Whatever happened to the "Heldenspammer" ???
Thomas Müthing
People seem to be worried about the disapperance of David "Erroneous
Claim" Tholen, but what REALLY worries me is the sudden departure of our
dear old Kenneth B. Lane, the echt-Wagnerian heldenspammer.
Could he finally be ... ? I hope not.
Thomas
Peter T. Daniels
He's been absent for extended periods before.
You could try phoning him?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Abelard2
Thomas Müthing wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> People seem to be worried about the disapperance of David "Erroneous
> Claim" Tholen, but what REALLY worries me is the sudden departure of our
> dear old Kenneth B. Lane, the echt-Wagnerian heldenspammer.
>
There seems to be a phenomenon of "spammer fatigue", where the perp must
withdraw from the field and gather his forces for a renewed assault. However,
ever since John Harrington got me interested in plonking, I miss a lot of the
action; AOL permits users to plonk posts, for example, that contain certain
keywords, like "digest". Is it safe yet, to unplonk "cheryl" and "studer"?
Dr.Matt
If you do, just for chuckles, ask him to demonstrate his singing for
you over the telephone!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing in canon!
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Joe Roberts
> ...
> Is it safe yet, to unplonk "cheryl" and "studer"?
Here they're plonked in two ways and will remain plonked in two ways.
First, no message containing those terms will be forced into this PC against
its will. Second, never (never) will I, nor a close friend or family
member, ever purchase any music product that is associated with that person.
Screw'em.
Plonking with newsgroup filtering is plain self-defense, but it doesn't send
a message to the spammer. Plonking with the pocketbook is the real message.
Joe
Dr.Matt
Joe Roberts <cd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Abelard2 wrote:
>> ...
>
>Here they're plonked in two ways and will remain plonked in two ways.
>First, no message containing those terms will be forced into this PC against
>its will. Second, never (never) will I, nor a close friend or family
>member, ever purchase any music product that is associated with that person.
>Screw'em.
>
>Plonking with newsgroup filtering is plain self-defense, but it doesn't send
>a message to the spammer. Plonking with the pocketbook is the real message.
>
>Joe
I sincerely doubt the spammer has any connection with Ms. C.S.
The evidence of the posts themselves indicates that the spammer is
an anti-semite angry with Ms. C.S. for aligning herself with
Judaism in some way.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Yeah, he has always exhibited an endearing naivete when it came to
posting personal information like his phone number. (If you really want
to contact him, I'm sure a Google search would bring up any number of
posts that contain it.)
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
I think the original posters ISP took a hand in that - most of them seem
to have disappeared from my screen. (If the ISP got only a tiny
fraction of complaints for the thousands (?) of posts on December 25th,
they were probably too numerous to ignore.) However, I see one or two
again today, with yet another forged identity, so the persecution of
poor Ms. Studer is apparently not yet at an end.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
>
> In article <3FFD61...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Thomas Müthing wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi:
> >>
> >> People seem to be worried about the disapperance of David "Erroneous
> >> Claim" Tholen, but what REALLY worries me is the sudden departure of our
> >> dear old Kenneth B. Lane, the echt-Wagnerian heldenspammer.
> >>
> >> Could he finally be ... ? I hope not.
> >
> >He's been absent for extended periods before.
> >
> >You could try phoning him?
> >--
> >Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
>
> If you do, just for chuckles, ask him to demonstrate his singing for
> you over the telephone!
I didn't call him myself when those posts appeared (it didn't seem worth
a toll call from California) but people who did were apparently
favorably impressed. Of course he's not exactly a young man, but
apparently he sounds pretty good for his age.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Joe Roberts wrote:
>
> Abelard2 wrote:
> > ...
> > Is it safe yet, to unplonk "cheryl" and "studer"?
>
> Here they're plonked in two ways and will remain plonked in two ways.
> First, no message containing those terms will be forced into this PC against
> its will. Second, never (never) will I, nor a close friend or family
> member, ever purchase any music product that is associated with that person.
> Screw'em.
Isn't that sort of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"? Despite
the misfortune of having a mentally disturbed fan (no fault of her own),
Ms. Studer is really a fine artist. I certainly treasure the recordings
I have of her - including the complete songs of Samuel Barber she
recorded with Thomas Hampson.
> Plonking with newsgroup filtering is plain self-defense, but it doesn't send
> a message to the spammer. Plonking with the pocketbook is the real message.
