Time to follow the example of SCIT?
Apratim Sarkar
And make SCB an auto-moderated group, so that no crossposts will be allowed
from SCI? I am volunteering to do the usual clerical stuff (RFD/CFV etc), if
there is enough initial interest. Feel free to reply by email but
please follow up in SCB as well (or put a request in to post it, if you cannot
do so yourself but would like to).
Regards,
Apratim.
--
Likhlam Bichitra Das'ke Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are
"Bohudin dekhini akash'ke| are my own and shouldn't be construed in
Ushno tomar smriti ekhono any way to represent that of my employer.
Amar e hriadyer flask'e|"
Dasgupta
I support this "no-crosspost" policy. Except, may be, scbangladesh. Can this be
done Apratim ?
Regards,
Shoumyo.
Debashis Bhattacharya
asa...@us.oracle.com (Apratim Sarkar) wrote:
I am in favor of this approach, if crossposts from selected newsgroups (perhaps
based on a one-time vote) can be blocked/allowed (instead of the blocking being
a blanket one).
Debashis.
----------------------------------------------------------
>And make SCB an auto-moderated group, so that no crossposts will be allowed
>from SCI? I am volunteering to do the usual clerical stuff (RFD/CFV etc), if
>there is enough initial interest. Feel free to reply by email but
>please follow up in SCB as well (or put a request in to post it, if you cannot
>do so yourself but would like to).
>
>Regards,
>Apratim.
>
.. deleted ...
Arnab Gupta
Apratim,
Kichhu jodi korar hoi SCB-ke `auto-moderated' korar byaparey
taholey taratari korey phyalai bhalo| Ami SCB-r pathok/pathika-der onurodh
korchhi tNara jyano tNader motamot janan ei thread-e. Roj shokaler
ei otyachar ar shojhyo kora jachhe na| Ajkey shokale amar server-er
pNoitirishta posting-er ektirishta cross-posted! Shoumya Dasgupta
dekhlam SC-Banladesh'ke ontorbhukto korar kotha bolechhen| Amar
apotti nei tobe bakider motamot neoa dorkar| Apnader shobaike
abar onurodh korchhi ei bishoye motamot janatey|
Regards,
Arnab.
Manidip Sengupta
Apratim Sarkar wrote:
>
> And make SCB an auto-moderated group, so that no crossposts will be allowed
My 2 pennies: I hate these cross-postings, and would happy
if this is not allowed..... Manidip
Prantik Mazumder
In article <4qpdar$b...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Arnab,
Amar motamot janalum...
"I have NO problem with cross-posting"
Regards
Prantik
--
Prantik Mazumder
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
Iowa State University, Ames
IA 50011
Ph: 515-294 6954 (off)
515-292 3410 (res.)
email: pra...@iastate.edu
homepage: http://www.iastate.edu/~prantik
Mandar Mitra
Shoumyo Dasgupta <TXD...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> I support this "no-crosspost" policy. Except, may be, scbangladesh.
Me too.
mandar.
Sambit Basu
mi...@cs.cornell.edu (Mandar Mitra) writes:
>Shoumyo Dasgupta <TXD...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Me too.
Ammo.
Sambit
S Bhattacharyya
mi...@cs.cornell.edu (Mandar Mitra) writes:
>Me too.
>mandar.
Same here. SC Bangladesh however, should not be blocked. I rather enjoy
the purba-bangla flavour.
Santanu
Apratim Sarkar
In article <4qpvl6$9...@er6.rutgers.edu> sam...@eden.rutgers.edu (Sambit Basu) writes:
>mi...@cs.cornell.edu (Mandar Mitra) writes:
>
>>Shoumyo Dasgupta <TXD...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>> I support this "no-crosspost" policy. Except, may be, scbangladesh.
I am sure that this is technically feasible. Also I personally
agree wrt SCBd with Tathagata. We can have detailed discussions in
the RFD phase about the guidelines.
>>Me too.
>
> Ammo.
>
>
> Sambit
Anindya Ghoshal
Apratim Sarkar wrote:
>
> And make SCB an auto-moderated group, so that no crossposts will be allowed
> there is enough initial interest. Feel free to reply by email but
> please follow up in SCB as well (or put a request in to post it, if you cannot
> do so yourself but would like to).
Thanks Apratim for doing something..as long as it keeps my head balanced into reading
something sane while browsing thru. SCB. Boy!! Oh Boy!! Tempers rise, flashes of
extremism, cannot fathom the hatred..where does it flow from?? Don't understand
most of them...debating with Oxford Debating Soc. is probably an easier proposition..
their sarcasm is enjoyable..but what is this ?? Sheer madness..most of
us glance thru. the SCB for a moment of relaxation, casual conversation, some hone
in their debating prowess but most of the times its sheer fun..when things seem to
turn worse then polite follow-ups or personal e-mails brings everything back to normalcy.
Let the newsgroup return to what it was .. a civilized forum for meaningful discussions
and humorous exchanges of ideas and thoughts...I'm enclosing an Usenet info from NIC
(USENET info Center Launch Pad) on SCB as of June 26 ,1996..(Copyright: Kevin Atkinson)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sociocultural identity of worldwide Bengali population.
Readers: 15000 (0.2%) Mesgs per month/day: 1585/53
Crossposting: 38% Megs per month/day: 2.2/0.073
Sites receiving this Group: 46% Cost ratio ($US/month/rdr): 0.06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Regards,
> Apratim.
>
>
And yep.. I also would like to echo Shoumyo Dasgupta's thought of allowing crossposting from
SCBangladesh. Thanks to Apratim and to all once again..let sanity and peace prevail here at SCB.
Auto-moderation as I understand wouldn't be a censure to new, radical or different ideas but only will
prevent crosspostings from ngs like SCI/SCP's....which itself would prove a disincentive
to our habitual crossposters. Apratim, please do correct me if my understanding of auto-moderation
is wrong.
regards,
Anindya.
email address: agho...@eng2.uconn.edu
Philosophy:
Resigned from Life...
Death Rules in all of its Abstractions.
Sutapa Chattopadhyay
> Apratim Sarkar wrote:
> >
> > And make SCB an auto-moderated group, so that no crossposts will be allowed
> > from SCI? I am volunteering to do the usual clerical stuff (RFD/CFV etc), if
> > there is enough initial interest. Feel free to reply by email but
> > please follow up in SCB as well (or put a request in to post it, if you cannot
> > do so yourself but would like to).
>
of posts on SCB but auto-moderation is a good idea.
Sutapa
--
Sutapa Chattopadhyay
Shubu Mukherjee
>>>> Shoumyo Dasgupta <TXD...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>> I support this "no-crosspost" policy. Except, may be, scbangladesh.
Using your kill-file appropriately will solve this problem.
-Shubu
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shubu Mukherjee Univeristy of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences
SLAHIRI
I vote *YES* for auto-moderating SCB. Let's do it guys
and to hell with cross-posters.
- Sandip
Jay Datta
I strongly agree. The problem of cross-posting would increase in
the future as more and more people get connected to the 'net. Hence,
let's go for auto-moderation.
--Jaysurya Datta
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MRC-APU, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 2EF +44 1223 355294 extn 692
__________http://www.mrc-apu.cam.ac.uk/personal/jay.datta/____________
#define Message_Of_The_Day
"Keep Cool, but Don't Freeze
- Hellman's Mayonnaise"
Supratik Das
I agree with Shubu on this. I would also like to know what will be the
determinant for auto-moderation. Is it simply going to keep away
cross-posts or topics as well? What about topics common with other
newsgroups?
Supratik.
Chaitali Basu
>
> I vote *YES* for auto-moderating SCB. Let's do it guys
> and to hell with cross-posters.
>
> - Sandip
I abstain from voting. Thank you.
Chaitali
Indrani DasGupta
>
>Erokom-i ekta loDai chaichhilaam. Amio buDo kNadhe gaandib tule
>niyechhi. Sayan-babu chup kano?
>Indranil.
Dhush...shobbai ak dol-e to...eta abaar loDai holo! Chhoh!!!
Indrani.
Arya Raychaudhuri
>SLAHIRI wrote:
>>
>> I vote *YES* for auto-moderating SCB. Let's do it guys
>> and to hell with cross-posters.
>>
>> - Sandip
>I abstain from voting. Thank you.
>Chaitali
While I understand your position, I will vote NO to auto-moderation
or any moderation for that matter.
First of all, ALL crossposts are not unwelcome. Some of them are
quite informative and interesting. I do not want to see SCB as a
disinfected only-bengali forum.
Secondly, yes, I agree that many crossposts represent tribal crap.
But, then, the best way to deal with crap is to answer vigorously
with reciprocal crap. That is, crap must be cut with crap.
ARC
ps. ajker priyo rabindro sangeet:
Tumi kemon kore gan karo he guni....
Supratik Das
> While I understand your position, I will vote NO to auto-moderation
> or any moderation for that matter.
> First of all, ALL crossposts are not unwelcome. Some of them are
> quite informative and interesting. I do not want to see SCB as a
> disinfected only-bengali forum.
> Secondly, yes, I agree that many crossposts represent tribal crap.
> But, then, the best way to deal with crap is to answer vigorously
> with reciprocal crap. That is, crap must be cut with crap.
I will also vote NO to the above proposal. The reason being that the
only Indian Ng we get at my school is soc.cul.bengali and it acts as a
window to other Ngs. Besides it would be uninteresting to discuss
'Statistics' and menu of 'Ilish macher jhol'.
> ARC
Supratik
N. Tiwari
While I agree that there is a lot of trash on scb (or for
that sake on any ng), the proposed scheme for moderation
is not good IMO. There are lots of articles, which might
be good for exclusively Bangla folks, and also interesting
to Tamils, Gujaratis etc. in general. The recent discussion
on "Marginilization of Bengal due to bias at Center" is
very good example. It is of interest to Bengalis as well
as other desis from W. India. Threads like such will simply
get killed, beacuse of the way moderation is supposed to
work.
So, I urge you all to think seriously before taking a hasty
decision.
-------
Nachiketa Tiwari
=====================================================
750 Tall Oaks Drive 118 Patton Hall
Apt. # 3600 I Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24060. Blacksburg, VA 24061.
(540)-951-3979 (540)-231-4611
=====================================================
Amitabha Lahiri
Apratim Sarkar wrote:
> And make SCB an auto-moderated group, so that no crossposts will be allowed
> from SCI?
No. We don't even know if auto-moderation is actually serving the purpose
it was expected to serve in SCIT. Give it a few months.
I have an alternative proposal (below).
I'm afraid it will take too much time and effort to put all I have to say
in the form of a coherent article, so I am simply going to jot down various
random thoughts that came to my mind over the past few days since SCIT
auto-moderation passed and also since Apratim's post appeared here.
I had originally planned to keep this short. Unfortunately this article
took on a life of its own, and after three and a half days of writing, I
decided to post it rather than spend even more time on it.
I voted against the SCIT proposal. I didn't spend as much time talking
about it as I should have done, which I regret now.
I have a certain fondness for s.c.bengali and I find it extremely annoying
that a few people who have absolutely nothing to contribute about Bengali
culture have decided to hijack the group for their own purposes.
Would I like to stop them? Yes of course. Would I like to stop _all_
crossposts? I think not.
I have philosophical disagreements with moderation itself, especially on a
soc.culture group, and even more so on a soc.culture group that has a high
Indian presence. I am sure others will talk about this point, I do not want
to spend much time on this right now.
Except for one thing. What we are talking about here is content-based
moderation. The contents of these posts are unfit for s.c.bengali, which is
precisely why so many of us are complaining about them.
Let me touch on a few practical things first.
We already know that among many crossposters a few people are the real
culprits, and they (cross)post irrelevant articles to s.c.bengali
essentially as assertion of control -- as Apratim said before `shunbine?
tor ghar dhore shonabo |' Will the auto-mod stop them? It will stop some of
them, but most certainly not all. All these people will do is to post
_everything_ separately to s.c.bengali. You may think that if the
crossposts are stopped at least the responses will stop coming. But the
responses can be crossposted too.
Secondly, why stop crossposts? From s.c.bangladesh for example? Or even
s.c.indian -- surely there are topics that _by charter_ belong to both
groups? I just made a crosspost to s.c.b. and rec.sport.cricket. What about
that? What about rec.arts.movies.local.indian? (Actually, about this last
one, why is the Bengali presence so small in this group? Aren't Bengalis
supposed to like talking about movies?)
Stopping crossposts is cutting off cross-cultural discussions. Forcing
people into ghettos is bad enough, but it is truly sad when people do
that to themselves.
Setting up auto-mod is a more or less permanent procedure. Readers and
posters come and go, next year the face of this newsgroup will change
again. But if we set up auto-mod now, that will remain as a fixed rule.
To some this sounds like a good idea -- `chandro-surjo jatodin, amader
niyom tatodin' -- I think of this as `hakim nore to hukum nore na' -- in
other words a highly flawed solution to a complex problem.
This is personal preference of course. I do not believe in immutable rules
and regulations, but rather in discussion and cooperation. In other words,
I would rather have a decision taken by people than by a mindless script.
At least one can argue with people and get their decision changed.
So I have an alternative proposal to auto-mod.
I think many of those who are cross-posting irrelevant articles to
s.c.bengali are often blissfully unaware (a) that it was irrelevant to
s.c.bengali, (b) that anyone has any objections to it *for that reason*, or
(c) that it would have been read and discussed just as much if it had
stayed in s.c.indian or some other appropriate group.
On the other hand, there are a few diehard crossposters who are doing this
on purpose, knowing fully well that their posts have nothing to do with
s.c.bengali. Nor are these only crossposts, I saw two long posts about
Shibaji and Bajirao in s.c.bengali that were posted *only* here. People who
do that deserve as much censure as crossposters.
I suggest three steps to an action.
1. First we identify those posters whom I call `persistent offenders'. I
think we ought to accept that there may be occasional posts that are not
particularly relevant to Bengalis or to Bengali culture. Such posts may
evolve out of an ongoing discussion, as a direct response to someone else's
comment, or to clarify or buttress a particular position. My stress is on
the `persistence' of posting stuff that is not specifically relevant to
s.c.bengali, especially by people who rarely if ever contribute anything
relevant to Bengali culture.
By identification, I mean somebody (i.e. anybody) proposes a name of a
poster and identifies him/her as a `persistent offender' in a public post
to s.c.bengali.
2. This allows people to defend themselves and their friends in the same
forum. This also allows readers to decide for themselves if the named
person(s) are actually posting too much irrelevant stuff and whether they
find it acceptable for this person to do so.
3. After this those readers of s.c.bengali who do not wish to see this
barrage of irrelevant posts continue should reply *directly* to the poster,
for each and every post they consider *totally irrelevant to s.c.bengali*,
for as long as that poster continues to post irrelevant stuff. It may be a
good idea to quote the post, in some cases it may be a good idea to include
a copy of the charter of s.c.bengali.
I would suggest a gap of about a week between step 1 and step 3.
