
:>>The opponents might argue that people won't read the unmoderated group
:>>if a moderated one exists, but that isn't a valid reason to kill the
:>>moderated group. If the postings on the unmoderated group are worth
:>>reading, they'll be read. If not, well that pretty much justifies the
:>>moderated group now, doesn't it? Freedom of speech does not include
:>>the right to force people to listen to what you have to say.
:>>
:>>
:>>Basically I think we should have both a moderated and unmoderated
:>>group and let the people choose which they want to read from and post
:>>to. This should meet everybody's needs.
:>>
:>------------------------------------------------
:>
:>Actually, I agree with you 100%. ONLY so long as the existence of the
:>moderated newsgroup does not subsequently leave this newsgroup with an
:>empty room. I cannot be the only one to think that this will be the end
:>result of a "YES" vote.
:>
:>AJ Tucker
:>porkm...@usa.pipeline.com
:
:With the amount of cross-posting that goes on here, do you really think
:this will happen?
:
:What doesn't get through the moderated group WILL get through to this one.
:
:Do you plan on posting to one of the these groups and not the other?
:
:Does anyone?
:
:What do you want, ambassadore?
:
:
:sheesh
:
:
:Rocky
Just as a note, if a post is cross-posted to a moderated group, it MUST be
approved in the moderated group to appear in any of them.
Which will limit cross-posting to some degree.
Michael J.King Sr.
>I didn't vote cause I don't care one way or the other. If a lotof
>people wanna do it and you're one of em great! Vote yes!
>If you think it's a lame mess that no one will care about and a waste
>of a valuable rec designation then vote no. Whatever.
>Em
Em the above certainly sounds like you do care, whether you meant to or not. I
read the above as vote no if you think it's a lame mess and waste of a valuable
Rec designation and vote yes if you... well I'm sure you get my drift. Believe
me this issue wears on me but I can only sit back and say nothing for so long. I
don't get nasty but as one of the volunteer moderators I want people to see that
I do indeed believe in RASTB5MOD by chirping in from time to time.
Later. Mike#139
Emery Calame
Jaime M) writes:
>
>Emery Calame (eme...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Gee thanks. I've been bugged by rpoponents and opponents alike
although
>: I define the term propent based on the stand illustrated in the
posters
>: missive. Fact is I got bitched at most uncouthly for hardly any
>: rudeness on my part when mentioning my dstinterest in the whole
thing.
>: As I said before it was from both sides.
Sorry about my typing here...sheesh! Real sorry.
>Well, Em, although I'm surprised, I do not doubt your words. I did
with
>Robin because of his/her posting style in contrast between what I have
>come to know of the posting manner and character of people in the
Satai
>list. Notice I was replying to Robin and not to you. You could also
think
>of the fact that I did not challenge your claims as granting them by
>omission.
Okay. I'm a little touchy here and I apologize for not acting my age.
>I regret to hear that you got bitched at "most uncouthly". I can only
say
>that I did not perceive this to be the norm on the side of the
supporters
>field. A strong game of dialectic ping-pong took place rather often,
and
>yes, sometimes a tad too strong. But for the most part, I saw us
taking a
>hell of a lot more (and nastier) than what we gave back. Some of it
was
>rather poisonous. For one instance, I bet nobody emailed you to accuse
>you of sleeping with Theron Fuller (not that you or Theron would
>necessarily feel that way about one another ;). One of our female
>moderators got called a "bitch" in the same sentence where she was
>accused of sleeping with Jay Denebeim (nothwistanding the geographical
Naw. I got called a spineless *&#%head, and was generally introduced to
several ways to imply that I'm intinsicly clueless, stupid, naive, etc.
and ought to be grateful for the guardianship for whichever side I was
stepping on. My post mainly said that it wasn't that big of a deal.
Heresy to both extremes! Imagine my surprise. Usually I only get flamed
for telling people that giant robots are impossible and getting into
policitcal tugging matches. Most of it comes from the Star Trek group.
Anyway if you are willing to apologize for it obviously you are not in
sympathy with this crusade mentality of it and I owe you an apology for
making the link the way I did. Sorry.
>remoteness between the two).
>
>It often went quite a bit farther than "most uncouthly" (check
>proliferation of hysterical rantings about Jay), in this
>case becoming vicious sexual harassment. Needless to say, she was most
>upset, but she took it in stride even in her reply.
To tell you the truth I think Jay gets that because he rubs people the
wrong way. That's not why the nice kind folks send him this stuff, it's
their responsibility after all, but I think that's why they make him
their target. If it wasn't him it'd be someone else.
>Still, there is no reason why you should have got your head chewed
upon
>for expressing a minor disagreement. If this was the case, for
whatever
>this may be worth, I apologize on behalf of all of us.
Yeah well. Obviously I'm as prone to overreaction as those I'm making
complaint against so I'll just kind of walk away now. I'm obviously not
objective enought to keep my spirits high and my aims noble. Again,
sorry for any trouble.
Em
>Cheers,
>
>Jaime
>
>
>--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Jaime M. de Castellvi ^
<<
>>> 3c...@qlink.queensu.ca ^ 'That is not what I meant at all.
<<
>>> http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3cjmd ^ That is not it, at all.'
(T.S.E.) <<
>>>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^///////////////////////////////////
//<<
Robert Holland
>If you think it's a lame mess that no one will care about and a waste
>of a valuable rec designation then vote no. Whatever.
>
>Em
Well, Em, that's why I voted yes.
It'll give Denebeim something to do...