And since the spammer has no financial connection with the singer
herself, what do you imagine you're accomplishing by that? (Other than
denying yourself possession of some rather fine, musically intelligent
recordings?)
Joe Roberts
::
:: Isn't that sort of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"?
:: Despite the misfortune of having a mentally disturbed fan (no fault
:: of her own), Ms. Studer is really a fine artist. I certainly
:: treasure the recordings I have of her - including the complete songs
:: of Samuel Barber she recorded with Thomas Hampson.
:: And since the spammer has no financial connection with the singer
:: herself, what do you imagine you're accomplishing by that? (Other
:: than denying yourself possession of some rather fine, musically
:: intelligent recordings?)
Very good points, of course. However that is an issue between Ms Studer's
business entity (e.g. her agent) and the spammer.
If Ms Studer feels wronged by the abusive way she's being promoted by Usenet
spam, she can direct her business representative to smoke out the perp and
terminate that abuse. I'm sure that some well-placed contact from her law
firm to the ISP, based on the IP addresses and domain (Yahoo) from which the
abuse originates, would be a good first step and not an unreasonable one.
She may sing like a soft robin in Springtime. Hearing someone constantly
banging her drum, bell and whistle in the street outside my door does not
leave me wanting to care one fig for her artistry.
If Ms Studer feels strongly enough about her sincerest artistic image she
would _already_ have an agent of sufficient professional calibre who
peruses these "classical music" and related public forums, and who takes
direct and strong action against such abuse perpretrated therein.
Again, I vote with my pocketbook. No 'Studer' associations of any kind:
CDs, tickets, articles.
Joe Roberts
Peter T. Daniels
From the little I glanced at them when they first appeared, it seemed
they were aimed _against_ her, not _promoting_ her.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Joe Roberts wrote:
>
> Very good points, of course. However that is an issue between Ms Studer's
> business entity (e.g. her agent) and the spammer.
>
> If Ms Studer feels wronged by the abusive way she's being promoted by Usenet
> spam, she can direct her business representative to smoke out the perp and
> terminate that abuse. I'm sure that some well-placed contact from her law
> firm to the ISP, based on the IP addresses and domain (Yahoo) from which the
> abuse originates, would be a good first step and not an unreasonable one.
You're assuming she has nothing better to do than read Usenet
newsgroups, or is even aware of the problem.
>
> Again, I vote with my pocketbook. No 'Studer' associations of any kind:
> CDs, tickets, articles.
Your privilege, of course (but also, IMO, your loss).
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Well.... "against" only in terms of damning by excessive praise.
Joe Roberts
:: Joe Roberts wrote:
:::
::: Very good points, of course. However that is an issue between Ms
::: Studer's business entity (e.g. her agent) and the spammer.
:::
::: If Ms Studer feels wronged by the abusive way she's being promoted
::: by Usenet spam, she can direct her business representative to smoke
::: out the perp and terminate that abuse. I'm sure that some well-
::: addresses and domain (Yahoo) from which the abuse originates, would
::: be a good first step and not an unreasonable one.
::
:: You're assuming she has nothing better to do than read Usenet
:: newsgroups, or is even aware of the problem.
No, not at all. Please read my text.
> If Ms Studer feels wronged by the abusive way she's being promoted by
Usenet
> spam, she can direct her business representative to smoke out the perp and
> terminate that abuse. I'm sure that some well-placed contact from her law
> firm to the ISP, based on the IP addresses and domain (Yahoo) from which
the
> abuse originates, would be a good first step and not an unreasonable one.
... Please note: "direct her business representative..."
> ...
>
> If Ms Studer feels strongly enough about her sincerest artistic image she
> would _already_ have an agent of sufficient professional calibre who
> peruses these "classical music" and related public forums, and who takes
> direct and strong action against such abuse perpretrated therein.
>
... Please note: "_already_ have an agent of sufficient professional
calibre who peruses these "classical music" and related public forums, and
who takes direct and strong action against such abuse perpretrated
therein...."
:: Your privilege, of course (but also, IMO, your loss).
I think that if we go around this topic again we'll probably be pounding it
into the ground. One comment, please, and then the last word is yours.
If the spammer speaks for Ms Studer (meaning she is aware of it) her music
will be as welcome to me as a castrati pig's oink.
If the spammer does not speak for Ms Studer (and she is aware of the spam,
and has not directed her agent to stop it and to post his/her intent to do
so here), her music will be as welcome as a castrati pig's oink.