I am sure there are many people reading this group, recently a number 15000
was mentioned. Even if that is incorrect, we had nearly 1000 people voting
for the creation of the group, i.e., agreeing with the charter. One would
expect that all these people would be unhappy about charter violations. If
they all tell the poster that s/he is violating the charter of s.c.bengali
it may finally get to the poster that those posts are indeed violating the
charter -- as things stand now only a few people are publicly protesting,
which can be dismissed as politically motivated in very specific ways (i.e.
anti-Sikh or anti-BJP etc).
If this works, s.c.bengali _will_ gain a reputation for being harsh on
(cross)posters who have nothing to contribute to this newsgroup. And the
incidents of irrlevant (cross)posts will start to decrease.
It will fail to work if very few people can be bothered to write a reply.
In which case I must sadly conclude that the readers of s.c.bengali are not
bothered to see this group being hijacked for political purposes by people
who are neither interested in, nor contributive to, Bengali culture. In
which case s.c.bengali deserves to be flooded by morons, IMO.
There are several warnings that need to be used with this approach though.
The most important of them is that if it does work, it becomes an extremely
powerful weapon. It must not be used frivolously. Any proposal must
therefore be followed by a week of defense/accusal/discussion and action
taken afterwards.
I am not suggesting a `vote' on deciding whether to take action on a poster
named in step 1. What I am suggesting is that individual readers take
action by their own volition after steps 1 and 2. Those who want to do
something about the barrage of irrelevant posts would do it, and those who
cannot be bothered do not need to bother.
This way every situation can be dealt with separately on its own merit, and
not by fiat as an automod script would do. We could, for example, take into
account whether a specific poster contributes anything to s.c.bengali which
is relevant to this newsgroup before going on to step 3. We could discuss
if a specific post that seems to be `irrelevant' to s.c.b. actually evolved
naturally out of an ongoing discussion which was relevant. And such.
Some people may think of taking step 1 whenever they disagree with the
views of a particular poster -- I can imagine people naming Sayan or Rohan
Oberoi or Nachiketa Tiwari as `persistent offenders'. I would request all
-- irrespective of your political views -- not to take step 1 so easily,
certainly not as a joke, nor even as a warning. You don't point a loaded
gun at someone as a joke, nor for the heck of it. At least not in a civil
society. Let's at least be civil.
If not enough people are willing to take step 3, or if people generally
stop after sending a few replies, this mechanism will not work. To me that
would be an indication that not enough people care about the actions of a
particular poster. Or maybe not enough people care about what s.c.bengali
is filled with. In which case s.c.bengali deserves to be a garbage dump.
If that last paragraph seems like a repeat, it should. I believe in that
bit strongly enough that I felt the need to restate it.
Amitabha
PS: I have left several words -- important ones -- undefined. This was on
purpose. Rather than impose fixed definitions, I would like to see people
(by which I mean each and every individual reader) decide on their own
definitions of the words `relevant',`offender',`rules' etc. And take action
based on their own definitions and own judgement.
Some may feel that I have `too much' faith in people. I would like them to
come out and say so. Thank you for listening.
--
Amitabha Lahiri MAPS University of Sussex A.La...@central.susx.ac.uk
No one else is responsible for what I say and vice versa.
Today it's the Bengalis, tomorrow it will be you.
Sharmila Mukherjee
Thank you Mr. Lahiri for your post. Let me say that I agree with you one
hundred percent. Let me also add that I do not think that you have `too
much' faith in people,:-)
Regards,
Sharmila
Dasgupta
Amitabha's post was logical. Let me identify, off-hand, a few cross-posters,
who, in my opinion, publish irrelevant articles to scb:
1. Babu Ramabadran (join the fan club and leave us alone)
2. Nachiketa Tiwar
3. Rajiv Varma
Regards,
Shoumyo.
Indranil DasGupta
Indrani DasGupta (ID2...@american.edu) wrote:
: Dhush...shobbai ak dol-e to...eta abaar loDai holo! Chhoh!!!
: Indrani.
Over confidence khub kharap. Batela ja marar vote-er por marlei bhalo.
Totodin mon diye gNof-er chash korun.
Indranil.
Supratik Das
> Regards,
> Shoumyo.
I am not a fan of the above mentioned but I have some concern as regards
to what you call 'irrelevant articles'. What appears to you to be
relevant maybe very irrelevant to me and vice-versa. BTW, many in scb
have a strong dislike for the above three owing to their BJPite posts. I
hope in the garb of keeping out certain posts we are not practising
political discrimination.
Supratik
Indranil DasGupta
Supratik Das (d...@aecom.yu.edu) wrote:
: On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Dasgupta wrote:
: > Amitabha's post was logical. Let me identify, off-hand, a few cross-posters,
: > who, in my opinion, publish irrelevant articles to scb:
: >
: > 1. Babu Ramabadran (join the fan club and leave us alone)
: > 2. Nachiketa Tiwar
: > 3. Rajiv Varma
: I am not a fan of the above mentioned but I have some concern as regards
: to what you call 'irrelevant articles'. What appears to you to be
: relevant maybe very irrelevant to me and vice-versa. BTW, many in scb
: have a strong dislike for the above three owing to their BJPite posts. I
: hope in the garb of keeping out certain posts we are not practising
: political discrimination.
Tell me, dear Supratik-babu, how can _auto-moderation_ result in political
discrimination?
Why should BJP-ite posts be the only ones to be eliminated if _all
cross posts_ were eliminated? Are you implying that all political posts
in scb are made by BJP supporters? Recall that the scb charter
discourages political issues. Why would you credit BJP supporters with
monopolising the violation of the charter?
The case for auto moderation arises (as Arnab-babu mentioned at some
point) because: of the 50 odd posts appearing in scb in a typical busy
day 40 have really nothing to do with the `sociocultural identity of
worldwide bengali population'. As other scb-iites have wondered
aloud, why call this ng s.c.bengali, if it is so little of a bengali
thing? Why not dissolve the ng and merge with s.c.i?
At this point I don't think it is necessary or fruitful to name people
whose posts may or may not be relevant to the newsgroup. For those who
care about the newsgroup this should not be a petty personal
issue. Supratik babu may miss the
colorful politics of India, but I have faith that he'll be persuaded to
believe that his plea about scb being the only Indian ng carried at his
local site is no argument at all. My site does not carry certain ngs
that deal with juvenile pornography. If I ever develop an interest in
them I'll just ask my sys-ad nicely. That's the right
way of going about ita I wouldn't dream of trying to get those things
cross posted to scb. Besides, if one can get access to netscape, then
there are places like "Deja -news" where all soc.culture groups can be
found.
There are long days of the RFD ahead. Let's not run head on into
conflict right away. We all love this ng. Let's do what's good for it.
Indranil.
Amitabha Lahiri
Since I posted my earlier article, the discussion seems to have died down a
bit. I was sad to see a knee-jerk response from Shoumyo, in which he named
three people without bothering to justify his actions, another knee-jerk
response from Supratik Das who suggested that Shoumyo might be anti-BJP,
and now some truly callous comments from Indranil DasGupta suggesting that
there is no point in discussing anything until the discussion is officially
declared open. How long are we going to continue in this vein?
My suggestion was in essence nothing but a reiteration of what the original
charter said, namely, if we find articles in s.c.b. which have nothing to
do with Bengali culture, we should ask the posters, directly and politely,
to post them in the appropriate fora. All this talk of auto-moderation is
no more than saying `I cannot be bothered to follow the charter, so I am
going to change it.' Why? Why can't supposedly intelligent people be
bothered to follow a charter they voted for?
To all those who are interested in keeping this newsgroup a friendly forum
for conversation, I urge you to please keep this thread alive, and discuss
what can be done to improve the nature of the group without ghettoising an
entire culture. I will not be reading usenet for some time, so please do
not wait for my response, continure without me.
Thanks,
Amitabha
Indranil Dasgupta
Amitabha Lahiri wrote:
"Since I posted my earlier article, the discussion seems to have died
down a
bit. I was sad to see a knee-jerk response from Shoumyo, in which he
named
three people without bothering to justify his actions, another knee-jerk
response from Supratik Das who suggested that Shoumyo might be anti-BJP,
and now some truly callous comments from Indranil DasGupta suggesting
that
there is no point in discussing anything until the discussion is
officially
declared open. How long are we going to continue in this vein?"
Electronic media can sometimes strangely distort a message. What I
wanted to say was this:
There are long days of the RFD ahead. Let's not run head on into
conflict right away. We all love this ng. Let's do what's good for
it.
Amitabha didn't quote me; I assume he must have recieved a garbled
version of my message at his site. Clearly I simply made an appeal to
avoid _conflicts_ and carry the discussion on with a view to building
concensus. The differences that must inevitably be faced must be faced.
But we could only gain if we identify the points on which we concur and
lay a solid foundation of shared concerns before rushing into arguments.
That is why I think it is not fruitful to name people or ascribe
political motives to people without first making some effort towards
dicovering our common grounds. And for the same reason I'd implore
Amitabha to desist from making personal comments against Shoumya or
Supratik. This is one issue on which it should be easier to find
agreements rather than discords.
Something similar had happened during and prior to the RFD for the
creation of scb. Despite a multitude of differing opinions on every
aspect of the proposed group we managed to find common ground. I recall
with fondness the spirit and the sincerity of netters of that time. One
hopes that our loyalty to the newsgroup will bind us together once
again.
Indranil.
Indrani DasGupta
dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta)wrote:
Dibbi ghor-er kheye bon-er mosh taDachchhen je? Edike apnar nijer khheter
phoshol je pongopal-e phNak kore diye galo, shedike kheyal aachhe?
Indrani.
pu: akta jinish lokkho korechhen to? Amaar post-tar pore-pore-i kintu
"ashol" loDai-ta shuru holo. Tar aage to lobodonka!
Indranil Dasgupta
Amitabha Lahiri wrote:
>
> Apratim Sarkar wrote:
>
> > And make SCB an auto-moderated group, so that no crossposts will be allowed
> > from SCI?
>
> No. We don't even know if auto-moderation is actually serving the purpose
> it was expected to serve in SCIT. Give it a few months.
I checked SCIT. Except for one poster who had indicated a particular
fascination with cross-posting to SCIT, all other cross posters seem to
have given up. This aberrant poster continues to post copies of articles
separately to SCIT. However, without adequate support from netters of
sci, followups are few. SCIT has been cleaned up.
> I have an alternative proposal (below).
[..]
I may be one of those stupid few who has actually tried your method. In
the early days of scb, I protested, tried to raise public concern and
sent personal mails to offending cross-posters. Even as recently as a
few months ago I persuaded two or three prolific contributors of sci to
take off scb from the headers of all their follow-up posts. You
mentioned Rohan Oberoi's name, although you'd be hard pressed to find
his posts in scb now. Infact if you had the inclination and the energy
to investigate you'd find that Rohan actually helped take a few threads
out of scb.
Talking of inclination and energy, I personally have lost them with
regards to persuading cross-posters. I think your proposal is
unworkable. Auto-moderation IS our best chance. A few other scb netters,
who have tried the method you propose will probably agree with me.
But others may still have the zeal to carry it through. In that case
they should come forward and support Amitabha's proposal with a visible
display of strength. If you lack the steam now, you're not likely to get
it later. And, if Amitabha's way is to succeed, you'd need an infinite
amount of patience and zeal. Moreover, you'd need to agree on who to
`prosecute' in a reasonable amount of time (pipe dream, IMO).
Indranil.
Indrani DasGupta
There is a simple reason why Amitabha Lahiri's method of discouraging
cross-posters from posting on scb may not work. Most scb-ites check
scb-postings in a haphazard and casual manner; and the few zealous ones
will not, in my opinion, _continue_ to take the time and the energy
necessary for taking steps (1) through (3), _even_ if they do so in the
beginning. There's the rub.
Another reason why I do not like this idea is the emphasis on individual
cross-posters. I don't believe in making examples out of people.
Crossposters have their own reasons for doing what they do. Granted, we
all hate to see these flying monkeys etc., not to mention the rampant
swear-words that dominate many of these sci-blessed posts on _our ng_ :).
But, that does not mean that they need to be harrassed (pardon the
expression if it sounds a bit too strong, but it was the first and only
word that came to my mind) by a barrage of email from the 'scb police
force'.
I am not really sure how 'kill-filing' works...and I've never tried it.
If somebody has the time and patience to post something on this yet
again, I would be grateful.
There is also, as a last resort, self-censorship. However, I doubt if
this will work with some of the more "foaming-at-the-mouth" crossposters
from sci.
This is why auto-moderation is _probably_ the only thing that will work
to clean this mess up. However, I am not very sure about whether it will,
in effect, discourage consistent and 'hell-bent' crossposters from
separately posting on scb. But then, how long can an errant thread last
without accompanying encouragement? And, in the end, that is probably
where the battle should be fought and won.
Thank you,
Indrani.
-S.BHATTACHARYA
Indrani DasGupta <ID2...@american.edu> wrote:
>I am not really sure how 'kill-filing' works...and I've never tried it.
>If somebody has the time and patience to post something on this yet
>again, I would be grateful.
Btw, how do I remove an entry from my "kill file" list for a given news
group? Some of the current entries, fortunately, are past their usefulness.
Thanks,
-Samir
>Indrani.
>
Srabani Banerjee
Indrani DasGupta writes:
>There is a simple reason why Amitabha Lahiri's method of discouraging
>cross-posters from posting on scb may not work. Most scb-ites check
>scb-postings in a haphazard and casual manner; and the few zealous ones
>will not, in my opinion, _continue_ to take the time and the energy
>necessary for taking steps (1) through (3), _even_ if they do so in the
>beginning. There's the rub.
>
>Another reason why I do not like this idea is the emphasis on individual
>cross-posters. I don't believe in making examples out of people.
>Crossposters have their own reasons for doing what they do. Granted, we
>all hate to see these flying monkeys etc., not to mention the rampant
>swear-words that dominate many of these sci-blessed posts on _our ng_ :).
>But, that does not mean that they need to be harrassed (pardon the
>expression if it sounds a bit too strong, but it was the first and only
>word that came to my mind) by a barrage of email from the 'scb police
>force'.
>
>I am not really sure how 'kill-filing' works...and I've never tried it.
>If somebody has the time and patience to post something on this yet
>again, I would be grateful.
>
>There is also, as a last resort, self-censorship. However, I doubt if
>this will work with some of the more "foaming-at-the-mouth" crossposters
>from sci.
>
>This is why auto-moderation is _probably_ the only thing that will work
>to clean this mess up. However, I am not very sure about whether it will,
>in effect, discourage consistent and 'hell-bent' crossposters from
>separately posting on scb. But then, how long can an errant thread last
>without accompanying encouragement?
:) Tui-o neme poDechhish? Ta'le ar thyakay ke?
>And, in the end, that is probably
>where the battle should be fought and won.
:) :) "Cry "havoc!", and let slip the dogs of war."
Srabani
rajib doogar
OK, I'll bite! This topic is sorely in need of my gentle illuminating
commentary. So here goes:
Reading this thread is hilarious given that it is being conducted on
what is probably the freest forum on this plante today. If I stand in
the middle of Dalhousie Sq (oops, Bibadi Bagh), I'd probably hear
almost all the topics that the various commentators on scb think
relevant or not, discussed, perhaps with less gutter language, but
then again, perhaps not. Consequently I find it preposterously
posturesome to postulate that some threads are more relevant than others
to ALL readers of scb. I would be astonished and indeed somewhat
disappointed, perhaps even aghast to find such conformist unanimity
among a sizable group of Bengalis (may that sad day never come!).