--RH
Tom McLean
> I voted no, because I am against moderated group on principle
A narrow vision. You will become one with MOD. You will all
become one with the MOD. Fuller: Primitive artificial life-from -- You
will be obsolete in the new order...
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
-Tom
<Life's only certainty is death> Thus began the morbid years.
Email address: tmc...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard HP Gilroy
>On Mar 01, 1996 18:52:02 in article <Re: SILENT MAJORITY UNITE AGAINST
>DENEBEIM!!>, 'dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim)' wrote:
>
>>Em, remember that the moderators in this case are mostly libertarians,
>>and all freedom lovers. To us 'censor' is a very bad word. That's
>>why we put stuff like the unanomous consent clause in the posts we
>>bounce.
>>
>>Jay
>Sorry, Jay, but no matter how you rationalize it, it just doesn't wash.
>You're all freedom lovers? What does that mean - that you all get together
>at the post office and salute the flag every morning?
>
>If you want to create an exclusive, elitist, all-white country club, which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is essentially what you want to do, fine. I guess this is one of your many
>"freedoms", although many will not have the "freedom" to join.
WHAT?? Where is this coming from?
Is this just a very clumsy use of analogy, or is someone
suggesting the moderators will use filters to screen anyone who isn't
white? If so, how ... _my_ newsreader doesn't report ethnicity.
I've stayed out of this whole moderation debate because,
frankly, I think it's a waste of time ... but this seems way over the
top, the sort of intimidation mud-slinging which characterizes the
worst in a society...
David Stinson
tmc...@chat.carleton.ca (Tom McLean) wrote:
:Andrea Beth Novin (Fem...@safari.net) wrote:
:> I voted no, because I am against moderated group on principle
:
: A narrow vision. You will become one with MOD. You will all
:become one with the MOD. Fuller: Primitive artificial life-from -- You
:will be obsolete in the new order...
:
:
:
: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
:
:-Tom
Tom, you've been reading Chris Carter's COMPEL-encoded posts again, haven't
you???
;-)
:<Life's only certainty is death> Thus began the morbid years.
:
:Email address: tmc...@chat.carleton.ca
:----------------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Hummel
One more time, as this seems to be needed to be said again:
In article <hummelDn...@netcom.com> hum...@netcom.com
(Franklin Hummel) writes:
>
> While I doubt my comments will stop further inflammatory posts on
>this thread, for those who will listen, let me say this:
>
> Rather than to continue to feed a flame war here in rastb5, let
>me suggest the very -best- way for you and all of us here to now express
>your opinion on the creation of a moderated-discussion newsgroup for
>BABYLON 5 is TO VOTE against or for it.
>
> The call for votes started -today- on March 1st. This post can be
>found under the subject heading of:
>
> CFV: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated moderated
>
> All the details are there for the charter for the proposed
>newsgroup and how to vote.
>
> I suggest you read it all, carefully, decided for yourself, and
>then vote.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> -- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
>
David Stinson
porkm...@usa.pipeline.com() wrote:
:On Mar 01, 1996 18:52:02 in article <Re: SILENT MAJORITY UNITE AGAINST
:DENEBEIM!!>, 'dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim)' wrote:
:
:>Em, remember that the moderators in this case are mostly libertarians,
:>and all freedom lovers. To us 'censor' is a very bad word. That's
:>why we put stuff like the unanomous consent clause in the posts we
:>bounce.
:>
:>Jay
:>Jay Denebeim dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us
:> duke.edu!wolves!deepthot!denebeim
:>Fuck censorship! Oh *shit* there goes another 100, er $200,000
:
:------------------------------------------
:
:Sorry, Jay, but no matter how you rationalize it, it just doesn't wash.
:at the post office and salute the flag every morning?
:
:If you want to create an exclusive, elitist, all-white country club, which
:"freedoms", although many will not have the "freedom" to join.
Anyone has the freedom to join, by THEIR OWN CHOICE. All they have to do to
avoid moderation of their posts, IS TO ACT LIKE ADULTS AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THEIR OWN ACTIONS. Gee, what a concept. Personal Responsibility.
:You seem to revel in the rhetoric of "freedom". Witness your posts and the
:posts of others, which are littered with extraneous profanities. I've read
:the rationale, and it's bogus. Does the average person want to be exposed
:to this type of language? Does the average person want his or her family
:exposed to this type of language? Do they presently have the "freedom" to
:avoid it? What's more offensive in this forum about a science fiction show
:where the participants come from all backrounds and age groups - someone
:calmly and logically expressing an opinion setting forth an argument that
:Warner Brothers forced the change of actors in the role of Commander, or
:your signature line?
Given the structure of your sentence, probably the second. However, the first
is RARELY discussed calmly and logically by the person bbringing it up. Who
also generally has taken to flaming anyone who posts a clam and reasoned
response to such a post, by pointing out that the ONLY PEOPLE WHO WERE
ACTUALLY THERE agree as to what happened, and that the person bringing it up
is writing suposition without corroborative evidence.
:From what I've read, what really rubs some the wrong way is your
:rationalization. The moderators advocate one thing, but do another. They
:claim to want to weed out flames and trolls, but flame and troll
:themselves. And, the reality is, the motivations seem suspect, as Joe S.
:will likely reappear in a moderated group on Usenet, a fact which you and
:the other "proponents" casually downplay.
You seem to be having a little trouble understanding the order of cause &
effect here. The proponents all along have said that the group was being
created because PEOPLE ASKED FOR IT TO BE CREATED. And that they could not AND
WOULD NOT guarantee JMS's participation. So to then turn around and accuse
them of duplicity says more about the accuser than the accused.