If the spammer does not speak for Ms Studer (and she is not aware of the
spam), and therefore she has an agent who is barely dimly aware of the
presence of the thing called "Internet", and barely dimly aware of the
presence of things called "classical music" forums where people discuss Ms
Studer and other artists, then she needs a new agent.
Personally, I find it most difficult to believe that a modern artistic agent
of more than novice ability, who is acting professionally on behalf of an
artist of worldwide scope, including live performance, recordings, and media
articles, fails in his or her role according to the third option above.
Voting with my pocketbook, avoiding _all_ association with Ms Studer in
CDs, tickets, articles, and the like is not my loss. It's Ms Studer's loss,
and her agent's. There is negligence in her/his/their part in all three
options above.
If she is innocent I cannot exonerate and pay Ms Studer for her artistry and
at the same time exclude paying her negligent agent who is her two-way view
of the world. At the root, hers is the problem to solve.
Again, not to berate the point. Please feel free to close it out.
Best to you,
Joe Roberts
Dr.Matt
So in Joe Roberts' world, the long-since-obsolete but fun and geeky
world of Usenet is a business necessity of classical music. Fabulous.
Peter T. Daniels
Does he have any evidence that anyone in that line o' work other than
Henry Fogel -- and, I suppose, the Heldenspammer -- ever visits a music
newsgroup?
Joe Roberts
:: Dr.Matt wrote:
::: So in Joe Roberts' world, the long-since-obsolete but fun and geeky
::: world of Usenet is a business necessity of classical music.
::: Fabulous.
Obsolete is as obsolete does. It's imaginable that artists, from the solo
level through instrumental and choral ensembles, to full symphony orchestras
and opera groups, can host their own Web sites while disregarding audience
and listener activity and feedback in Usenet and in Web-based forums.
Imaginable, but hardly a logical business decision.
Artist-to-agent: "Here's your paycheck. What have you done for me lately?"
Agent-to-artist: "Updated your Web site, gave a press release about next
June's concert, answered some regular mail correspondence, and ignored all
of the classical music discussions on the Internet which include audiences
and composers, because they are basically fun and geeky and not relevant to
you."
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
:: Does he have any evidence that anyone in that line o' work other than
:: Henry Fogel -- and, I suppose, the Heldenspammer -- ever visits a
:: music newsgroup?
No. Should they?
Joe
Dr.Matt
Joe Roberts <cd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Replies to both ...
>
>:: Dr.Matt wrote:
>
>::: So in Joe Roberts' world, the long-since-obsolete but fun and geeky
>::: world of Usenet is a business necessity of classical music.
>::: Fabulous.
>
>Obsolete is as obsolete does. It's imaginable that artists, from the solo
>level through instrumental and choral ensembles, to full symphony orchestras
>and opera groups, can host their own Web sites while disregarding audience
>and listener activity and feedback in Usenet and in Web-based forums.
>Imaginable, but hardly a logical business decision.
>
>Artist-to-agent: "Here's your paycheck. What have you done for me lately?"
>
>Agent-to-artist: "Updated your Web site, gave a press release about next
>June's concert, answered some regular mail correspondence, and ignored all
>of the classical music discussions on the Internet which include audiences
>and composers, because they are basically fun and geeky and not relevant to
>you."
>
Oh, and don't forget failing to join every existing mailing list in
the world just to grep through it for possible mentions of your
business. Oh, and have agents in every city in the world watching
local public access tv for mentions of your business. What else do you
suppose musicians should do with their time?
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>:: Does he have any evidence that anyone in that line o' work other than
>:: Henry Fogel -- and, I suppose, the Heldenspammer -- ever visits a
>:: music newsgroup?
>
>No. Should they?
If they should, WHY should they?
>
>Joe
Let's take just one example.
Do you haven any evidence that Cecelia Bartoli or any agent for her
greps the newsgroups for mentions of her?
If not, do you have any explaination of why they should?
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Joe Roberts wrote:
>
> If the spammer does not speak for Ms Studer (and she is not aware of the
> spam), and therefore she has an agent who is barely dimly aware of the
> presence of the thing called "Internet", and barely dimly aware of the
> presence of things called "classical music" forums where people discuss Ms
> Studer and other artists, then she needs a new agent.