My take on this thread is that it appears at present to simply be a
blatant attempt by a handful of prolific posters including group
founders, who feel that THEY should not have to wade through what THEY
don't like. I have yet to find the substantive difference between the
arguments put forward for auto-moderation, whatever that is, and simple
garden variety snobbery of the most vulgar kind, namely,"my topic is
better than yours." In this connection, I might mention that back
home, in the dark ages, the operating rule was, afaik, if YOU don't
like the way the adda is going, have your adda in your baithakkhana,
but if its a thek, anyone can talk about anything. I do not know what
the thek rules are these days, but IMO, since Scb is a public forum,
more like a thek, its definitely not anyone's baithakkhana, so I don't
see the point of all this pontification about what is essentially
censorship, or at least imposing a cost (however minor) on
participation. Mooted, of all people, by people who are in US
universities, of all places. Would be funny if only it weren't
pathetic.
If I really feel that a specific posting has nothing to do with scb, I
better have an iron-clad case and then if I do, I can complain
legitimately about violation of the scb charter and there IS a
mechanism by which egregious violations CAN be suitably dealt with. I
personally have yet to see a valid case that can be made even against
the worst lyangot-chhaap posting on scb. Neither Calcutta, nor Bengal
is a closed system and what I see posted on scb reflects that idea
perfectly. Even BABU RAMA*'s stuff. In another part of the forest,
let us not forget that even if ONE bengali thinks something is
relevant to hir culture or beliefs, IMO, a good argument may be made
that the thread has something to do with topic(s) within the scope of
scb. Unless someone died and appointed x, y or z as God. Not.
I'd like to argue that if I don't like something, I can flame,
mail-bomb (as in flooding someone's mailbox, not the UNABOM kind if
you really want a proper legal disclaimer), learn to kill-file or in
the extreme, stop reading scb and start my own mailing list, BUT I
would be hard put to justify trying to cut down on what I in my
infinite wisdom deem "irrelevant." The forms of protest that I find
acceptable all involve various means of opposing distasteful discourse
either by confrontation or by avoidance, but do not involve cutting
off someone else. To preserve a desirable degree of openness and
self-awareness, not to say self-criticism in society one must be very
careful to bend over backwards before actually prohibiting or
retarding free speech. I would hope that many and arguably most
readers of scb feel the same way. In that case, the proposed remedy
is far more distasteful than the agony from the verbal diahorrea of a
select few (and that set varies across people -- I'm probably in your
set if you're irritated by now). So, unless you're actually engaged
in some highly ironic post-modern game of spoofing that which you
detest by emulating it, put a sock in it and let this sad thread die
the abortive death it surely deserves.
Back to barracking each other gentlefolk! There is much work to be
done: there are are egos waiting to be trampled upon, reputations
asking to be deconstructed and what not. Think only of the
"irrelevant" posting as the sand in your oyster and may the pearls of
sarcasm, satire and ridicule never run dry on scb. If the BABUs and
samaritans of our world did not exist, what incentive would there be
to weave garlands of invective and necklaces of barbs? And if we
couldn't do that would life be worth living?
ciao...
rajib
rajib doogar
-S.BHATTACHARYA (s...@hogph.ho.att.com) wrote:
: Indrani DasGupta <ID2...@american.edu> wrote:
:
: >I am not really sure how 'kill-filing' works...and I've never tried it.
: >again, I would be grateful.
: This is not a direct comment on auto-moderation, but..
:
: Btw, how do I remove an entry from my "kill file" list for a given news
: group? Some of the current entries, fortunately, are past their usefulness.
The procedure varies depending on what system you are using. When I
use rn or tin on Unix, (SunOs 2.1 or something similar I think), I
have a file called News/soc/culture/bengali/KILL, which as you might
know is a file named KILL in the directory News/soc/culture/bengali.
This is a simple text file and you can go in and edit away, like any
other file. When I use a PC (windoz) based reader, like NewsXpress,
in the news reader directory there is usually a file called killrc.
This is an ascii file and can be edited using any windows based
editor. The syntax of kill-file commands is NOT universal, so you can
add a few names to your kill file and then check out to see what
control codes are included before the text. Simple pattern scanning
will then tell you how to code various types of kill commands. If you
need help with rn/tin commands or PC (windows) based NewsXpress, which
I use, e-mail me and I'll see if I can help.
Ciao...
rajib
Srabani Banerjee
Rajib Doogar writes:
>OK, I'll bite! This topic is sorely in need of my gentle illuminating
>commentary. So here goes:
>
>Reading this thread is hilarious given that it is being conducted on
>what is probably the freest forum on this plante today. If I stand in
>the middle of Dalhousie Sq (oops, Bibadi Bagh), I'd probably hear
>almost all the topics that the various commentators on scb think
>relevant or not, discussed, perhaps with less gutter language, but
>then again, perhaps not. Consequently I find it preposterously
>posturesome to postulate that some threads are more relevant than others
>to ALL readers of scb.
Has this ever been part of the rhetoric? It it has, then I must have
missed it.
>I would be astonished and indeed somewhat
>disappointed, perhaps even aghast to find such conformist unanimity
>among a sizable group of Bengalis (may that sad day never come!).
>
>My take on this thread is that it appears at present to simply be a
>blatant attempt by a handful of prolific posters including group
>founders, who feel that THEY should not have to wade through what THEY
>don't like.
The most prolific posters, right now, are the ones who stand to lose
the most if this group becomes auto-moderated. I did not see them make
any attempt towards auto-moderation.
> I have yet to find the substantive difference between the
>arguments put forward for auto-moderation, whatever that is, and simple
>garden variety snobbery of the most vulgar kind, namely,"my topic is
>better than yours." In this connection, I might mention that back
>home, in the dark ages, the operating rule was, afaik, if YOU don't
>like the way the adda is going, have your adda in your baithakkhana,
>but if its a thek, anyone can talk about anything. I do not know what
>the thek rules are these days, but IMO, since Scb is a public forum,
>more like a thek, its definitely not anyone's baithakkhana, so I don't
>see the point of all this pontification about what is essentially
>censorship, or at least imposing a cost (however minor) on
>participation.
Hold your reins, Mr. Doogar. Care to explain why auto-moderation is
`essentially censorship'? Its more close to your own analogy of a
thek - you can always join another one. And, if for reasons best known
to you, SCB is the one you want to join, we are just asking you to take
that extra bit of effort. Where in Calcutta could you attend n theks
simultaneously?
> Mooted, of all people, by people who are in US
>universities, of all places. Would be funny if only it weren't
>pathetic.
And sorely in need of your `gentle illuminating' advice. :)
>If I really feel that a specific posting has nothing to do with scb, I
>better have an iron-clad case and then if I do, I can complain
>legitimately about violation of the scb charter and there IS a
>mechanism by which egregious violations CAN be suitably dealt with. I
>personally have yet to see a valid case that can be made even against
>the worst lyangot-chhaap posting on scb. Neither Calcutta, nor Bengal
>is a closed system and what I see posted on scb reflects that idea
>perfectly. Even BABU RAMA*'s stuff. In another part of the forest,
>let us not forget that even if ONE bengali thinks something is
>relevant to hir culture or beliefs, IMO, a good argument may be made
>that the thread has something to do with topic(s) within the scope of
>scb. Unless someone died and appointed x, y or z as God. Not.
Nobody has made arguments to the contrary.
>I'd like to argue that if I don't like something, I can flame,
>mail-bomb (as in flooding someone's mailbox, not the UNABOM kind if
>you really want a proper legal disclaimer), learn to kill-file or in
>the extreme, stop reading scb and start my own mailing list, BUT I
>would be hard put to justify trying to cut down on what I in my
>infinite wisdom deem "irrelevant."
What you write here is also, to me, `irrelevant' - but I am not
trying to cut it down, am I?
>The forms of protest that I find
>acceptable all involve various means of opposing distasteful discourse
>either by confrontation or by avoidance, but do not involve cutting
>off someone else.
You really seem to believe the idea that auto-moderation would mean
`cutting off' people? Why, Mr. Doogar? Is it because you realise the
actual purpose of the habitual cross-posters?
What you, Sir, are actually trying to defend here is cross-posting.
Could you give us one good reason as to why it is a very defensible
act? And, why, by ensuring that postings that reach SCB are meant for
SCB alone, would we be sounding the death-knell for the principle of
free speech, or whatever?
>To preserve a desirable degree of openness and
>self-awareness, not to say self-criticism in society one must be very
>careful to bend over backwards before actually prohibiting or
>retarding free speech.
Yes, of course. Your point being...?
>I would hope that many and arguably most
>readers of scb feel the same way.
Hoping for the same unanimity among Bengalis that you so seem to
despise?
>In that case, the proposed remedy
>is far more distasteful than the agony from the verbal diahorrea of a
>select few (and that set varies across people -- I'm probably in your
>set if you're irritated by now). So, unless you're actually engaged
>in some highly ironic post-modern game of spoofing that which you
>detest by emulating it, put a sock in it and let this sad thread die
>the abortive death it surely deserves.
>
>Back to barracking each other gentlefolk! There is much work to be
>done: there are are egos waiting to be trampled upon, reputations
>asking to be deconstructed and what not. Think only of the
>"irrelevant" posting as the sand in your oyster and may the pearls of
>sarcasm, satire and ridicule never run dry on scb.
Amen!
>If the BABUs and
>samaritans of our world did not exist, what incentive would there be
>to weave garlands of invective and necklaces of barbs? And if we
>couldn't do that would life be worth living?
And what variety of snobbery would this be, Mr. Doogar?
>ciao...
>
>rajib
regards,
Srabani
rajib doogar
In article <4s1adv$e...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Srabani
Banerjee wrote:
: Rajib Doogar writes:
: >then again, perhaps not. Consequently I find it preposterously
: >posturesome to postulate that some threads are more relevant than others
: >to ALL readers of scb.
:
: Has this ever been part of the rhetoric? It it has, then I must have
: missed it.
I seem to have heard whispers about "topics that have nothing to do
with Bengal and Bengalis." If we can burn effigies of some
capitalist-imperialist pig on Ho Sarani in Calcutta, I do not, for
one, see how any topic currently being posted or x-posted to scb can
be construed as not being of relevance for some one who is a Bengali,
(being Bengali by the very inclusive definition that a previous poster
had given -- was it Mr. Lahiri? A definition which I personally find
quite defensible.) The entire idea underlying auto-mod is to prevent
cross-posting of such irrelevant threads isn't it?
: >blatant attempt by a handful of prolific posters including group
: >founders, who feel that THEY should not have to wade through what THEY
: >don't like.
:
: The most prolific posters, right now, are the ones who stand to lose
: the most if this group becomes auto-moderated. I did not see them make
: any attempt towards auto-moderation.
I did not say "the most prolific posters", I said "a handful etc..".
Your logical acumen is impressive, but your reading of my statement is
flawed. Read my original statement again: You cannot deny that
proponents of auto-moderation are frequent posters to scb and thus
fall in the set "prolific posters". Now there are other prolific
posters who are not in favor of auto-moderation, ergo, my phraseology.
: >censorship, or at least imposing a cost (however minor) on
: >participation.
:
: Hold your reins, Mr. Doogar. Care to explain why auto-moderation is
: `essentially censorship'? Its more close to your own analogy of a
Glad to do so. But first a mea culpa: I should not have used the word
censorship, because on the net, it is hard to avoid a discussion
turning unpleasant after that word has been used. I goofed by
violating this well-founded rule. If you are responding viscerally to
the word censorship, then my apologies for having used that word. Now
to your question:
what i meant to write was "essentially" as qualifying both
"censorship" and "at least imposing a .." perhaps the meaning was not
clear and you read "essentially" as applying ONLY to censorship. I
was pointing out that auto-mod imposes costs on the poster, which
statement i hope you agree with. The point of my post is that the
PURPOSE of the newsgroups is to promote costless communication, so it
is incongruous to propose raising the costs of participation in the
group. That's also why I made my later pitch about usenet rules. The
point being once again that we DO have rules IF the charter is being
violated. Nobody has said the charter has been violated yet we see a
move to auto-mod. Why? Whose itch is being scratched here I wonder?
: thek - you can always join another one. And, if for reasons best known
: to you, SCB is the one you want to join, we are just asking you to take
: that extra bit of effort. Where in Calcutta could you attend n theks
: simultaneously?
Aah. Here may lie the rub -- technology allows us to view either each
thread as a thek or the group as a thek. Now if you view each thread
as a thek, then there is a diffculty which you are pointing out -- scb
IS indeed n theks and you have to work harder to find the thek you
like. But I was thinking of scb as ONE thek where several topics are
current: a topic is proposed and discussed for a bit then only a
couple of people keep discussing it because the others have moved on
to the next topic. Thus one can in a good thek, switch back and forth
among topics. Of course some days, one topic offers inexhaustible
treasures, so the thek does not have n threads. And on some days the
talk in thek would turn to topics on which one might not have any
interest in which case one could start another topic or "phete jaoa"
was always an option. But both cases are rare in a good thek.
However, I will admit that perhaps a thread can be considered a thek,
but having considered that possibility, I still prefer to think of as
scb as one thek because a good thek cannot be single threaded.
: > Mooted, of all people, by people who are in US
: >universities, of all places. Would be funny if only it weren't
: >pathetic.
:
: And sorely in need of your `gentle illuminating' advice. :)
Absolutely -- couldn't let y'all down now, could I? :)
: >If I really feel that a specific posting has nothing to do with scb, I
<snip> some stuff on this theme deleted ***
: >scb. Unless someone died and appointed x, y or z as God. Not.
:
:
: Nobody has made arguments to the contrary.
Oh but they have. That's *exactly* what the pro-auto-mod people are
saying -- "I find these postings irrelevant so they must be to all scb
readers. Let's try to cut down on these by preventing cross-posts."
Otherwise the implication would be that these good folks are out to
make it harder to make posts they find relevant by preventing
cross-posting. On second thoughts, maybe you can explain why if
everybody accepts these ideas there is a proposal to auto-mod? What,
in other words is the objective of trying to a-m the group if it is
not to cut down on "irrelevant" posts? Or is it that we fear that in
the future there will be a deluge of irrelevant posts and so we are
"planning ahead"? Either there is a current problem, which I have
argued there is not (see my very first paragraph), or there is not.
If there is not, then there must be some fear of a future problem.
Otherwise the a-m proposal is moot is it not? It seems quite evident
to me, so I suspect that we may be missing each other's point here.
: >I'd like to argue that if I don't like something, I can flame,
: >mail-bomb (as in flooding someone's mailbox, not the UNABOM kind if
: >you really want a proper legal disclaimer), learn to kill-file or in
: >the extreme, stop reading scb and start my own mailing list, BUT I
: >would be hard put to justify trying to cut down on what I in my
: >infinite wisdom deem "irrelevant."
:
: What you write here is also, to me, `irrelevant' - but I am not
: trying to cut it down, am I?