:Let's assume that, in fact, you are a libertarian. If a libertarian is
:defined as a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to
:thought or conduct, then just the very *idea* of a moderated newsgroup
:flies in the face of libertarian priciples. The same self-proclaimed
:advocates of free speech want to suppress free speech. Just how does a
:"unanimous consent clause", where judgment is passed amongst several
:individuals, represent the will of thousands? Just how does that equate to
:"unanimous"? Sorry. That dog won't hunt.
Lets break this down:
Libertarian is a political philosophy (and sometimes an economic one) that
bears a close relationship to the Jeffersonian school of democracy. That a
person has the right to free speech and other rights guaranteed under the law,
but also has the concommitant obligation to take personal responsibility for
that right as well.
"Suppress free speech". MAybe you should read the U.S. Constitution again,
since you seem to be making a very wide generalization of the Bill of Rights.
And no one has claimed it to be the will of thousands. You're putting words
into someone else's mouth as if they were said. Which they were not and would
not be.
Here's a concept that seems to elude you in your statement: voluntary
participation. No one is forced to take part in the new group, or to vote for
it. Those that do simply agree to act responsibly by not flaming or trolling
under the defintions given. The current group is still going to be here.
But taking part in a moderated group simply requires that you be willing to
follow simple and common sense rules of behavior - its okay to argue, but
you should attack the argument, not the person making it. THat's pretty much
the basis of the moderation style proposed. As you said, "logical and reasoned
argument" vs. flames and trolls.
:Again, if you want to open your own private country club, go right ahead.
:You can have your private golf course, dressed in tailored clothing, where
:you can discuss the opera set against a backdrop of gorgeous scenery,
:trimmed greens, and pina coladas. We'll have our public golf course,
:dressed in t-shirts and jeans, where we can discuss sports set against a
:backdrop of dogs running loose, sloppy sand traps, and beer. I know where
:I'll feel more comfortable.
THen feel free to. I have never understood why a person would DEMAND the right
to make theirs the ONLY CHOICE. That's not what was proposed. What was
proposed was an alternate choice for those who have asked for the option.
:I'll venture to say that we're all fans of the show, but to different
:degrees. Those that want to have serious critical discussions about the
:show, warts and all, will stay right here. In fact, we'll finally have the
:liberty to do so without fear of being flamed.
Your opinion. May be right, may be wrong. Right now there's no other option.
That's what the proposed newsgroup is about, having the option.
:Come to think of it, you've changed my mind. Leave. Get the #^&% out of
:this newsgroup. Run, don't walk. Take that worthless "Libertarian"
:Babylon5 charter with you and never look back.
:
And that seems to be the extent of your form of arguing - that ONLY YOU should
have the option of choosing for everyone. That you have the _sole_ right to
destroy other people's rights by not allowing them any other option than to
leave.
:
:AJ Tucker
Joseph Cochran
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us> wrote:
>as well. I'm a very outspoken libertarian myself (as you've probably
>seen, I put my butt on the line for the first amendment with every
>post I make), and believe me, if I thought for an instant that this
>group of moderators would do what you seem to think they'll do, I'd be
>yelling about it louder than even Joe Cochren.
Which is kind of ironic to me. It's okay to condone curtailing
discussion (aside from the "there's an unmoderated forum that is equal"
argument, which is IMO bogus) as long as the people doing it are
responsible people.
I could draw some parallels here, but I think that B5 is
expressing them quite well.....
--
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@vt.edu ** | http://hci.ise.vt.edu/~jsciv/
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"So ... What goes on the cards???" -- Anon.
Emery Calame
rec.sci.white
>: race.superiority.moderated or rec.eat.the.rich.with.gas.bombs and
you
>: have lots of dangerous and offensive political aggregations taking
>: place. I would vote against both of the above because of an issue of
>: opposition or distaste. I'm not sure I'd be following my own rules
if I
>: did, but I probably _would_ just the same.
>
><sigh>
>
>Those aren't legitimate reasons to participate in the USENET CFV
>process, and you're probably well aware of that. It's a very large
>world, and probably has large, organised groups of people who don't
>like you, and whom you won't like. Newsgroups serve everyone,
>however -- the good, bad, and indifferent. If you don't like the
>idea of those you dislike having places to gather, then don't go
there.
>
>Legitimate reasons for voting are outlined in the newsgroup-creation
>FAQ, among other places. Alternatively, read news.groups, for a
while,
>and quickly realise what folly it is to try to make newsgroup
namespace
>follow the dictates of one's personal opinions.
Hi Rick. I can't help noticing that you quoted a smidgeon of my text
explaining that I wasn't particularly interested in which way the vote
goes and did so in a context that reinforced with your own text might
give the incorrect impression that I am against the proposed group and
in some way associate it with racism, terrorism etc.
Obviously a FAQ is a neat tool for diseminating info but it will not do
diddle to delineate what is and is not a valid reason to vote for a
newsgroup since the very validity it attempts to give and take is not
an issue in the act of voting. A vote is cast for the purposes of the
voter. It ususally follows one of two possible routes. It is
dichotomous. You can vote no on a whim, you can vote no on conscience,
prefernce, confidence, as a result of peer pressure, to see what
happens, or even because a couple of drunk Hindu gods tolad you to.
Mainly the best reason to vote for it is that you think it's a neat
idea with a good chance of success. The best reason to vote against or
abstain is that you think it's a dangerous, destructive, or boring mess
that will be a waste of energy and storage space on servers across the
country.
Obviously there are guidelines on how it is hoped, or preferred tha you
will vote but the power of validity is not there to be gifted or
removed.
Anyway, I don't much want racists to have a place to meet on the net.