Contrary to the apparent perceptions of many of the posters here, Usenet
is a very minuscule part of the Internet. "Agents" are concerned with
getting bookings for their clients and avoiding scheduling conflicts,
not monitoring what a few idiots may say about their clients on
newsgroups. I seriously doubt that the infamous Mr. Pineiro has any
noticeable impact upon Ms. Studer's career, and your boycott of her
recordings will have the same effect upon their sales - it is you who
are the loser, I'm sure she neither knows nor cares.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> Dr.Matt wrote:
> >
> > So in Joe Roberts' world, the long-since-obsolete but fun and geeky
> > world of Usenet is a business necessity of classical music. Fabulous.
>
> Does he have any evidence that anyone in that line o' work other than
> Henry Fogel -- and, I suppose, the Heldenspammer -- ever visits a music
> newsgroup?
Well, I once received a personal e-mail from Martin Bernheimer, setting
me straight about some comment I'd made on one of these groups - but a)
he's a critic, not a performer and b) he's more or less retired. Given
the schedules of most actively performing artists, and the harrowing
amount travel involved, I seriously doubt any of them pay much attention
to newsgroups.
Joe Roberts
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
> Contrary to the apparent perceptions of many of the posters here, Usenet
> is a very minuscule part of the Internet. "Agents" are concerned with
> getting bookings for their clients and avoiding scheduling conflicts,
> not monitoring what a few idiots may say about their clients on
> newsgroups. I seriously doubt that the infamous Mr. Pineiro has any
> noticeable impact upon Ms. Studer's career, and your boycott of her
> recordings will have the same effect upon their sales - it is you who
> are the loser, I'm sure she neither knows nor cares.
A well-tempered and fair-minded comment. Thank you for handling it that
way.
Joe
Joe Roberts
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
> Oh, and don't forget failing to join every existing mailing list in
> the world just to grep through it for possible mentions of your
> business. Oh, and have agents in every city in the world watching
> local public access tv for mentions of your business. What else do you
> suppose musicians should do with their time?
>
Matt,
I guess I didn't state it clearly enough. Not the musician. The business
agents. The person who is supposed to be professional and professionally
responsible for media, communication, promotion, and coverage.
I had not meant to focus on the musician as Internet geek. It's about the
business agent. I suggest that the business rep who (most likely ... no,
Peter, I cannot "prove" it) has an E-mail address and perhaps his own
business Web site, and who does _not_ tune into classical music audience
vibes in Web-based and Usenet forums, ought to get fired.
I mentiond that 'obsolete is as obsolete does.' I misspoke. Obsolete is
as obsolete fails to do. The music artist's business rep who fails to
read, perceive, see, note trends, draw conclusions, and draw future planning
for the artist, from a variety of Internet/Web/Usenet sources, is, in this
humble opinion, an obsolete business rep.
You're a strong, gifted composer and musician. You're also your own "rep"
here, in other forums, and on the Web. You're in tune with discussions,
attitudes, and critiques by other artists and by listeners. What makes
Usenet more applicable to you than it would be to, say, Ms Studer's business
rep?
Joe
Dr.Matt
Joe Roberts <cd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Dr.Matt" wrote:
>
>> Oh, and don't forget failing to join every existing mailing list in
>> the world just to grep through it for possible mentions of your
>> business. Oh, and have agents in every city in the world watching
>> local public access tv for mentions of your business. What else do you
>> suppose musicians should do with their time?
>>
>
>Matt,
>
>I guess I didn't state it clearly enough. Not the musician. The business
>agents. The person who is supposed to be professional and professionally
>responsible for media, communication, promotion, and coverage.
And what exactly would such a person do on Usenet? Spam?
>I had not meant to focus on the musician as Internet geek. It's about the
>business agent. I suggest that the business rep who (most likely ... no,
>Peter, I cannot "prove" it) has an E-mail address and perhaps his own
>business Web site, and who does _not_ tune into classical music audience
>vibes in Web-based and Usenet forums, ought to get fired.
>
>I mentiond that 'obsolete is as obsolete does.' I misspoke. Obsolete is
>as obsolete fails to do. The music artist's business rep who fails to
>read, perceive, see, note trends, draw conclusions, and draw future planning
>for the artist, from a variety of Internet/Web/Usenet sources, is, in this
>humble opinion, an obsolete business rep.
It's a text-only medium...from the 1980s... used by less than 1% of net users...
>You're a strong, gifted composer and musician. You're also your own "rep"
>here, in other forums, and on the Web. You're in tune with discussions,
>attitudes, and critiques by other artists and by listeners.