De gustibus etc.. But then I am not acusing you of trying to shut
anything off am I, unless you are a pro-a-m "type". So you are a good
guy/gal, what does that have to do with the price of fish? How is
this comment at all relevant to the discussion of a-m? (Or this
interjection of yours just a bit of pyank-deoa-fazlamo?)
: >The forms of protest that I find
: >acceptable all involve various means of opposing distasteful discourse
: >either by confrontation or by avoidance, but do not involve cutting
: >off someone else.
:
: You really seem to believe the idea that auto-moderation would mean
: `cutting off' people? Why, Mr. Doogar? Is it because you realise the
: actual purpose of the habitual cross-posters?
It is a pain in the neck to post the same thing to several groups
individually. If one has scarce time, one may be tempted to post info
to sci and then not post it to scb scit etc. so that useful posts
*may* be cut down. On the other hand, those who have decided to spend
the rest of their lifes becoming usenet gods or having their own
alt.fan.xxx club (whichever the case may be) will NOT be deterred,
they have enough time to post their stuff even if you go a-m. This
last point on the weakness of a-m has been made concurrently by
several people. The fact that it may be a disincentive to post useful
stuff to scb has not *afaik* been made before. It is because I
realize the value of time to busy people who try to do something
constructive that I say this, not because of the reason you
suspect. No I'm not one of the busy people otherwise I'd hardly be
doing this would I now?
: What you, Sir, are actually trying to defend here is cross-posting.
Sir? Oooh, I LOVE high dudgeon.
: Could you give us one good reason as to why it is a very defensible
: act? And, why, by ensuring that postings that reach SCB are meant for
: SCB alone, would we be sounding the death-knell for the principle of
: free speech, or whatever?
And melodrama... I see an incipient Mills and Boon top ten writer here.
As to *one* reason, see the preceding part of my response (the part
about busy people.)
: >To preserve a desirable degree of openness and
: >self-awareness, not to say self-criticism in society one must be very
: >careful to bend over backwards before actually prohibiting or
: >retarding free speech.
:
: Yes, of course. Your point being...?
A master of the "parse arbitrarily and discredit at will" school of
literary construction at work. A right pleasure to see you at work
mistress, it is. Read the whole thing as one paragraph and you
*might* get the point. Otherwise e-mail me for lessons.
: >I would hope that many and arguably most
: >readers of scb feel the same way.
:
: Hoping for the same unanimity among Bengalis that you so seem to
: despise?
Accha, eta ki holo? Maane ayamon agadh pandityo aapnaar, ta-satteo
eta likhte paarlen. Ta hole na bole aar parlam na: (start flame)
Lekhar age, hoy ingriji bhashata shikhe nin noyeto hater kacche ekta
bisharod rakhun. "Unanimous" mane shobbai, not, "many and arguably
most". Eta jodi bujhten, tahole amar mukhe omon boka-boka katha gunje
debar byartho procheshta korten'i na! Aar etao mone hoi je ingriji'ta
thik bojhen na bolei ayato kichhu bhul bujhte perecchen amaar lekhae.
:-) (end flame)
Aar ekta apotti acche: "despise" ta jude dilen kyano? Ami unanimity
pele ektu dukkhito habo kintu "despise" ta ektu koda hoye gyalo je.
jyamon dekhun, udahoron hishebe-i bolchi mane ki, unanimous hole, apnake
pabo kothay? Eta-i to thek'er secret -- Unanimity holo thek'er
shabtheke bado shotru. Unanimity hole bhalo thek hoy na, tabe pither
cholkonita hoyto komte paare, ete shandeho nei. Amar pith
shacharachar chulkoe na, tai amar unanimity'te kaaj nei.
: >In that case, the proposed remedy
: >is far more distasteful than the agony from the verbal diahorrea of a
: >select few (and that set varies across people -- I'm probably in your
: >set if you're irritated by now). So, unless you're actually engaged
: >in some highly ironic post-modern game of spoofing that which you
: >detest by emulating it, put a sock in it and let this sad thread die
: >the abortive death it surely deserves.
: >
: >Back to barracking each other gentlefolk! There is much work to be
: >done: there are are egos waiting to be trampled upon, reputations
: >asking to be deconstructed and what not. Think only of the
: >"irrelevant" posting as the sand in your oyster and may the pearls of
: >sarcasm, satire and ridicule never run dry on scb.
:
: Amen!
Sheshporjonto na mene thakte paarlen na to :)
: >If the BABUs and
: >samaritans of our world did not exist, what incentive would there be
: >to weave garlands of invective and necklaces of barbs? And if we
: >couldn't do that would life be worth living?
:
: And what variety of snobbery would this be, Mr. Doogar?
Now you are equating snobbery with disapproval. I am not in agreement
with this school of thought. I do not say "x writes on less important
issues" so I do not think you can fairly accuse me of being a snob.
That does not mean I cannot say that "What x writes is pure
unadulterated bilge of the finest proof" if I feel that way. The
latter is *disapproval* rather than snobbery I would think. Maybe the
language is satirical and the intent to destroy the credibility of the
original poster by poking fun at hir, but it is disapproval of the
ideas not an obiter on the inherent discussability of a topic. But
all in all, jeta bolte chaicchi sheta holo: chutki kata'r anondo ta
badoi lobhoniyo, tai jodi shomosto kyabla, pantha, boka, gardhab,
ulluk ityadi kete pade tahole je theker ras kome jaabe. Hope that
clears things up.
In sum, to restate my case before it gets lost in the pleasurable pursuit
of pot-shotting each other:
Auto-mod would deter those we don't want to deter and wouldn't deter
those we want to deter. It is a bad idea IMO. But apart from this
instrumental logic, I also find the idea of raising costs of
communication a bit unpleasant and unacceptable. Why not start
scb-moderated? Or a mailing list? Let scb be a focus for bengalis
with a high tolerance for variety and let the other sources be for those
who wish more focussed discussions? That would be more consistent
with net traditions.
Accha, anek-i to holo, ebar uthte habe, chhele-bou dakche.
Pot away, one and all...
ciao.
rajib
Indrani DasGupta
Srabani Banerjee wrote:
>:) Tui-o neme poDechhish? Ta'le ar thyakay ke?
>
Kella fote!!! Toke maathhe namiyechhi to??!!?? Gola phatiye chitkaar
korle tappor ektu-adhtu shaaDa dish mairi! KumDo-phul-er boDa khaabi? :)
>>And, in the end, that is probably
>>where the battle should be fought and won.
>
>
>:) :) "Cry "havoc!", and let slip the dogs of war."
>
>
>Srabani
>
Chupi chupi boli? IDG-ke khushi kora-r jonno-i likhechhilam...noile onar
akhon ja obosthya (maane amake kleenex pathhanor dhanda korchhilen),
kokhon ki kore phyalen bola to aar jaye na :).
Indrani.
Indrani DasGupta
rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu (Rajib Doogar) wrote:
>
>OK, I'll bite! This topic is sorely in need of my gentle illuminating
>commentary. So here goes:
[...]
I'd like to say one more thing, and thank you Mr. Doogar, for opening the
door.
SCB is not in any _real_ jeopardy from crossposters. Granted, it's a
nuisance every morning/evening/noon/midnight to open up the newsgroup and
having to wade through an amazing plethora of 'relevant to someone'
threads. But, SCI is worse. On any given day, my server carries roughly
2700 threads in that group. Compared to that, on an exceptionally busy
day, SCB has a mere 700. And, I do believe that auto-moderation would
force lazy people like me to sink or swim in SCI...whereas now I have it
good. I can open up SCB and pick and choose among the 500 odd threads,
the ones I really want to read. So, yes, auto-moderation is not a crying
need.
However, what has been happening recently is not only a nuisance, but a
fallacy. All you have to do to know what I mean is read a few lines of
some of the threads in question. I got so sick of this the last time I
wrote anything in SCI, that I deliberately took SCB's name off a thread
where there was an interesting discussion about Netaji; something, maybe,
of at least general interest to most Bengalis. But, for all I knew,
_someone_ out there in SCI-land would start harrassing me with
as-yet-undiscovered gutter language, and then I would have to plead mea
culpa at _home_. It's happened before! With all due respects to Mr.
Amitabha Lahiri, I don't believe that ghetto-ising is the issue here.
Every medium in this country has some regulations it has to follow.
Newsgroups are powerful and dynamic entities that serve a purpose beyond
that of _any other_ media. As is 'right and just', the courts have, as
yet, been reluctant to regulate the internet and its many arms. However,
this does not mean that self-regulation and self-censorship in terms of
setting down guidelines and making _damn_ sure that the majority of the
users stick by them is a crime. A lot of us do not like what is shown on
the MTV shows carried on cable channels in India. Our kid brothers and
sisters watch stuff therein, maybe unhindered and possibly undetected,
that kids here in America would have to go to 42nd Street to get a sight
of. In this context, SCB is not in jeopardy from auto-moderation.
What auto-moderation might...actually, will surely do, is get rid of the
_good stuff_ as well as the "flying monkeys...and "khisti-s". That, I am
not looking forward to. There are a lot of interesting threads that I
pick up on SCB without travelling any further. That is a luxury, I grant
you.
As far as censor-ship goes: yes, this step (as Mr. Lahiri rightly judged
- a no-return step), might seem that way. But, then again, no one is
keeping anyone from posting on SCB. If they care enough about the readers
of this newsgroup participating in their thread...all auto-moderation
would ask of them is a separate thread posted to SCB. And it would be
welcome.
Thank you,
Indrani.
rajib doogar
Indrani DasGupta (ID2...@american.edu) wrote:
<snip> much good stuff deleted
: What auto-moderation might...actually, will surely do, is get rid of the
: _good stuff_ as well as the "flying monkeys...and "khisti-s". That, I am
: not looking forward to. There are a lot of interesting threads that I
: pick up on SCB without travelling any further. That is a luxury, I grant
: you.
I agree on both counts, and see exactly the same dilemma as you do.
The time may have come to try out an idea I have been mulling over for
some time and see what folks think: One could simply reply to each
objectionable e-mail INCLUDING the text and with a statement at the
top that said
"Dear Pantha,
Thank you for posting to scb. IMO your posting is inappropriate for
scb. Thanks.
> include the whole 7000 lines of rambling garbage
yours
gyanichand"
This way PanthaBABU would get about 700 e-mails in one day, jamming
his system and forcing him to go to his sysop asking for relief. Not
only that, the longer the original piece of crap, the *more painful*
the accumulation of a large number of replies would be. And we would
have had the dubious virtue of being a) polite, b)open and democratic
and c) very very painful. The problem is that one has to take the
time to write the damn things.
So I'm thinking here that if someone could write a form letter once
and then simply cut and paste the offending e-mail into it that might
work. This would be simple on a Unix system. One would tag all
offensive messages and save then in a single folder, then use sed/awk
to generate the reply which could be mailed using a delayed mailing
command. My problem is I don't know enough to actually write the
sed/awk code in any reasonable amount of time. Any takers? How to do
this for a PC I have NO idea -- again invite more knowledgable people
to contribute.
In conclusion, I agree with the basic tenet that the pro-a-m side has
-- scb has way too much hateful and strident and filthy rhetorical
posts in it that only the poster finds non-nauseous -- the only point
being that I want to think of a way in which we(?) can stop it WITHOUT
emulating the bad guys -- if we use their tools, aren't we too much
like them? etc.. you know the argument here. I think having said this
much, I'm ready to bail out of this thread for a while and wait and
watch what others think.
ciao...
rajib
Srabani Banerjee
Rajib Doogar writes:
>In article <4s1adv$e...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Srabani
>Banerjee wrote:
>
>: Rajib Doogar writes:
>: >then again, perhaps not. Consequently I find it preposterously
>: >posturesome to postulate that some threads are more relevant than others
>: >to ALL readers of scb.
>:
>: Has this ever been part of the rhetoric? It it has, then I must have
>: missed it.
>
>I seem to have heard whispers about "topics that have nothing to do
>with Bengal and Bengalis." If we can burn effigies of some
>capitalist-imperialist pig on Ho Sarani in Calcutta, I do not, for
>one, see how any topic currently being posted or x-posted to scb can
>be construed as not being of relevance for some one who is a Bengali,
>(being Bengali by the very inclusive definition that a previous poster
>had given -- was it Mr. Lahiri? A definition which I personally find
>quite defensible.) The entire idea underlying auto-mod is to prevent
>cross-posting of such irrelevant threads isn't it?
O.K., Mr. Doogar, all this makes me wonder what possible raison d'etre
a newsgroup like SCB could have? For that matter, why have so many news-
groups at all? Couldn't we just be happy with one newsgroup, SCI say,
where we are all free to write whatever we wish. Saves a lot of trouble
for the cross-posters, too.
>: >blatant attempt by a handful of prolific posters including group
>: >founders, who feel that THEY should not have to wade through what THEY
>: >don't like.
>:
>: The most prolific posters, right now, are the ones who stand to lose
>: the most if this group becomes auto-moderated. I did not see them make
>: any attempt towards auto-moderation.
>
>I did not say "the most prolific posters", I said "a handful etc..".
So you did. My apologies.
>Your logical acumen is impressive, but your reading of my statement is
>flawed. Read my original statement again: You cannot deny that
>proponents of auto-moderation are frequent posters to scb and thus
>fall in the set "prolific posters".
Well, the proponent for a.- m. was a certain Mr. Apratim Sarkar, who
might have once been a prolific poster. But now? And I remember quite a
few people writing in support of auto-moderation, who could be called
`prolific' by a rather long stretch of the imagination.
But, even then, I really do not see what bearing that has on the issue
at hand. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that all this is only an
exercise by the `prolific posters' to maintain their status. Are you?
> Now there are other prolific
>posters who are not in favor of auto-moderation, ergo, my phraseology.
>
>: >censorship, or at least imposing a cost (however minor) on
>: >participation.
>:
>: Hold your reins, Mr. Doogar. Care to explain why auto-moderation is
>: `essentially censorship'? Its more close to your own analogy of a
>
>Glad to do so. But first a mea culpa: I should not have used the word
>censorship, because on the net, it is hard to avoid a discussion
>turning unpleasant after that word has been used. I goofed by
>violating this well-founded rule. If you are responding viscerally to
>the word censorship, then my apologies for having used that word. Now
>to your question:
Even if there is a rule like that, my acquaintance with the net is not
well enough for me to be aware of it. But if you admit that `censorship'
is not the right word, then I have no problems. Just don't say you write
this for fear of a discussion turning unpleasant. When has that stopped
anyone?
>what i meant to write was "essentially" as qualifying both
>"censorship" and "at least imposing a .." perhaps the meaning was not
>clear and you read "essentially" as applying ONLY to censorship. I
>was pointing out that auto-mod imposes costs on the poster, which
>statement i hope you agree with. The point of my post is that the
>PURPOSE of the newsgroups is to promote costless communication, so it
>is incongruous to propose raising the costs of participation in the
>group.
But that is all so subjective. I do believe that I pay a heavy price
when I have to sift through 50 mails to find 2 that have been posted
to SCB alone. There are a substantial number of posters who feel the
same way.
That's also why I made my later pitch about usenet rules. The
>point being once again that we DO have rules IF the charter is being
>violated. Nobody has said the charter has been violated yet we see a
>move to auto-mod. Why? Whose itch is being scratched here I wonder?