Obviously I don't have any real authority to keep them off, and "don't
go there" works pretty well. Still, I do have a preference and it tends
to e to vote against such a thing. Like it or hate it, I'm no longer
entertained enough by the subject-matter to continue bitching along
these lines so I'll just say "Goodbye", and go to work.
Em
De Castellvi Jaime M
: I'll venture to say that we're all fans of the show, but to different
: degrees. Those that want to have serious critical discussions about the
: show, warts and all, will stay right here. In fact, we'll finally have the
: liberty to do so without fear of being flamed.
If you are that self-same "Amy" which earlier saw fit to post a
hysterical and raving Jay-hate flame a few days ago -a point which for
all your pretty cartesian rhetoric you still have failed to address-,
then perhaps you should think twice about starting fires if you thus
fear getting a light broil.
If not, you may still expect to reap replies which will accord to the
style of your posting instances. Either here or in *any* forum.
: Come to think of it, you've changed my mind. Leave. Get the #^&% out of
: this newsgroup. Run, don't walk. Take that worthless "Libertarian"
: Babylon5 charter with you and never look back.
It doesn't much sound as you have changed your mind at all...
Cheers,
Jaime
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Jaime M. de Castellvi ^ <<
>> 3c...@qlink.queensu.ca ^ 'That is not what I meant at all. <<
>> http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3cjmd ^ That is not it, at all.' (T.S.E.) <<
>>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^//////////////////////////////////////<<
Rick Moen
: Hi, Rick. I can't help noticing that you quoted a smidgeon of my text
: explaining that I wasn't particularly interested in which way the vote
: goes and did so in a context that reinforced with your own text might
: give the incorrect impression that I am against the proposed group and
: in some way associate it with racism, terrorism etc.
No such impression was intended, but I certainly regret any unintentional
ambiguity. I was addressing your general intention to vote against
newsgroups for ideological reasons.
: Obviously a FAQ is a neat tool for diseminating info but it will not do
: diddle to delineate what is and is not a valid reason to vote for a
: newsgroup since the very validity it attempts to give and take is not
: an issue in the act of voting. A vote is cast for the purposes of the
: voter.
No, in this case, the vote is cast for the purposes of _USENET_. If
you cannot see your way through to that, by all means, please
don't participate in CFVs. Please also do not participate in
CFVs without understanding what constitutes legitimate grounds for
votes, ground which _are_ cogently outlined in the newsgroup-creation
FAQ, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.
Now, _of course_, nobody can stop you from behaving in a silly
fashion: This is USENET, after all.
: Mainly the best reason to vote for it is that you think it's a neat
: idea with a good chance of success.
Incorrect. Please read the FAQ.
: The best reason to vote against or abstain is that you think it's
: a dangerous, destructive, or boring mess that will be a waste of
: energy and storage space on servers across the country.
Incorrect. Please read the FAQ.
("Country"? Please note, USENET extends world-wide.)
: Obviously there are guidelines on how it is hoped, or preferred tha you
: will vote but the power of validity is not there to be gifted or
: removed.
Incorrect. Please read the FAQ.
: Anyway, I don't much want racists to have a place to meet on the net.
You misunderstand: You can't possibly prevent them from having
places to meet on the Net. The question is whether that place will
be where you are, because you've participated in some knee-jerk
blocking maneouver, without bothering to work out the ramifications.
Please read the newsgroup-creation FAQ.
: Obviously I don't have any real authority to keep them off, and "don't
: go there" works pretty well. Still, I do have a preference and it tends
: to e to vote against such a thing. Like it or hate it, I'm no longer
: entertained enough by the subject-matter to continue bitching along
: these lines so I'll just say "Goodbye", and go to work.
I would suggest, perhaps undiplomatically, that you don't understand
the newsgroup-creation process well enough to perceive your interest,
let alone pursue it in this case. Again, kindly take the effort to
read the FAQ, and/or hang out on news.groups for a while, before
casting out meaningless (or worse) votes.
--
Cheers, A post is just a post
Rick Moen My admin will deny.
ri...@hugin.imat.com The usual disclaimers apply
As news spools by.
Emery Calame
writes:
>Emery Calame (eme...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Hi, Rick. I can't help noticing that you quoted a smidgeon of my
text
>: explaining that I wasn't particularly interested in which way the
vote
>: goes and did so in a context that reinforced with your own text
might
>: give the incorrect impression that I am against the proposed group
and
>: in some way associate it with racism, terrorism etc.
>
>No such impression was intended, but I certainly regret any
unintentional
>ambiguity. I was addressing your general intention to vote against
>newsgroups for ideological reasons.
Okay.
>: Obviously a FAQ is a neat tool for diseminating info but it will not
do
>: diddle to delineate what is and is not a valid reason to vote for a
>: newsgroup since the very validity it attempts to give and take is
not
>: an issue in the act of voting. A vote is cast for the purposes of
the
>: voter.
>
>No, in this case, the vote is cast for the purposes of _USENET_. If
>you cannot see your way through to that, by all means, please
>don't participate in CFVs. Please also do not participate in
>CFVs without understanding what constitutes legitimate grounds for
>votes, ground which _are_ cogently outlined in the newsgroup-creation
>FAQ, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.
I like it when people use please and thankyou, but I think I already
covered this point above. Are you going to debunk it or simply restate
your oppFrom: eme...@ix.netcom.com(Emery Calame )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
Subject: Re: SILENT MAJORITY UNITE AGAINST DENEBEIM!!