I am?
> What makes
>Usenet more applicable to you than it would be to, say, Ms Studer's business
>rep?
>
>Joe
>
I'm a Usenet geek from way back. I have friends who use this medium.
So it's mainly a matter of inertia.
Joe Roberts
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
> Joe Roberts wrote:
> >
> >I guess I didn't state it clearly enough. Not the musician. The
business
> >agents. The person who is supposed to be professional and professionally
> >responsible for media, communication, promotion, and coverage.
>
> And what exactly would such a person do on Usenet? Spam?
No, of course not. As I suggested, two paragraphs down. Read, listen,
perceive, learn, plan.
> >I had not meant to focus on the musician as Internet geek. It's about
the
> >business agent. I suggest that the business rep who (most likely ...
no,
> >Peter, I cannot "prove" it) has an E-mail address and perhaps his own
> >business Web site, and who does _not_ tune into classical music audience
> >vibes in Web-based and Usenet forums, ought to get fired.
> >
> >I mentiond that 'obsolete is as obsolete does.' I misspoke. Obsolete
is
> >as obsolete fails to do. The music artist's business rep who fails to
> >read, perceive, see, note trends, draw conclusions, and draw future
planning
> >for the artist, from a variety of Internet/Web/Usenet sources, is, in
this
> >humble opinion, an obsolete business rep.
> It's a text-only medium...from the 1980s... used by less than 1% of net
users...
Ms Studer has a Web page.
The site has no counter, but it would be interesting to see if it gets as
many hits as the number of messages appearing in this Usenet forum whenever
her name is used/abused here.
Again, I suggest it's a 100 percent relevant issue for her business / media
/ communications rep. I guess we'll not agree on that point.
> >You're a strong, gifted composer and musician. You're also your own
"rep"
> >here, in other forums, and on the Web. You're in tune with discussions,
> >attitudes, and critiques by other artists and by listeners.
>
> I am?
Aren't you? Ah, you're too modest.
>
> > What makes Usenet more applicable to you than it would be to, say,
> > Ms Studer's business rep?
> I'm a Usenet geek from way back. I have friends who use this medium.
> So it's mainly a matter of inertia.
Perhaps her business rep's apparent negligence in addressing ongoing abuse
to Ms Studer's image, in guise of promotion of Ms Studer, is mainly a matter
of inertia. One has to squint hard to see it as professional distancing
from some geeky hoi-polloi who are not relevant as a Studer audience.
Sorry, it smacks of inertia. Really, lethargy.
No, Peter. I do not have proof that a vacuum exists in the space between
her business rep's ears. When I see a smidgin of evidence that meat exists
there, however, please be assured that I will take a benign view.
Joe
Peter T. Daniels
I know that devices exist to alert one to mentions of one's name. I've
been contacted by a mystery writer and by a Chicago radio newswoman
after I happened to mention them -- one in a discussion list and one in
a newsgroup, IIRC.
Dr.Matt
What about Ham Radio, then? Are people talking about her in Morse Code
somewhere?
Dr.Matt
Yeah, you have to basically run a newsserver to do that.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Joe Roberts
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
> What about Ham Radio, then? Are people talking about her
> in Morse Code somewhere?
I wouldn't know, although I was a Ham at age 15 and operated an interactive
message 'net' for many years.
Isn't that analogy a bit farfetched, compared to a artist's business agent's
probable (no, Peter, no physical proof) Internet connection, e-mail,
probable awareness of the artist's Web site, and questionable awareness of
the existence or relevance to the artist of public forums wherein his/her
artist's live and recorded work is specifically discussed and critiqued by
listeners, and possibly abused?
73,
Joe
Dr.Matt
I don't think so. Usenet *Is* a very small and obscure medium.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
>
> In article <b_KLb.10718$8H.29303@attbi_s03>,
> Joe Roberts <cd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >Isn't that analogy a bit farfetched, compared to a artist's business agent's
> >probable (no, Peter, no physical proof) Internet connection, e-mail,
> >probable awareness of the artist's Web site, and questionable awareness of
> >the existence or relevance to the artist of public forums wherein his/her
> >artist's live and recorded work is specifically discussed and critiqued by
> >listeners, and possibly abused?
>
> I don't think so. Usenet *Is* a very small and obscure medium.
True! (However important it may appear to some who post to its
newsgroups, most of the world revolves as usual, happily unaware of its
existence.)