Wonder out aloud, Mr. Doogar. We would, at least, know what *your* itch is.
>: thek - you can always join another one. And, if for reasons best known
>: to you, SCB is the one you want to join, we are just asking you to take
>: that extra bit of effort. Where in Calcutta could you attend n theks
>: simultaneously?
>
>Aah. Here may lie the rub -- technology allows us to view either each
>thread as a thek or the group as a thek. Now if you view each thread
>as a thek, then there is a diffculty which you are pointing out -- scb
>IS indeed n theks and you have to work harder to find the thek you
>like. But I was thinking of scb as ONE thek where several topics are
>current: a topic is proposed and discussed for a bit then only a
>couple of people keep discussing it because the others have moved on
>to the next topic. Thus one can in a good thek, switch back and forth
>among topics. Of course some days, one topic offers inexhaustible
>treasures, so the thek does not have n threads. And on some days the
>talk in thek would turn to topics on which one might not have any
>interest in which case one could start another topic or "phete jaoa"
>was always an option. But both cases are rare in a good thek.
>However, I will admit that perhaps a thread can be considered a thek,
>but having considered that possibility, I still prefer to think of as
>scb as one thek because a good thek cannot be single threaded.
Here, I think you misunderstand me. I did go by what you meant by SCB
being some sort of a `thek' - a single one. What I meant by other
thek-s was the other newsgroups.
>
>: > Mooted, of all people, by people who are in US
>: >universities, of all places. Would be funny if only it weren't
>: >pathetic.
>:
>: And sorely in need of your `gentle illuminating' advice. :)
>
>Absolutely -- couldn't let y'all down now, could I? :)
Abar pith chulkole bolben :)
>: >If I really feel that a specific posting has nothing to do with scb, I
><snip> some stuff on this theme deleted ***
>: >scb. Unless someone died and appointed x, y or z as God. Not.
>:
>:
>: Nobody has made arguments to the contrary.
>
>Oh but they have. That's *exactly* what the pro-auto-mod people are
>saying -- "I find these postings irrelevant so they must be to all scb
>readers. Let's try to cut down on these by preventing cross-posts."
>Otherwise the implication would be that these good folks are out to
>make it harder to make posts they find relevant by preventing
>cross-posting. On second thoughts, maybe you can explain why if
>everybody accepts these ideas there is a proposal to auto-mod? What,
>in other words is the objective of trying to a-m the group if it is
>not to cut down on "irrelevant" posts? Or is it that we fear that in
>the future there will be a deluge of irrelevant posts and so we are
>"planning ahead"? Either there is a current problem, which I have
>argued there is not (see my very first paragraph), or there is not.
>If there is not, then there must be some fear of a future problem.
>Otherwise the a-m proposal is moot is it not? It seems quite evident
>to me, so I suspect that we may be missing each other's point here.
Well, i see it this way. I think that most of us are tired of people
(with their personal agenda) casually cross-posting their stuff all
over the place. If they are really sincere about having serious dialogue,
they can, at least, take the trouble of re-posting their articles.
I really, really do not understand the purpose behind cross-posting. Do
the habitual cross-posters read all the ng-s they cross-post to? If they
do, then they have the time to post aricles separately to each. They
can, at least take that much of responsibility. I don't understand why
we need to treat them as pampered brats.
And if they do not read an ng, why post there? Because, the poor
benighted souls need their enlighted vision? But if I really felt
that I was missing out someting by not reading SCI, I would go there,
right?
>: >I'd like to argue that if I don't like something, I can flame,
>: >mail-bomb (as in flooding someone's mailbox, not the UNABOM kind if
>: >you really want a proper legal disclaimer), learn to kill-file or in
>: >the extreme, stop reading scb and start my own mailing list, BUT I
>: >would be hard put to justify trying to cut down on what I in my
>: >infinite wisdom deem "irrelevant."
>:
>: What you write here is also, to me, `irrelevant' - but I am not
>: trying to cut it down, am I?
>
>De gustibus etc.. But then I am not acusing you of trying to shut
>anything off am I, unless you are a pro-a-m "type". So you are a good
>guy/gal, what does that have to do with the price of fish? How is
>this comment at all relevant to the discussion of a-m? (Or this
>interjection of yours just a bit of pyank-deoa-fazlamo?)
Well, I guess it was an attempt at fajlamo, *but* I did find your earlier
comment irrelevant.
>
>: >The forms of protest that I find
>: >acceptable all involve various means of opposing distasteful discourse
>: >either by confrontation or by avoidance, but do not involve cutting
>: >off someone else.
>:
>: You really seem to believe the idea that auto-moderation would mean
>: `cutting off' people? Why, Mr. Doogar? Is it because you realise the
>: actual purpose of the habitual cross-posters?
>
>It is a pain in the neck to post the same thing to several groups
>individually. If one has scarce time, one may be tempted to post info
>to sci and then not post it to scb scit etc. so that useful posts
>*may* be cut down. On the other hand, those who have decided to spend
>the rest of their lifes becoming usenet gods or having their own
>alt.fan.xxx club (whichever the case may be) will NOT be deterred,
>they have enough time to post their stuff even if you go a-m. This
>last point on the weakness of a-m has been made concurrently by
>several people. The fact that it may be a disincentive to post useful
>stuff to scb has not *afaik* been made before. It is because I
>realize the value of time to busy people who try to do something
>constructive that I say this, not because of the reason you
>suspect. No I'm not one of the busy people otherwise I'd hardly be
>doing this would I now?
See above.
>: What you, Sir, are actually trying to defend here is cross-posting.
>
>Sir? Oooh, I LOVE high dudgeon.
Glad to oblige.
>: Could you give us one good reason as to why it is a very defensible
>: act? And, why, by ensuring that postings that reach SCB are meant for
>: SCB alone, would we be sounding the death-knell for the principle of
>: free speech, or whatever?
>
>And melodrama... I see an incipient Mills and Boon top ten writer here.
Your knowledge about M&Bs must be thorough, indeed, for you to make
this observation. Thank you.
>As to *one* reason, see the preceding part of my response (the part
>about busy people.)
I saw it, but I was not convinced. The cross-posters, you so magnanimously
defend, do not appear to be busy people. Try again.
>: >To preserve a desirable degree of openness and
>: >self-awareness, not to say self-criticism in society one must be very
>: >careful to bend over backwards before actually prohibiting or
>: >retarding free speech.
>:
>: Yes, of course. Your point being...?
>
>A master of the "parse arbitrarily and discredit at will" school of
>literary construction at work. A right pleasure to see you at work
>mistress, it is. Read the whole thing as one paragraph and you
>*might* get the point. Otherwise e-mail me for lessons.
And deprive my fellow SCB-ites? Now, i couldn't do that, could I?
>: >I would hope that many and arguably most
>: >readers of scb feel the same way.
>:
>: Hoping for the same unanimity among Bengalis that you so seem to
>: despise?
>
>Accha, eta ki holo? Maane ayamon agadh pandityo aapnaar, ta-satteo
>eta likhte paarlen. Ta hole na bole aar parlam na: (start flame)
>Lekhar age, hoy ingriji bhashata shikhe nin noyeto hater kacche ekta
>bisharod rakhun. "Unanimous" mane shobbai, not, "many and arguably
>most".
Quite the literalist, aren't you?
Apni ki bolchhen je SCB-te "many and arguably most" lok-era jodi
ekrokom bhaben tahole apni khushi? Ebar-e bujhlam.
Eta jodi bujhten, tahole amar mukhe omon boka-boka katha gunje
>debar byartho procheshta korten'i na! Aar etao mone hoi je ingriji'ta
>thik bojhen na bolei ayato kichhu bhul bujhte perecchen amaar lekhae.
>:-) (end flame)
>
>Aar ekta apotti acche: "despise" ta jude dilen kyano? Ami unanimity
>pele ektu dukkhito habo kintu "despise" ta ektu koda hoye gyalo je.
>jyamon dekhun, udahoron hishebe-i bolchi mane ki, unanimous hole, apnake
>pabo kothay?
Ba amra apnake.
Eta-i to thek'er secret -- Unanimity holo thek'er
>shabtheke bado shotru. Unanimity hole bhalo thek hoy na, tabe pither
>cholkonita hoyto komte paare, ete shandeho nei. Amar pith
>shacharachar chulkoe na, tai amar unanimity'te kaaj nei.
>
>: >In that case, the proposed remedy
>: >is far more distasteful than the agony from the verbal diahorrea of a
>: >select few (and that set varies across people -- I'm probably in your
>: >set if you're irritated by now). So, unless you're actually engaged
>: >in some highly ironic post-modern game of spoofing that which you
>: >detest by emulating it, put a sock in it and let this sad thread die
>: >the abortive death it surely deserves.
>: >
>: >Back to barracking each other gentlefolk! There is much work to be
>: >done: there are are egos waiting to be trampled upon, reputations
>: >asking to be deconstructed and what not. Think only of the
>: >"irrelevant" posting as the sand in your oyster and may the pearls of
>: >sarcasm, satire and ridicule never run dry on scb.
>:
>: Amen!
>
>Sheshporjonto na mene thakte paarlen na to :)
Ekhane amar apotti to chhilo na. Ami to snobbish a.-m.ite-der dol-e.
Anyway, apni khushi to?
>: >If the BABUs and
>: >samaritans of our world did not exist, what incentive would there be
>: >to weave garlands of invective and necklaces of barbs? And if we
>: >couldn't do that would life be worth living?
>:
>: And what variety of snobbery would this be, Mr. Doogar?
>
>Now you are equating snobbery with disapproval. I am not in agreement
>with this school of thought. I do not say "x writes on less important
>issues" so I do not think you can fairly accuse me of being a snob.
>That does not mean I cannot say that "What x writes is pure
>unadulterated bilge of the finest proof" if I feel that way. The
>latter is *disapproval* rather than snobbery I would think. Maybe the
>language is satirical and the intent to destroy the credibility of the
>original poster by poking fun at hir, but it is disapproval of the
>ideas not an obiter on the inherent discussability of a topic. But
>all in all, jeta bolte chaicchi sheta holo: chutki kata'r anondo ta
>badoi lobhoniyo, tai jodi shomosto kyabla, pantha, boka, gardhab,
>ulluk ityadi kete pade tahole je theker ras kome jaabe. Hope that
>clears things up.
Manet jNara amar opinion-e baaje kotha lekhen, ebong jNader lekha poDe
chutki katar lobh shamlate parina, tNader ami nirdwidhay `boka', `pNatha'
ityadi bolte pari - ebong sheta snobbery noy. Ingriji shekhaben, Sir?
>In sum, to restate my case before it gets lost in the pleasurable pursuit
>of pot-shotting each other:
>
>Auto-mod would deter those we don't want to deter and wouldn't deter
>those we want to deter.
Ki kore? apni ki jyotish janen?
>It is a bad idea IMO. But apart from this
>instrumental logic, I also find the idea of raising costs of
>communication a bit unpleasant and unacceptable. Why not start
>scb-moderated?
And that is not censorship?
Or a mailing list? Let scb be a focus for bengalis
>with a high tolerance for variety
Now what's this? An intolerance for the intolerant?
And what variety have you seen in SCB these days, pray? Various
hues of saffron?
and let the other sources be for those
>who wish more focussed discussions? That would be more consistent
>with net traditions.
>
>Accha, anek-i to holo, ebar uthte habe, chhele-bou dakche.
TNader proti amar shubhechchha roilo.
>Pot away, one and all...
>
>ciao.
>
>rajib
regards,
Srabani
sayan bhattacharyya
Indrani DasGupta <ID2...@american.edu> wrote:
>However, what has been happening recently is not only a nuisance, but a
>fallacy. All you have to do to know what I mean is read a few lines of
>some of the threads in question.
I have deliberately not participated in the discussion so far, as I
have no strong feelings either for or against auto-moderation. Frankly,
I do not care about this newsgroup very much and couldn't care less
if this newsgroup went to the dogs.
I just want to point out that the luxury of picking threads to read
is not allowed to all readers of this newsgroup. Not everyone has
access to threaded newsreaders. Several posters and readers from India
such as Sumit Basu and Nandini Sengupta of IISc Bangalore have stated
in the past that they have to download all posts and then read them
one by one. Auto-moderation will definitely make reading scb a pleasanter
experience for these people.
As for content-based moderation, that's fine with me too. One solution
could be to leave the existing s.c.b. as it is (maybe as a decoy to
attract cross-posters, even!) and just create a new
"soc.culture.bengali.moderated" newsgroup. The soc.culture.russian group
went for this solution -- there now exists the old s.c.r. (massive
crossposting, gutter-level discussions) as well as a saner and more
thoughtful s.c.r.m.
The only concern I have with content-based moderation is that people
like me who are not quite right-thinking people (double entendre
intended) and espouse unpopular causes and attitudes, may be in the
danger of being censored. But as I said, I personally couldn't care
less.
-Sayan.
Indrani DasGupta
In article <4s3u5o$3...@paladin.american.edu>, ID2...@american.edu
says...
>
>rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu (Rajib Doogar) wrote:
>
>>
>>OK, I'll bite! This topic is sorely in need of my gentle illuminating
>>commentary. So here goes:
>
>
>
>I'd like to say one more thing, and thank you Mr. Doogar, for opening
the
>door.
>
>SCB is not in any _real_ jeopardy from crossposters. Granted, it's a
>nuisance every morning/evening/noon/midnight to open up the newsgroup
and
>having to wade through an amazing plethora of 'relevant to someone'
>threads. But, SCI is worse. On any given day, my server carries roughly
>2700 threads in that group. Compared to that, on an exceptionally busy
>day, SCB has a mere 700. And, I do believe that auto-moderation would
>force lazy people like me to sink or swim in SCI...whereas now I have it
>good. I can open up SCB and pick and choose among the 500 odd threads,
>the ones I really want to read. So, yes, auto-moderation is not a crying
>need.
>
Oops...that should read "postings" not "threads"! Sorry.
Indrani.
Indrani DasGupta
Sayan Bhattacharyya wrote:
>
>I have deliberately not participated in the discussion so far, as I
>have no strong feelings either for or against auto-moderation. Frankly,
>I do not care about this newsgroup very much and couldn't care less
>if this newsgroup went to the dogs.
>
>I just want to point out that the luxury of picking threads to read
>is not allowed to all readers of this newsgroup. Not everyone has
>access to threaded newsreaders. Several posters and readers from India
>such as Sumit Basu and Nandini Sengupta of IISc Bangalore have stated
>in the past that they have to download all posts and then read them
>one by one. Auto-moderation will definitely make reading scb a
pleasanter
>experience for these people.
>
>As for content-based moderation, that's fine with me too. One solution
>could be to leave the existing s.c.b. as it is (maybe as a decoy to
>attract cross-posters, even!) and just create a new
>"soc.culture.bengali.moderated" newsgroup. The soc.culture.russian group
>went for this solution -- there now exists the old s.c.r. (massive
>crossposting, gutter-level discussions) as well as a saner and more
>thoughtful s.c.r.m.
>
>The only concern I have with content-based moderation is that people
>like me who are not quite right-thinking people (double entendre
>intended) and espouse unpopular causes and attitudes, may be in the
>danger of being censored. But as I said, I personally couldn't care
>less.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>-Sayan.