References: <4h57il$u...@news1.usa.pipeline.com> <4h5dnd$n...@cadge.Hyperion.COM> <31366E...@wco.com> <4h73k8$o...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <313789...@wco.com> <4hcccj$m...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com> <4hdbq2$g...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <4hfbb1$l...@reader2.ix.netcom.com> <4hljek$6...@myrddin.imat.com> <4hpfee$g...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <4hrs4f$t...@myrddin.imat.com>
In <4hrs4f$t...@myrddin.imat.com> ri...@hugin.imat.com (Rick Moen)
writes:
>
>Emery Calame (eme...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Hi, Rick. I can't help noticing that you quoted a smidgeon of my
text
>: explaining that I wasn't particularly interested in which way the
vote
>: goes and did so in a context that reinforced with your own text
might
>: give the incorrect impression that I am against the proposed group
and
>: in some way associate it with racism, terrorism etc.
>
>No such impression was intended, but I certainly regret any
unintentional
>ambiguity. I was addressing your general intention to vote against
>newsgroups for ideological reasons.
Okay.
>: Obviously a FAQ is a neat tool for diseminating info but it will not
do
>: diddle to delineate what is and is not a valid reason to vote for a
>: newsgroup since the very validity it attempts to give and take is
not
>: an issue in the act of voting. A vote is cast for the purposes of
the
>: voter.
>
>No, in this case, the vote is cast for the purposes of _USENET_. If
>you cannot see your way through to that, by all means, please
>don't participate in CFVs. Please also do not participate in
>CFVs without understanding what constitutes legitimate grounds for
>votes, ground which _are_ cogently outlined in the newsgroup-creation
>FAQ, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.
I like it when people use please and thankyou, but I think I already
covered this point above. Are you going to debunk it or simply restate
your opps
>: a dangerous, destructive, or boring mess that will be a waste of
>: energy and storage space on servers across the country.
>
>Incorrect. Please read the FAQ.
Y'know the drill. I've read the FAQ, disagree with it, and frankly
don't think much of it.
>("Country"? Please note, USENET extends world-wide.)
Yup. Still has servers across the country(which is where I choose to
measure the pertinent externalities) storing it. Your point?
>: Obviously there are guidelines on how it is hoped, or preferred tha
you
>: will vote but the power of validity is not there to be gifted or
>: removed.
>
>Incorrect. Please read the FAQ.
Actually quite correct. Observe reality and your own admission that
THIS IS USENET. The FAQ is merely...a FAQ. Cogent or not, it hardly
matters. Extreme inaccuracy and fallacy can easily be cogent. No
sequitors can be cogent. A FAQ has no inherent authority any more than
a charter or covenant. It's power comes from those who choose to
acknowldege it. No where else.
>: Anyway, I don't much want racists to have a place to meet on the
net.
>
>You misunderstand: You can't possibly prevent them from having
>places to meet on the Net. The question is whether that place will
>be where you are, because you've participated in some knee-jerk
>blocking maneouver, without bothering to work out the ramifications.
Incorrect please read my statement prior to commenting. Estabish what
it says and does not say. Proceed on what it does say, and be prepared
to phrase statements concerning what it does not say in a non-concrete
format.
I don't misunderstand. I didn't speak of preventing, but rather
withdrawing support for and generally acting as a hindrance to. It is
obvious that one can discourage people from having a place to meet on
the net. This is a rdiculous semantic objection that more or less
pisses me off. Knee-jerk means "in the heat of the moment". It does not
mean logically unsupported pursuit of a personal moral philosophy that
may conflict with elements of that personal philosophy. My postion is
well considered if not actually justified.
>Please read the newsgroup-creation FAQ.
I take it you have no arguments of your own to offer here? Shall I play
the Newbie postulant? I _have_ read the FAQ and stated clearly my lack
of interest in or belief regarding it's attempt to regulate through
policy why voters vote. Obviously it's got all the strength of Jury
instructions. Please grasp the heart of my argument before dismissing
it with a series of basic error messages. Unless you'd rather not get
into it that is.
>: Obviously I don't have any real authority to keep them off, and
"don't
>: go there" works pretty well. Still, I do have a preference and it
tends
>: to e to vote against such a thing. Like it or hate it, I'm no longer
>: entertained enough by the subject-matter to continue bitching along
>: these lines so I'll just say "Goodbye", and go to work.
>
>I would suggest, perhaps undiplomatically, that you don't understand
>the newsgroup-creation process well enough to perceive your interest,
>let alone pursue it in this case.
Your suggestion is noted, and given your rather weak grasp of what I
was trying to say as exibited in your "Incorrect. Please read the FAQ."
approach to answering it, I have decided that it won't carry much
weight. You don't seem to understand that what I said was not intended
to be a summary of or reiteration of the FAQ nor was it anything but my
own view of newsgroup creation, and that of others with whom I have
spoken, exchanged e-mails etc.
I would further like to inform you that you and the FAQ havemore or
less failed to understand why news groups are created: Majority or need
motivated utility.
Again, kindly take the effort to
>read the FAQ, and/or hang out on news.groups for a while, before
>casting out meaningless (or worse) votes.
Sigh. I don't think you'll let go of your newbie/adept premise, or ever
get around to challenging your own definiton of meaningless(or worse)
as it pertains to newsgroup creation votes. "Meaning" is quite
independent from the guidelenes of the FAQ.
Em
Rick Moen
: I like it when people use please and thank you, but I think I already
: covered this point above. Are you going to debunk it or simply restate
I'm going to make sure I've made my point succintly, and then stop.
If you're going to persist, there's no percentage in continuing,
on my end.
: Y'know the drill. I've read the [newsgroup-creation] FAQ, disagree
: with it, and frankly don't think much of it.
It is of course the privilege of every random bit-banger to bleat
out that he "disagrees" with world-wide protocol conventions
that exist for extremely compelling reasons. Most people will
assume you're expressing ignorance when you do so, since that's
more polite than assuming you're simply being pigheaded.
: Yup. Still has servers across the country(which is where I choose to
: measure the pertinent externalities) storing it. Your point?
That your wording ("a waste of energy and storage space on servers
across the country") seemed to indicate failure to grasp the
necessary world-wide perspective -- which it seems to me underlies
your failure to understand that seeking to impose personal
preferences on newsgroup namespace is a dumb idea, even if workable.
I was therefore trying to lend you some perspective. Take it or
leave it.
: >: ...the power of validity is not [in the newsgroup-creation FAQ]
: >: to be gifted or removed.
: >
: >Incorrect. Please read the FAQ.
: Actually quite correct. Observe reality and your own admission that
: THIS IS USENET. The FAQ is merely...a FAQ. Cogent or not, it hardly
: matters. Extreme inaccuracy and fallacy can easily be cogent. No
: sequitors can be cogent. A FAQ has no inherent authority any more than
: a charter or covenant. It's power comes from those who choose to
: acknowldege it. No where else.
The point, O Tinny-Voiced One, is that the convention in this case
_is_ observed globally, because it makes sense from extremely widely
divergent points of view. You and all other USENET participants are
and probably always will be free to be twits in this and many other
areas. The only consequence, in most cases, is that the rest of
USENET will respond by _regarding_ you as a twit.
: I don't misunderstand. I didn't speak of preventing, but rather
: withdrawing support for and generally acting as a hindrance to. It is
: obvious that one can discourage people from having a place to meet on
: the net. This is a rdiculous semantic objection that more or less
: pisses me off. Knee-jerk means "in the heat of the moment". It does not
: mean logically unsupported pursuit of a personal moral philosophy that
: may conflict with elements of that personal philosophy. My postion is
: well considered if not actually justified.
As the semantic content of the above isn't readily discernible,
I'll recap: You grandiloquently proclaimed that you "don't want
racists to have a place to meet on the Net." I replied that
there's no way you can _prevent_ them from having places. The
only role you might have, as a CFV participant, is whether such
people will end up _where you are_ (e.g., by voting against creation
of a group having a proper name and adequate prospective readership).
Now, you have some objection to the foregoing comment -- but I
cannot tell from your prose what it is. Oh well.
: >Please read the newsgroup-creation FAQ.
: I take it you have no arguments of your own to offer here? Shall I play
: the Newbie postulant? I _have_ read the FAQ and stated clearly my lack
: of interest in or belief regarding it's attempt to regulate through
: policy why voters vote. Obviously it's got all the strength of Jury
: instructions. Please grasp the heart of my argument before dismissing
: it with a series of basic error messages. Unless you'd rather not get
: into it that is.
To reiterate: It was _more polite_ to assume ignorance than
pigheadedness. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I referred you to the newsgroup-creation FAQ because it states
its rationales more than well enough, _and_ so as to avoid wasting
bandwidth here. If you fail or refuse to get its point, again:
Oh well.
[stuff about how misunderstood you are, omitted]
: I would further like to inform you that you and the FAQ havemore or
: less failed to understand why news groups are created: Majority or need
: motivated utility.
Actually, newsgroups are created to address sub-topics (to remove
pressure from overtrafficked groups), to serve new audiences as
they emerge, and for probably several other reasons that don't
come readily to mind. The unifying theme is that they are
created in order to group existing and impending article traffic
where it logically makes sense, instead of pigheadedly opposing
groupings because you "don't like them" -- which would just
redirect the traffic where it doesn't fit, and would be a
nuisance to others.
Social engineering via CFVs is a futile endeavour, you see -- and
some people learn this lesson more quickly than others. I was
suggesting you hang out in news.groups so that you might learn
this first-hand, more quickly than you otherwise might. However....
: Sigh. I don't think you'll let go of your newbie/adept premise, or ever
: get around to challenging your own definiton of meaningless(or worse)
: as it pertains to newsgroup creation votes. "Meaning" is quite
: independent from the guidelenes of the FAQ.
OK, if you insist, you're not an ignorant newbie, then. If you'd
rather be assumed uneducable, so be it.
Emery Calame
writes:
>Emery Calame (eme...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: I like it when people use please and thank you, but I think I
already
>: covered this point above. Are you going to debunk it or simply
restate
>: your [opposition]?
>
>I'm going to make sure I've made my point succintly, and then stop.
>If you're going to persist, there's no percentage in continuing,
>on my end.
Funny. We hold this mutually.
>: Y'know the drill. I've read the [newsgroup-creation] FAQ, disagree
>: with it, and frankly don't think much of it.
>
>It is of course the privilege of every random bit-banger to bleat
>out that he "disagrees" with world-wide protocol conventions
>that exist for extremely compelling reasons. Most people will
Blah blah blah. I'm scared. You smart, me dumb. Blah blah.
>assume you're expressing ignorance when you do so, since that's
>more polite than assuming you're simply being pigheaded.
Disagreementt=pig headed? Ha! Nope. Sorry.
>: Yup. Still has servers across the country(which is where I choose to
>: measure the pertinent externalities) storing it. Your point?
>
>That your wording ("a waste of energy and storage space on servers
>across the country") seemed to indicate failure to grasp the
>necessary world-wide perspective -- which it seems to me underlies
Nope. You jumped the gun and truied to look real smart. Admit it.
>your failure to understand that seeking to impose personal
>preferences on newsgroup namespace is a dumb idea, even if workable.