Sayan,
Do you really mean this?
However, I agree with your posting on the whole. I would also prefer,
personally speaking, a soc.culture.bengali.moderated rather than
auto-moderation.
Is it feasible to explore this possibility? Anyone else for the idea?
Indrani.
sayan bhattacharyya
Indrani DasGupta <ID2...@american.edu> wrote:
>>
>>The only concern I have with content-based moderation is that people
>>like me who are not quite right-thinking people (double entendre
>>intended) and espouse unpopular causes and attitudes, may be in the
>>danger of being censored. But as I said, I personally couldn't care
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>less.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>-Sayan.
>
>
>Sayan,
>
>Do you really mean this?
Yes.
I have utterly no illusions about the kind of people who read and
post on s.c.b. (including myself) .
-Sayan.
Srabani Banerjee
Rajib Doogar writes:
[...]
>I agree on both counts, and see exactly the same dilemma as you do.
>The time may have come to try out an idea I have been mulling over for
>some time and see what folks think: One could simply reply to each
>objectionable e-mail INCLUDING the text and with a statement at the
>top that said
>
>"Dear Pantha,
>
>Thank you for posting to scb. IMO your posting is inappropriate for
>scb. Thanks.
>
>> include the whole 7000 lines of rambling garbage
>
>yours
>
>gyanichand"
>
>This way PanthaBABU would get about 700 e-mails in one day, jamming
>his system and forcing him to go to his sysop asking for relief.
700 e-mails a day? You really believe we would all take the time to
send these e-mails. You can safely count me out.
>Not
>only that, the longer the original piece of crap,
Here, you assume that about 700 people reading SCB would agree that
the posting in question was `crap' and inappropriate for SCB. And
what about another 700 who believe it wasn't? Their opinion doesn't
matter?
>the *more painful*
>the accumulation of a large number of replies would be. And we would
>have had the dubious virtue of being a) polite, b)open and democratic
With an auto-moderated newsgroup, we still would be all that.
>and c) very very painful.
For which, we, ourselves, would have to take great pains. Wouldn't
that kill half the fun of inflicting pain?
The problem is that one has to take the
>time to write the damn things.
But cross-posters cannot be asked to take time to re-post their articles.
>So I'm thinking here that if someone could write a form letter once
>and then simply cut and paste the offending e-mail into it that might
>work. This would be simple on a Unix system. One would tag all
>offensive messages and save then in a single folder, then use sed/awk
>to generate the reply which could be mailed using a delayed mailing
>command. My problem is I don't know enough to actually write the
>sed/awk code in any reasonable amount of time. Any takers? How to do
>this for a PC I have NO idea -- again invite more knowledgable people
>to contribute.
:) :)
>In conclusion, I agree with the basic tenet that the pro-a-m side has
>-- scb has way too much hateful and strident and filthy rhetorical
>posts in it that only the poster finds non-nauseous -- the only point
>being that I want to think of a way in which we(?) can stop it WITHOUT
>emulating the bad guys -- if we use their tools, aren't we too much
>like them?
And how is auto-moderation akin to `their tools'?
In your earlier posts, it appeared that your argument was that since
a person is free to write anything he wishes on a newsgroup, automoderation
would amount to censorship or, at least, imposing a fine, albeit small,
for participation. Now you ask readers to devise methods which actually
amount to jeopardising a person's account for the simple reason that
what he writes is not `appropriate' for SCB.
How is your method better, in terms of practicality and ethics (that's what
you are more concerned with, aren't you?), than auto-moderation?
etc.. you know the argument here. I think having said this
>much, I'm ready to bail out of this thread for a while and wait and
>watch what others think.
regards,
Srabani
-S.BHATTACHARYA
Indrani DasGupta <ID2...@american.edu> wrote:
[...]
>2700 threads in that group. Compared to that, on an exceptionally busy
Do you mean 700 'new' threads over a day, or even a weekend? That seems
like an overestimation to me. About auto-moderation, I am still not sure
which way to support. From the past evidence, the chance of missing a 'good'
article (I know, I know, subjective :)) because of implementing a-m is slim
indeed, but not nil.
I wouldn't like to risk missing IDG's Glory Days!
>force lazy people like me to sink or swim in SCI...whereas now I have it
>good. I can open up SCB and pick and choose among the 500 odd threads,
>the ones I really want to read. So, yes, auto-moderation is not a crying
Again, how do you maintain a list of 500 or so threads that you want to
read?
To do that efficiently in my case, I need to clear the list of
all posts except those I can mark as unread (sort of complementary to going
the 'kill'ing path - not efficient when the 'crap' outnumbers 'good'
posts). Can someone help me with this please? I use trn.
Regards,
- Samir
>Indrani.
>
S Bhattacharyya
bhat...@heron.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>Yes.
>-Sayan.
Now, now, Mr Bhattacharyya! Is that why you've stopped posting here ?
Come on, many of us, myself included, enjoy your posts, and the points
you make. So shake off those cyber-blues and post something fresh!!
Santanu
Indranil Dasgupta
> Rajib Doogar writes:
>
> >OK, I'll bite! This topic is sorely in need of my gentle illuminating
> >commentary. So here goes:
> >
> >Reading this thread is hilarious given that it is being conducted on
> >what is probably the freest forum on this plante today. If I stand in
> >the middle of Dalhousie Sq (oops, Bibadi Bagh), I'd probably hear
> >almost all the topics that the various commentators on scb think
> >relevant or not, discussed, perhaps with less gutter language, but
> >then again, perhaps not. Consequently I find it preposterously
> >posturesome to postulate that some threads are more relevant than others
> >to ALL readers of scb.
Couldn't agree more. Although it's not immediately clear why you are
suddenly preocuupied with that "prepostorously posturesome" thingy.
(Unless _that_ is the hilarious part). A little more of your gentle
commentary will surely help.
> >I would be astonished and indeed somewhat
> >disappointed, perhaps even aghast to find such conformist unanimity
> >among a sizable group of Bengalis (may that sad day never come!).
> >
> >My take on this thread is that it appears at present to simply be a
> >blatant attempt by a handful of prolific posters including group
> >founders, who feel that THEY should not have to wade through what THEY
> >don't like.
Quite right. The purpose of the discussion is to find out how big this
"THEY" thingy is, to explore how much the "THEY"-nots differ and to try
and reach a consensus on the "blatant attempt" that you have bravely
uncovered.
> > I have yet to find the substantive difference between the
> >arguments put forward for auto-moderation, whatever that is, and simple
> >garden variety snobbery of the most vulgar kind, namely,"my topic is
> >better than yours." [..]
Once again, a little more of your gentle illumination is in order. The
kind of auto-moderation that was proposed does not discriminate posts on
the basis of their topics.
> > Mooted, of all people, by people who are in US
> >universities, of all places. Would be funny if only it weren't
> >pathetic.
I am sure that once the precise nature of auto-moderation is explained
to you, you'll change your "take". Even if you do not agree with others
on its usefulness, you'll register your valuble dissenting opinion
through the vote and through progressively gentler and more civil
follwups.
> >better have an iron-clad case and then if I do, I can complain
> >legitimately about violation of the scb charter and there IS a
> >mechanism by which egregious violations CAN be suitably dealt with. I
> >personally have yet to see a valid case that can be made even against
> >the worst lyangot-chhaap posting on scb. Neither Calcutta, nor Bengal
> >is a closed system and what I see posted on scb reflects that idea
> >perfectly. Even BABU RAMA*'s stuff. In another part of the forest,
> >let us not forget that even if ONE bengali thinks something is
> >relevant to hir culture or beliefs, IMO, a good argument may be made
> >that the thread has something to do with topic(s) within the scope of
> >scb. Unless someone died and appointed x, y or z as God. Not.
I regret that you had to resort to calling names. Whether you have a
personal gall against a person or a group of people (the "founders" as
you say) should not cloud your vision on this very important issue. I
urge you to take matters a little more seriously, since the future
course of this ng is in our hands.
> >I'd like to argue that if I don't like something, I can flame,
> >mail-bomb (as in flooding someone's mailbox, not the UNABOM kind if
> >you really want a proper legal disclaimer), learn to kill-file or in
> >the extreme, stop reading scb and start my own mailing list, BUT I
> >would be hard put to justify trying to cut down on what I in my
> >infinite wisdom deem "irrelevant."
I think you have more or less hit the nail on the head here. If you in
your "infinite wisdom" could justify starting your own mailing list,
then a large body of people can use their collective wisdom to grant a
similar act of license to themselves. So instead of saying "don't do it
just because YOU want it" you may try saying, "don't do it unless you
WANT to do it". Needless to say, THAT is the point of the discussion.
Paraphrased differently, if you disagree with auto-moderation, then you
serve your interests best by pointing out the advantages of not having
it, not by simply mentioning (however repetitiously) that something
should not be done if it serves only a few people. The latter point is
almost universally known these days. That is why man invented the vote.
> >The forms of protest that I find
> >acceptable all involve various means of opposing distasteful discourse
> >either by confrontation or by avoidance, but do not involve cutting
> >off someone else.
Now, THIS, finally is the kind of substance that makes your post really
illuminating. Finally you have an argument for not wanting
auto-moderation. It is true that you find a lot of posts in scb
distasteful and worthy of protest. And the acceptable mode of protest to
you, is "confrontation" or tame "avoidance". Very good.
> >To preserve a desirable degree of openness and
> >self-awareness, not to say self-criticism in society one must be very
> >careful to bend over backwards before actually prohibiting or
> >retarding free speech.
Excellent thought. I suggest we start another thread on this. Will you
make the first posting?
> >In that case, the proposed remedy
> >is far more distasteful than the agony from the verbal diahorrea of a
> >select few (and that set varies across people -- I'm probably in your
> >set if you're irritated by now). So, unless you're actually engaged
> >in some highly ironic post-modern game of spoofing that which you
> >detest by emulating it, put a sock in it and let this sad thread die
> >the abortive death it surely deserves.
> >
> >Back to barracking each other gentlefolk! There is much work to be
> >done: there are are egos waiting to be trampled upon, reputations
> >asking to be deconstructed and what not. Think only of the
> >"irrelevant" posting as the sand in your oyster and may the pearls of
> >sarcasm, satire and ridicule never run dry on scb.
>
> >If the BABUs and
> >samaritans of our world did not exist, what incentive would there be
> >to weave garlands of invective and necklaces of barbs? And if we
> >couldn't do that would life be worth living?
This is poetry! This is wonderful! I would have liked to make deeper
comments, but I .. I just can't. I'll have to read it a thousand times
to just understand it. The one complaint I have aginst Mr.Doogar is that
he's cheated us out of a lot of "pearls" in the last two years. I could
find only 3 posts authored by him in Deja-news! Surely there was no
dearth of "sand" in our "oyster"!
I hope he makes up for all those lost pearls of "sarcasm, satire and
ridicule" in the months to come.
Indranil.
PS: I have been turning over Amitabha's post in my mind and it seems to
me that while we discuss auto-moderation in this thread, Amitabha, and
other energetic netters like Sharmila can give us a demo of the power of
their favourite method. Why not run a parallel thread on identifying a
few "offending" posters and try to mail-bomb them out of here? The RFD
is not going to be over before a few weeks and we'll have sufficient
time to see and appreciate the prowess of that policy. I invite Amitabha
to start the ball rolling. (BTW, will some kind netter follow-up on my
post? Sometimes I don't get Amitabha's posts at my site. The same may
happen at his site.)
Sharmila Mukherjee
Indranil Dasgupta wrote:
[..]
> PS: I have been turning over Amitabha's post in my mind and it seems to
> me that while we discuss auto-moderation in this thread, Amitabha, and
> other energetic netters like Sharmila can give us a demo of the power of
> their favourite method. Why not run a parallel thread on identifying a
> few "offending" posters and try to mail-bomb them out of here? The RFD
> is not going to be over before a few weeks and we'll have sufficient
> time to see and appreciate the prowess of that policy. I invite Amitabha
> to start the ball rolling. (BTW, will some kind netter follow-up on my
> post? Sometimes I don't get Amitabha's posts at my site. The same may
> happen at his site.)
O.K. Mr. IDG, if it is a demo you want, let me oblige...cant promise
anything though! I see at least four posts today by a certain Mr. James
Hadly Chase, who mistook this forum for indiaworld.com. If I wanted to
read Indian news, I would not be looking in SCB. So, am sending him a
mail to this effect and I urge others, who are willing to give this
method a chance, to do so.
Regards,
Sharmila
--
Dept. of Biochemistry
Room 376A
Arnab Gupta
Samir Bhattacharya wrote:
>Indrani DasGupta <ID2...@american.edu> wrote:
>[...]
>>2700 threads in that group. Compared to that, on an exceptionally busy
>>day, SCB has a mere 700. And, I do believe that auto-moderation would
^^^^^^^^
Ei shonkhyagulo'te bodhoi aykta kore shunyo beshi pore gyachhe|:)
>Do you mean 700 'new' threads over a day, or even a weekend? That seems
>like an overestimation to me. About auto-moderation, I am still not sure
>which way to support. From the past evidence, the chance of missing a 'good'
>article (I know, I know, subjective :)) because of implementing a-m is slim
>indeed, but not nil.
>I wouldn't like to risk missing IDG's Glory Days!
`Glory Days' was crossposted indeed, but I hope Indranil Dasgupta would
not hesitate to take the pain of posting it twice if this group becomes
auto-moderated. The question that arises is what about other posts that
are cross-posted? Well, unlike `Glory Days', most of these deal with either
politics or religion. What these threads ultimately reduce to is a free
for all display of mud-slinging, name calling and blatant chauvinism.
One way of doing away with these, in my opinion, is to avoid answering
to these articles altogether. However, in a free forum, it is expectable
(and rightfully so) that many people will not agree with this. In this
context I would like to request those readers of SCB who respond to these
articles to put forward their views regarding auto-moderation. Also to be
kept in mind is the fact that the SCB charter discourages articles based
on politics and religion.
And now coming to the point of choice of articles being subjective - yes
it essentially is. But there is perhaps something to be really concerned
about when one finds bulk of the articles in a newsgroup `crossposted',
that too concerning things that have precious little to do with the
Bengali culture (which the charter and the name seem to emphasize as the
focus). My one year experience with this group tells me that crossposted
articles, among other things, keep many of the regular contributors and
(maybe) readers away. Of course one cannot help in any way if this *is*
the choice of the readers of SCB, but why not give a try if it can
help in bringing back the Glory Days.
> ..[deleted]..
>Regards,
>- Samir
Regards,
Arnab.
Indranil Dasgupta
rajib doogar wrote:
>
> I agree on both counts, and see exactly the same dilemma as you do.
> The time may have come to try out an idea I have been mulling over for
> some time and see what folks think: One could simply reply to each
> objectionable e-mail INCLUDING the text and with a statement at the
> top that said
>
> "Dear Pantha,
>
> Thank you for posting to scb. IMO your posting is inappropriate for
> scb. Thanks.
>
> > include the whole 7000 lines of rambling garbage
>
> yours
>
> gyanichand"
I have tried similar methods before and it is only normal for me to be
excessively sympathetic toward anyone trying to repeat my mistakes.
Pardon my saying so, but Rajib, your model-message may be better
recieved as children's literature than as the deterrent it is supposed
to be.
>
> This way PanthaBABU would get about 700 e-mails in one day, jamming
> his system and forcing him to go to his sysop asking for relief. Not
> only that, the longer the original piece of crap, the *more painful*
> the accumulation of a large number of replies would be. And we would
> have had the dubious virtue of being a) polite, b)open and democratic
> and c) very very painful. The problem is that one has to take the
> time to write the damn things.
700 e-mails? Are you counting yourself half a dozen times for each scb
netter? Even then the figure seems to be somewhat inflated. At the time
scb was founded about 750 people came out to vote. This includes the
scores of temporary enthusiasts who were sold into the idea on account
of friendship, colleague-ship or other compelling personal reasons by
the so called "founders of scb". To hope that such a mass mobilization
could be made to happen on a daily basis would be optimism even for a
high ranking labour union leader of CITU. Two days ago, Mr. Doogar urged
us impassionedly to make pearls out of grains of sand. In the last eight
months, counting at the conservative rate of 20 a day, there have been
about five thousand posts in scb which definitely make a mockery of the
scb charter. In that period, someone with the missionary fervor of Mr.
Doogar, could make only three posts. How many pearls does that leave the
scb with? I'll leave the counting to Mr. Doogar again.
15 or 20 people can get together and mail-bomb some others for a while.
But it won't work. It can't work unless the people form their own
mailing list and make a coterie to run the scb. It was suggested to me a
year ago by esteemed netters (who I do not personally know) and I
discouraged it. If you try to keep politics out of scb you must do
everything openly. And if you try to enforce large scale mail-bombing
openly then in a very short time you'll make scb the biggest dungheap in
the usenet, surpassing even our big brother, the one of its kind - sci.
Even granting that a dedicated army of cleaners can be formed, and they
can sustain their adrenalin levels for months, just think about the
process. To get rid of an offender, you first discuss HIM or HER for
days. Then (if you reach a consensus) you mail-bomb. The offender gets
back at each of you with his own software generated replies. Then he
crossposts the entire sci just to spite you. Then he gets two anonymous
ids from sparsely used accounts and bounces all mail back. How many
readers of scb want this? Or have done this before? 14 year old kids
with their first PCs may dig this. But what about all the old, tired,
pissed of and pissed on everyday netters in their 20s and 30s and 40s?
>
> In conclusion, I agree with the basic tenet that the pro-a-m side has
> -- scb has way too much hateful and strident and filthy rhetorical
> posts in it that only the poster finds non-nauseous -- the only point
> being that I want to think of a way in which we(?) can stop it WITHOUT
> emulating the bad guys -- if we use their tools, aren't we too much
> like them? etc.. you know the argument here. I think having said this
> much, I'm ready to bail out of this thread for a while and wait and
> watch what others think.
>
> ciao...
>
> rajib
What else is mail bombing other than fighting crap with crap? Basically
you allow yourself to be deluged in crap and then take a step forward
and start making some of it. There is nothing "filthy" about
auto-moderation, Mr. Doogar. No more filthy than safe sex. It doesn't
hurt freedom of speech and whatever you have. It doesn't discriminate
between individuals, fiduciaries or political parties. It simply cleans
up in a politically correct, technically feasible and environmentally
friendly way. Vote against it, if you want. But don't waste your
imagination, unless you are serious about kiddie books.
It's the cross-posts, stupid!
Indranil.
Indranil Dasgupta
> Indrani DasGupta (ID2...@american.edu) wrote:
> : What auto-moderation might...actually, will surely do, is get rid of the
> : _good stuff_ as well as the "flying monkeys...and "khisti-s". That, I am
> : not looking forward to. There are a lot of interesting threads that I
> : pick up on SCB without travelling any further. That is a luxury, I grant
> : you.
>
It may be possible to get the entire usenet cross-posted to scb
everyday. That way, you'll get _all_ the good things of life right here
in scb. All you have to do is to start a campaign for this. (Nothing's
really free).
Actually the best things in sci are NEVER cross posted to scb. You never
get Ramesh Madhavan's articles here. Neither do Bala or Thattachari
cross post their stuff to scb. All that can be arranged though. It takes
only a few minutes to cross post the entire sci to scb. Might as well
get the soc.culture.tamil. I am sure some netters can write codes that'd
do it automatically. If you can't do it, ask them. Nicely.
Indranil.
Arya Raychaudhuri
rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu (rajib doogar) writes:
>ciao...
>rajib
Bah! BeDe diyechhen.
Apnar to besh lekhar hat bhalo. Chaliye jan.
As far as I remember, I voted for the creation of scb for just one
reason. That was that some nettors had pointed out that some readers
of sci are disturbed by postings in bengali. So scb would provide a
forum where nettors can write in bengali without hesitation. That's all.
hope this helps
ARC
Kulbir Singh Bhatia
If a subset of South Asian readership desires to have a separate
forum for discussion why should others object ? Why should some people
go out of their way to deny the separateness others so desperately seek ?
regards,
kulbir singh
Indranil Dasgupta
rajib doogar wrote:
>
> In article <4s1adv$e...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Srabani
> Banerjee wrote:
: >then again, perhaps not. Consequently I find it preposterously
: >posturesome to postulate that some threads are more relevant than
others
: >to ALL readers of scb.
> : Has this ever been part of the rhetoric? It it has, then I must have
> : missed it.
>
> I seem to have heard whispers about "topics that have nothing to do
> with Bengal and Bengalis." If we can burn effigies of some
[..e.t.c]
No one said that "some threads are more relevant than others to ALL
readers of scb". The highlight-ed "ALL" was yours, Mr. Doogar. Normally
one highlights a word for emphasis.
> That's also why I made my later pitch about usenet rules. The
> point being once again that we DO have rules IF the charter is being
> violated.
Er ... what are those rules, Mr. Doogar? Where do you get them from?
Care to quote a few?
> Nobody has said the charter has been violated yet we see a
> move to auto-mod. Why? Whose itch is being scratched here I wonder?
For someone who seems to be so attached to the diversity of threads in
his "thek" one would have expected Mr. Doogar to pay a little more
attention to posts that were not violating the charter, merely trying to
make an appeal to others for adhering to it. Too much preoccupation with
others' itches would leave little time for a newsgroup, naturally.
> Oh but they have. That's *exactly* what the pro-auto-mod people are
> saying -- "I find these postings irrelevant so they must be to all scb
> readers. Let's try to cut down on these by preventing cross-posts."
> Otherwise the implication would be that these good folks are out to
> make it harder to make posts they find relevant by preventing
> cross-posting. On second thoughts, maybe you can explain why if
[e.t.c]
I had a feeling that Srabani's one liners would result in repetitions of
Mr. Doogar's sentimental outpourings. Therefore I made an attempt to
explain gently and patiently what precisely pro-auto-moderation people
are saying and why his dissenting opinion is so valuble in a previous
post. Auto moderation can not be imposed by one person, or a few
persons. Some people would like to have it, but just as in any other
democratic forum they speak only for themselves. A typical
pro-auto-moderation netter has no idea how Mr. Doogar thinks or feels
(and probably does not care beyond the present discussion) and does not
speak for Mr. Doogar. No one, to my knowledge has said that what is not
relevant to him is not relevant to all scb readers. This is Mr. Doogar'
s favourite theme and no one to my knowledge intends to take the credit
away from him for coming up with such impressive chimeras.
I mentioned it before, but I don't think Mr. Doogar really understands
it. We are talking of VOTING auto-moderation into effect.
> It is a pain in the neck to post the same thing to several groups
> individually. If one has scarce time, one may be tempted to post info
> to sci and then not post it to scb scit etc. so that useful posts
> *may* be cut down. On the other hand, those who have decided to spend
I don't quite know what a "useful post" is, but if someone wants to make
a post to scb, all he needs to do is send a copy of the post to scb.
Posting to scb is not made difficult at all. What is made harder is to
carry a flame war in scb, while never actually logging in scb. I'll
explain this to Mr. Doogar later, after he has gotten through the
earlier confusions.
> the rest of their lifes becoming usenet gods or having their own
> alt.fan.xxx club (whichever the case may be) will NOT be deterred,
> they have enough time to post their stuff even if you go a-m. This
> last point on the weakness of a-m has been made concurrently by
> several people. The fact that it may be a disincentive to post useful
> stuff to scb has not *afaik* been made before. It is because I
> realize the value of time to busy people who try to do something
> constructive that I say this, not because of the reason you
> suspect. No I'm not one of the busy people otherwise I'd hardly be
> doing this would I now?
Mr. Doogar will be well advised to take a look at some auto moderated
newgroups before making learned-sounding comments. Auto moderation
deters precisely those people who invest their time to be flame-lords.
> : Hoping for the same unanimity among Bengalis that you so seem to
> : despise?
>
> Accha, eta ki holo? Maane ayamon agadh pandityo aapnaar, ta-satteo
> eta likhte paarlen. Ta hole na bole aar parlam na: (start flame)
> Lekhar age, hoy ingriji bhashata shikhe nin noyeto hater kacche ekta
> bisharod rakhun. "Unanimous" mane shobbai, not, "many and arguably
> most". Eta jodi bujhten, tahole amar mukhe omon boka-boka katha gunje
> debar byartho procheshta korten'i na! Aar etao mone hoi je ingriji'ta
> thik bojhen na bolei ayato kichhu bhul bujhte perecchen amaar lekhae.
> :-) (end flame)
Apni mairi nijer jogote achhen. KuDi koti bangali "unanimous" hoye jabe
bole akhkhep korchhen! Ami to unish koti niranobboi lokhkho niranobboi
hajar nosho niranobboi jon akmot holei kalibaDi-te tirashi takar pujo
diye ditaam (notun kichhu dekhlaam bole). Ei gonotontr-er juge
"unanimity" niye oto bhable chole, bhai? Amra to odhikangsho scb
netter-ra raji hoye gelei auto-moderation koriye debo bhabchhi. Oirokom
ekti lok baad jabe na unanimity - hay - sherokom shopno shudhu apni-i
dekhen. Mairi bolchhi, apnar hridoy ar spleen unanimous hote pare, kintu
shobar khetre tao hoy na.
> : >sarcasm, satire and ridicule never run dry on scb.
> :
> : Amen!
>
> Sheshporjonto na mene thakte paarlen na to :)
Dudin shukh holo bhai, chirokaal ato bhalo murgi ar pabo kothay? Auto
moderation-er por to bhodroloker paDa hoye jabe mone hochchhe. Apnake
niyomito paoa jabe e durasha rakhchhi na.
[..]
> ideas not an obiter on the inherent discussability of a topic. But
> all in all, jeta bolte chaicchi sheta holo: chutki kata'r anondo ta
> badoi lobhoniyo, tai jodi shomosto kyabla, pantha, boka, gardhab,
> ulluk ityadi kete pade tahole je theker ras kome jaabe. Hope that
> clears things up.
Kake ki bolchhen, mairi? Srabani jodi jhopang-ta ber koren apni chokher
polok poDar age terobar bhotang hoye jaben.
Ashole na, emni bollam. Kajer kotha: Chutki katar koushol-ta apnar kachh
theke ropto korte chai. Kichhu reference deben naki nijer lekhar? scb-te
to beshi nei tai bolchhi.
Indranil.
Indranil Dasgupta
Indrani DasGupta wrote:
> I'd like to say one more thing, and thank you Mr. Doogar, for opening the
> door.
>
> SCB is not in any _real_ jeopardy from crossposters. Granted, it's a
> nuisance every morning/evening/noon/midnight to open up the newsgroup and
> having to wade through an amazing plethora of 'relevant to someone'
> threads. But, SCI is worse. On any given day, my server carries roughly
> 2700 threads in that group. Compared to that, on an exceptionally busy
> day, SCB has a mere 700. And, I do believe that auto-moderation would
> force lazy people like me to sink or swim in SCI...whereas now I have it
> good. I can open up SCB and pick and choose among the 500 odd threads,
> the ones I really want to read. So, yes, auto-moderation is not a crying
> need.
>
Obviously you don't `catch up' with news in scb or sci every day. For
someone who does that (myself , for example) cross-posts are even less
of a nuisance. I get about 35 in scb every day.
However, think of netters who are not as unemployed as me. Think of
someone who is a newcomer and logs in to scb once a few weeks. What he
or she will see in scb is what YOU see in sci. From my own experience in
the early years as a netdog I know that too much noise is extremely
discouraging to many newbees. Rajib Doogar argues that auto-moderation
makes communication more expensive. But allow yourselves a little more
thought. Suppose a newspaper wants to make itself better, but finds that
it'll have to raise the cost to the reader. Is that good or bad for
communication? Increase in cost is not always harmful to communication,
as long as it serves a good purpose. In the present case, the cost of
looking for a stray good article in sci is made more expensive for you
and me, but the lives of numerous less regular readers of scb will
become much easier. When the signal to noise ratio improves the quality
of the newsgroup improves. That'll attract a lot more of quality people
to it. And readers will be have a wider choice than reading the same old
crap three times a day from Indranil Dasgupta. In the long run, you'll
win too.
Indranil.
Dasgupta
Rajib-da ar Indranil:
Tomader torko-ta poDte besh bhalo laagchchey. Anekdin por
byektigoto bidrup/shlesh ekebare nichu-store na niye giye oti roshalo bhashay
(ki Bangla ki Ingreji) dui Bangalir torko dekhlam.
Shesh bodhoy Abu Sayeed Ayub ar Shankha Ghosh-er torko
bhalo legechchilo.
Rajib-da, chcheDona. Chaliye jao.
SHoumyo.
Arya Raychaudhuri
>regards,
>kulbir singh
Because, they hate ethnic cleansing.
regards
ARC
rajib doogar
Indranil Dasgupta (dgu...@budoe.bu.edu) wrote:
: No one said that "some threads are more relevant than others to ALL
: readers of scb". The highlight-ed "ALL" was yours, Mr. Doogar. Normally
: one highlights a word for emphasis.
Sigh. You had to flame me, so why bother to read what I write eh?
For the record, I think I was saying that from the tone of the pro-a-m
people it appeared that they were making the claim that some topics
which were not to their liking were irrelevant to bengalis and bengal
etc. This lead me to make the statement that given the public nature
of scb, one cannot make the claim "because *I* think so, it will not
be of relevance to *ALL* bengalis". "ALL" was highlighted because for
a public forum like scb, which exists on a public platform using
public money, it is the overall :) interest of all that should be
considered, not the interests merely of poetry-lovers and those who
are up on the arcana of chhoto-magazines or latest machinations in the
bengali arts or political ingroups. *That* would be ok for a private
list. Scb is *NOT* such a list. Did you really read the postings in
the thread carefully or were your fingers so itchy that you had to
fire one off before you thought the better of it?
: > That's also why I made my later pitch about usenet rules. The
: > point being once again that we DO have rules IF the charter is being
: > violated.
:
: Er ... what are those rules, Mr. Doogar? Where do you get them from?
: Care to quote a few?