Dumb why? Pig headed why?
>I was therefore trying to lend you some perspective. Take it or
>leave it.
Thanks for the advice.
>: >: ...the power of validity is not [in the newsgroup-creation FAQ]
>: >: to be gifted or removed.
>: >
>: >Incorrect. Please read the FAQ.
>
>: Actually quite correct. Observe reality and your own admission that
>: THIS IS USENET. The FAQ is merely...a FAQ. Cogent or not, it hardly
>: matters. Extreme inaccuracy and fallacy can easily be cogent. No
>: sequitors can be cogent. A FAQ has no inherent authority any more
than
>: a charter or covenant. It's power comes from those who choose to
>: acknowldege it. No where else.
>
>The point, O Tinny-Voiced One,
Okay. This isn't the first stupid thing you've said, but I though I'd
point out that so far it is the moststupid thing you've said. Back to
the ...stuff.
is that the convention in this case
>_is_ observed globally, because it makes sense from extremely widely
>divergent points of view. You and all other USENET participants are
>and probably always will be free to be twits in this and many other
>areas.
Twits? Why twits? If it's global then why are these conventions
routinely treated as non global, non-authoritative, guidelines? Hmm?
Reality wins. Blame the pigheaded tinny voiced twits if you want. I've
already lost confidence in your ability to make sense here.
You think you are bigger, smarter, and more right thah those who
disagree with you. You have plunged into net-presence.
The only consequence, in most cases, is that the rest of
>USENET will respond by _regarding_ you as a twit.
Nope. Just fellows like you. You ain't usenet, and never were, and
won't be any time soon. You're an ape at a keyboard just like everybody
else. You have no real authority, and only an imagined sense of
orthodoxy.
>: I don't misunderstand. I didn't speak of preventing, but rather
>: withdrawing support for and generally acting as a hindrance to. It
is
>: obvious that one can discourage people from having a place to meet
on
>: the net. This is a rdiculous semantic objection that more or less
>: pisses me off. Knee-jerk means "in the heat of the moment". It does
not
>: mean logically unsupported pursuit of a personal moral philosophy
that
>: may conflict with elements of that personal philosophy. My postion
is
>: well considered if not actually justified.
>
>As the semantic content of the above isn't readily discernible,
If you can't read just say so. Preventing and opposing are two
different words and concepts. You tried to say prevention when I
wasn't. Again you jumped the gun. I don't think you are as smart as
you'd like me to think you are.
>I'll recap: You grandiloquently proclaimed that you "don't want
>racists to have a place to meet on the Net."
That's true. And I didn't say, " By Voting against a rascist group I'll
prevent them from ahving a place to meet on the net." You however
didn't make that distiction even after two tries.
I replied that
>there's no way you can _prevent_ them from having places. The
>only role you might have, as a CFV participant, is whether such
>people will end up _where you are_ (e.g., by voting against creation
>of a group having a proper name and adequate prospective readership)
>Now, you have some objection to the foregoing comment -- but I
>cannot tell from your prose what it is. Oh well.
Yeah. Prose content-analysis is showing as one of your weaker points.
What I objected to is your odd idea that I was trying to
prevent(instead of discourage) their presence on the net.
>: >Please read the newsgroup-creation FAQ.
>
>: I take it you have no arguments of your own to offer here? Shall I
play
>: the Newbie postulant? I _have_ read the FAQ and stated clearly my
lack
>: of interest in or belief regarding it's attempt to regulate through
>: policy why voters vote. Obviously it's got all the strength of Jury
>: instructions. Please grasp the heart of my argument before
dismissing
>: it with a series of basic error messages. Unless you'd rather not
get
>: into it that is.
>
>To reiterate: It was _more polite_ to assume ignorance than
>pigheadedness. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
No. You were playing teacher to the savages. You were condescending,
which is not polite, and furthermore you were pretty much off on your
own little track.
>I referred you to the newsgroup-creation FAQ because it states
>its rationales more than well enough, _and_ so as to avoid wasting
>bandwidth here. If you fail or refuse to get its point, again:
>Oh well.
Again you fail to manage the simple concept that I don't feel, believe,
or think that it's "rationales" are as useful and air tight as you do.
Go ahead and call me pig headed. What does that make me? A guy whos
being called pig headed by a guy who thinks that the words "Incorrect,
please read the FAQ." is polite.
>[stuff about how misunderstood you are, omitted]
Good thing. I shudder to imagine what exactly you might have twisted it
into.
>: I would further like to inform you that you and the FAQ havemore or
>: less failed to understand why news groups are created: Majority or
need
>: motivated utility.
>
>Actually, newsgroups are created to address sub-topics (to remove
>pressure from overtrafficked groups), to serve new audiences as
Okay, we are now arguing immediate versus unltimate causality here
which is worse than bad semantic wheedling.
I gather you picked up on the "serve new audiences" bit by the way.
>they emerge, and for probably several other reasons that don't
>come readily to mind. The unifying theme is that they are
>created in order to group existing and impending article traffic
>where it logically makes sense, instead of pigheadedly opposing
>groupings because you "don't like them" -- which would just
>redirect the traffic where it doesn't fit, and would be a
>nuisance to others.
It doesn't fit anywhere. That _would_ be my core argument after all. I
can't prevent it, but Lord knows that I can indicate that it should
remain marginalized and tucked into other grous so it can get the
negative followups it deserves.
Again with the pig-headed. Again with the assumption that rascist,
Nambla, or other groups keep to themselves(and thus achieve the order
Usenet strives for) and that anyone who acknowledges this is merely pig
headed.
>Social engineering via CFVs is a futile endeavour, you see -- and
>some people learn this lesson more quickly than others.
Smart ones litk you I'd guess.
I was
>suggesting you hang out in news.groups so that you might learn
>this first-hand, more quickly than you otherwise might. However....
Your suggestions if as generally worthless as the have been so far will
make little impact on me. I've been on news groups for a very long
time, as no doubt blew right over you head in your zeal to establish
your benevolent net-presence superiority.
>: Sigh. I don't think you'll let go of your newbie/adept premise, or
ever
>: get around to challenging your own definiton of meaningless(or
worse)
>: as it pertains to newsgroup creation votes. "Meaning" is quite
>: independent from the guidelenes of the FAQ.
>
>OK, if you insist, you're not an ignorant newbie, then. If you'd
>rather be assumed uneducable, so be it.
Perhaps you if you might consider that what you are offering is to
adopt an elitist attitude, to take it for granted that rudeness is
politeness, that no one but you is right, and that the FAQ is always
right, you would see why it is I am, by you at least, "uneducable."
I'll take your word for it however that such an odd word lurks
somewhere in the pages of the Oxford English dictionary or at least a
globally acknowledged FAQ somewhere.
Em
Rick Moen
: Blah blah blah. I'm scared. You smart, me dumb. Blah blah.
[and...]
: Disagreementt=pig headed? Ha! Nope. Sorry.
[and...]
: Nope. You jumped the gun and truied to look real smart. Admit it.
[and...]
: Dumb why? Pig headed why?
[and...]
: Thanks for the advice.
[and...]
: Okay. This isn't the first stupid thing you've said, but I though I'd
: point out that so far it is the moststupid thing you've said. Back to
: the ...stuff.
[and...]
: Blame the pigheaded tinny voiced twits if you want. I've
: already lost confidence in your ability to make sense here.
[and...]
: You think you are bigger, smarter, and more right thah those who
: disagree with you. You have plunged into net-presence.
[and...]
: Nope. Just fellows like you. You ain't usenet, and never were, and
: won't be any time soon. You're an ape at a keyboard just like everybody
: else. You have no real authority, and only an imagined sense of
: orthodoxy.
My USENET noise du jour collection has been duly enriched. Thank you.
Moving right along....
: >The point is that the convention in this case _is_ observed globally,
: >because it makes sense from extremely widely divergent points of
: >view. You and all other USENET participants are and probably always
: >will be free to be twits in this and many other areas.
: Twits? Why twits?
Heredity, probably. Improving the gene pool tends to be a long-term
problem.
: If it's global then why are these conventions routinely treated as
: non global, non-authoritative, guidelines? Hmm?
They aren't. Except by a few, inevitable, on account of being either
clueless, or emotionally labile, or congenitally ideological.
: Reality wins.
Most places, eventually -- but there's always the colourful minority
to keep us entertained. Speaking of which... do keep up the good work.
Robert Holland
> or less proved every time you complain about pig headed clueless
> hereditary twits who stink up your rational precise FAQ determined
> virtual society. :) God you are a smurf. Get an edu account.
>
Hey! Hey! We'll have none of that here! :-)
Always remember: Flames don't stink up a newsgroup--people do!
--RH
B Amini
>
> Oh, yes. I forgot:
>
> Emery Calame (eme...@ix.netcom.com) scribbled:
>
> : Perhaps you if you might consider that what you are offering is to
> : adopt an elitist attitude,...
>
> Why, certainly. _Of course_ I'm an elitist.
>
> Isn't everyone?
Quite frankly, *I'm* above being elitist.
Emery Calame
>
>Emery Calame (eme...@ix.netcom.com) scrawled:
>
>My USENET noise du jour collection has been duly enriched. Thank you.
>
Bits snipped.
>Moving right along....
>
>: >The point is that the convention in this case _is_ observed
globally,
>: >because it makes sense from extremely widely divergent points of
>: >view. You and all other USENET participants are and probably
always
>: >will be free to be twits in this and many other areas.
>
>: Twits? Why twits?
>
>Heredity, probably. Improving the gene pool tends to be a long-term
>problem.
Nosie eh? Don't you hate it when you point out somone elses apparent
immaturity only to make exactly the same kind of comment you so
recently disparaged? No? Didn't notice? Anyway, you aren't much more
than moderately annoying so you can count on my ignoring you from here
on out.
Anyway I'm pleased that you can say the word heredity without getting
an academic shiver from your own cleverness.
>: If it's global then why are these conventions routinely treated as
>: non global, non-authoritative, guidelines? Hmm?
>
>They aren't. Except by a few, inevitable, on account of being either
>clueless, or emotionally labile, or congenitally ideological.
Bullshit. But don't let me rain or your parade with a fact that is more
or less proved every time you complain about pig headed clueless
hereditary twits who stink up your rational precise FAQ determined
virtual society. :) God you are a smurf. Get an edu account.
>: Reality wins.
>
>Most places, eventually -- but there's always the colourful minority
>to keep us entertained. Speaking of which... do keep up the good
work.
You ought to at least make some small attempt to entertain me back
don't you think? This is some really poor wit/crap/comeback-itis you've
shown. It's not only boring, but poorly quoted, written, considered and
refelcts pretty badly on you and your posting skills.
>--
>Cheers, A post is just a post
>Rick Moen My admin will deny.
>ri...@hugin.imat.com The usual disclaimers
apply
> As news spools by.
>
Double pigheaded hereditary twit tiny entertaining minority cheers!
Try harder.
Em
Emery Calame
Cool. Want to join the exclusive club of those who...think as you do?
:)
Em