I think that if you write to the sysadmin of the poster, you can get
some results. However, it is possible that some sysadmins are
themselves the offenders, in which case one has to suffer in silence.
Then the only option is to go to a private mailing list.
: For someone who seems to be so attached to the diversity of threads in
: his "thek" one would have expected Mr. Doogar to pay a little more
: attention to posts that were not violating the charter, merely trying to
: make an appeal to others for adhering to it. Too much preoccupation with
: others' itches would leave little time for a newsgroup, naturally.
I think that you are taking an indefensible position. First, I did
and do post from time to time when the mood takes me but not with any
frequency. Even if I did not post at all but simply lurked and
enjoyed others' postings, this line says more about you and how you
view yourself in relation to scb: YOU get to decide if MY behavior on
scb entitles me to an opinion? sad fact: nobody died and made you
god. who cares what YOU expect? :) Ironically for someone who is
lecturing another person on the facts of life, this little snippet
seems to have escaped you attention.
: I had a feeling that Srabani's one liners would result in repetitions of
: Mr. Doogar's sentimental outpourings. Therefore I made an attempt to
: explain gently and patiently what precisely pro-auto-moderation people
Your *feelings* while commendable, by your own standards extracted
above (wherein your poor eyes have had to consume my sentimental
outpourings), should not be something you should be so eager to share
with us when you are intolerant of others doing the same.
Additonally, a net god like you should be aware of the temporal
asynchroncity of the net. My posting was made before your erudite
exposition excreted itself upon my screen. So how could your wisdom
have travelled back in time o great one, or is the practice of padding
by self-citation so deeply ingrained that you just cannot resist
telling us what you told us? :)
: it. We are talking of VOTING auto-moderation into effect.
So? You can vote to make anything illegal. So what? Heard of
tyranny of the majority? Not that it applies to a-m, but for a god of
logic like you one expects pearls of perfection and nothing but! :)
: I don't quite know what a "useful post" is, but if someone wants to make
: a post to scb, all he needs to do is send a copy of the post to scb.
Yes by editing the header. Is that time free?
: Posting to scb is not made difficult at all. What is made harder is to
: carry a flame war in scb, while never actually logging in scb. I'll
: explain this to Mr. Doogar later, after he has gotten through the
: earlier confusions.
Yes, but do it slowly because as you can see you are way ahead of me :)
: Mr. Doogar will be well advised to take a look at some auto moderated
: newgroups before making learned-sounding comments. Auto moderation
: deters precisely those people who invest their time to be flame-lords.
Maybe. But my point still stands that some people will not take time
to make posts to scb.
: Apni mairi nijer jogote achhen. KuDi koti bangali "unanimous" hoye jabe
: bole akhkhep korchhen! Ami to unish koti niranobboi lokhkho niranobboi
: hajar nosho niranobboi jon akmot holei kalibaDi-te tirashi takar pujo
: diye ditaam (notun kichhu dekhlaam bole). Ei gonotontr-er juge
: "unanimity" niye oto bhable chole, bhai? Amra to odhikangsho scb
: netter-ra raji hoye gelei auto-moderation koriye debo bhabchhi. Oirokom
: ekti lok baad jabe na unanimity - hay - sherokom shopno shudhu apni-i
: dekhen. Mairi bolchhi, apnar hridoy ar spleen unanimous hote pare, kintu
: shobar khetre tao hoy na.
accha ami ki unanimity cheyecchi? eta kamon holo. gaal deben she
din. kono apotti nei karon apnar bhasha otyontoi shumarjito ebong
karna-madhur. kintu bhai, aapni ekta point miss korecchen -- srabani
bollen je ami (je ami unanimityke apacchanda kori bole post
korecchilam) shei ami ki ebar unanimity chaicchi? Tatei amar ei uttor
lekha hoyecche. srabani-debi e-byapare ki aapni shakhyo deben? aar
indranil babu ebar aapni'i bolun je ke taar nijer jogote baash kore?
Apni to amon rege gelen je clean bowled hoye gelen! :)
: Dudin shukh holo bhai, chirokaal ato bhalo murgi ar pabo kothay? Auto
: moderation-er por to bhodroloker paDa hoye jabe mone hochchhe. Apnake
: niyomito paoa jabe e durasha rakhchhi na.
Aami to niramisheshi, tai murgi'r katha jani na, kintu aapnar
monosthiti ektu tok ebong anekta teto mone hoy -- bhalo begun-pora
habe -- bhojer shurute deoata khoob'i apposite :) kintu beshi-khhon
chalaben na, tahole khaota bhondul hoye jaabe. Begun-pora'r motoi
probesh kore'i shore podun mishti'r jono jayga cchede din :) Bakita
thak, gha(n)tiye labh nei, karon ki post korbo aar podbo, sheta apnar
moto self-appointed and auto-acclaimed "bhadralok"'er kacche ontoto
shikhte jabo na, aar jai kori :)
: Kake ki bolchhen, mairi? Srabani jodi jhopang-ta ber koren apni chokher
: polok poDar age terobar bhotang hoye jaben.
Sheta onar-amar byapar, tabe amader teekhno alochonay bodh-hay apnar
moto mahapurusher kono ruchi habe-na tai sheta onyo khetrosthale loda
hocche! :) Apni nijer light-weight'ta eto shahaje prokashyo samabeshe
swikar korben ta jana cchilo na. :) Srabani-debi'r dose'ta aapni shahoje
bhulte paren ni sheta ebar amra shabai bujhlam. :) Amar byaparta gopon
roilo.
: Ashole na, emni bollam. Kajer kotha: Chutki katar koushol-ta apnar kachh
: theke ropto korte chai. Kichhu reference deben naki nijer lekhar? scb-te
: to beshi nei tai bolchhi.
Accha, aage a-m-ta hoye jaak tar pore debo. Tahole aapniyo dekhte
parben je bhadraloker paday jete amar apotti nei aar taari sange sange
ektu training-o paben. Promise roilo.
:
: Indranil.
Indranil:
ei slesh-juddhe apni'i bijeta, ami khetro-tyag korchii karon er
beshi samay bod-mejaji tarke dhalar icche nei. uttorta dilam karon
amar mote apni amar posting'ta'ke nijo-arthe ati-bikrito korecchen.
ebar aapni chaliye jaan.
regards,
rajib
rajib doogar
Indranil Dasgupta (dgu...@budoe.bu.edu) wrote:
: I have tried similar methods before and it is only normal for me to be
: excessively sympathetic toward anyone trying to repeat my mistakes.
: Pardon my saying so, but Rajib, your model-message may be better
: recieved as children's literature than as the deterrent it is supposed
: to be.
The allusion to children's literature delights me. The ambiguity is
stupendous -- at first sight there is no logical connection so one
thinks of abol-tabol. Then one thinks does idg think childrens'
literature is not literature? Or is he saying that the flames will be
received and read by the flamee with all the breathless joy that
children's literature is read? Nice! And properly framed by the
immediately preceding self-reference, a delightfully innocent touch of
narcissism that is characteristic of children and that good upbringing
is supposed to weed out of adults. Bahoba!
<snip> stuff...
: high ranking labour union leader of CITU. Two days ago, Mr. Doogar urged
: us impassionedly to make pearls out of grains of sand. In the last eight
: months, counting at the conservative rate of 20 a day, there have been
: about five thousand posts in scb which definitely make a mockery of the
: scb charter. In that period, someone with the missionary fervor of Mr.
: Doogar, could make only three posts. How many pearls does that leave the
: scb with? I'll leave the counting to Mr. Doogar again.
Indranil this is simply illogical. *I* do not want to auto mod. I'm
not the one complaining about "postings which make a mockery of the
charter." *You* are the one who wants auto-mod so I suggested you try
flaming. If flaming fails then there isn't enough of a problem is
there -- I mean not enough people wnat to yell about it? Second, if I
*am* flaming a spammer, why would I post it on the scb? Then I'd be a
spammer myself. You are not a newbie so you should know that the
flame would be sent to the spammer by e-mail, not on scb. As for your
pre-occupation with *my* posting rate, glad as I am to have such
devoted fans and readers as you, posting on scb doesn't pay the bills
you know.
: discouraged it. If you try to keep politics out of scb you must do
: everything openly. And if you try to enforce large scale mail-bombing
: openly then in a very short time you'll make scb the biggest dungheap in
: the usenet, surpassing even our big brother, the one of its kind - sci.
probably true unless the mail-bombers are intelligent enough to edit
the header line to remove scb from the header.
: Even granting that a dedicated army of cleaners can be formed, and they
: can sustain their adrenalin levels for months, just think about the
: process. To get rid of an offender, you first discuss HIM or HER for
: days. Then (if you reach a consensus) you mail-bomb. The offender gets
actually not. we can all e-mail only those people whose posts *we*
find offensive. then if enough people find one posting offensive,
that one posting will get lots of replies. I was not suggesting we
have a discussion to identify whom to flame. I'm certainly not going
to flame someone because you ask me to. will you? This is a
red-herring or a complete misunderstanding of my suggestion. What the
flamer can do is use the format I suggested in flaming anyone they
want to flame. That's the nice part about my suggestion: we all act
individually but we act. If enough of us feel the same way, then the
poster gets a big feedback, if not, the flame fails. what's so hard
about the idea? Of course, many people may not want to flame. That
is a price to pay for a public conversation site like scb.
: back at each of you with his own software generated replies. Then he
: crossposts the entire sci just to spite you. Then he gets two anonymous
: ids from sparsely used accounts and bounces all mail back. How many
: readers of scb want this? Or have done this before? 14 year old kids
: with their first PCs may dig this. But what about all the old, tired,
: pissed of and pissed on everyday netters in their 20s and 30s and 40s?
ok. I agree that if someone really wants to spam, (s)he easily can do
it. By the same token if someone can post software generated replies
and cross-post sci to scb, how much does it take to write a script to
automatically edit the header to get around auto-mod? As I said
before, *I* could write the sed/awk script in principle. You are
right that mail-bombing won't really work against a truly determined
spammer. nor will auto-mod.
: What else is mail bombing other than fighting crap with crap? Basically
I'm thinking here of postings with akothyo kisti and ma-bon stuff in
it. I do not think that anyone can seriously deter the hindu-muslim
threads. do you? but for the other ones, I think that a large number
of posting written by indivudals from all over the place may make the
poster think twice. The alternative is to ignore these people but
that doesn't always work.
: and start making some of it. There is nothing "filthy" about
: auto-moderation, Mr. Doogar. No more filthy than safe sex. It doesn't
I agree that auto-moderation is not censorship. In fact, my post to
the effect that I regret using the word censorship should have reached
your site or will, soon, I hope. It does impose a cost on
participation. On a public forum I am loathe to impose that cost.
Safe sex is a bad analogy as are newspapers because they are
ultimately private transactions, whereas usenet is a public
good. mailing lists are not public goods. that is my entire point.
if scb were a mailing list, I would have NO problems with a-m. None.
Zero. Zippo. Zilch. Squat. Nada. Nil. It is not. It is a public
site.
: hurt freedom of speech and whatever you have. It doesn't discriminate
: between individuals, fiduciaries or political parties. It simply cleans
: up in a politically correct, technically feasible and environmentally
: friendly way.
Not. If someone who can cross-post sci to scb automatically (I have
no idea how to do this) wants to, they can easily evade auto-mod.
: Vote against it, if you want.
Wow! Can I *really* do that? Gee thanks, I didn't know I could!!!
: But don't waste your
: imagination, unless you are serious about kiddie books.
What *is* your fascination with kiddie stuff? anybody know?
:
: It's the cross-posts, stupid!
:
: Indranil.
The fault, dear Brutus, ....
rajib
Kulbir Singh Bhatia
Arya Raychaudhuri (rayc...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: >regards,
Ethnic cleansing on ngs ?
regards,
kulbir singh
: regards
: ARC
Indranil DasGupta
rajib doogar (rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu) wrote:
: Indranil Dasgupta (dgu...@budoe.bu.edu) wrote:
: : No one said that "some threads are more relevant than others to ALL
: : readers of scb". The highlight-ed "ALL" was yours, Mr. Doogar. Normally
: : one highlights a word for emphasis.
: Sigh. You had to flame me, so why bother to read what I write eh?
: For the record, I think I was saying that from the tone of the pro-a-m
: people it appeared that they were making the claim that some topics
: which were not to their liking were irrelevant to bengalis and bengal
: etc. This lead me to make the statement that given the public nature
: of scb, one cannot make the claim "because *I* think so, it will not
: be of relevance to *ALL* bengalis". "ALL" was highlighted because for
: a public forum like scb, which exists on a public platform using
: public money, it is the overall :) interest of all that should be
: considered, not the interests merely of poetry-lovers and those who
: are up on the arcana of chhoto-magazines or latest machinations in the
: bengali arts or political ingroups. *That* would be ok for a private
: list. Scb is *NOT* such a list. Did you really read the postings in
: the thread carefully or were your fingers so itchy that you had to
: fire one off before you thought the better of it?
Rajib, trust me, I sincerely did bother to read what you wrote. You
can do yourself a favour by condescending to read your posts when you are in
a cooler state of mind.
Let me quote your own words to help you read what YOU wrote.
"..it is the overall :) interest of all that should be considered .."
No one disagrees with that when they ask for a VOTE on something. The
minority opinion can not be taken as "in the overall :) interest of
all ..". IN a VOTE, coincidentally, the minority opinion is rejected.
Take a deep breath in and read the title of the thread. Apratim Sarkar,
who is incidentally a "founder" of scb (as you are surely well aware),
asks a question. "Shall we, dear netters, have auto moderation?" he
asks. He asks if we should have an RFD, have a CFV and go about having
an auto moderated newsgroup in the most democratic way possible. His
post is followed by several netters expressing their endorsement of the
idea. Some netters reject the idea. All this is
normal. Sane. Understandable. Civilized.
Then you step in and you say this:
" ..I find it preposturously posturesome to postulate that some threads
are more relevant than others to ALL readers of scb...".
This leaves some of us wondering: why is Mr. Doogar talking about a
"preposturously posturesome postulate" when NO ONE, absolutely no one
but him seems to have the idea in his head in the first place? Everyone
is talking about a vote on something. They are talking about a vote
because they want to practice some democracy. They want to practice some
democracy because they want to find out and do precisely what is in the
" .. the overall :) interest of all ..".
So what is bugging Mr. Doogar?
When Mr. Doogar is asked this plain question,
instead of coming up with a sensible answer like .." I couldn't
resist playing with bombastic fustian.." he assumes he's been
flamed and takes a defensive posture.
: : > That's also why I made my later pitch about usenet rules. The
: : > point being once again that we DO have rules IF the charter is being
: : > violated.
: :
: : Er ... what are those rules, Mr. Doogar? Where do you get them from?
: : Care to quote a few?
: I think that if you write to the sysadmin of the poster, you can get
: some results. However, it is possible that some sysadmins are
: themselves the offenders, in which case one has to suffer in silence.
: Then the only option is to go to a private mailing list.
Are quoting them from that big red rulebook of usenet?
Incidentally my sysad thinks that going for automoderation is a
perfectly respectable and legitimate thing. And he does not think that
private mailing list is the _only_ option. He also asked me to find out
which edition of the big red rulebook you use.
: : For someone who seems to be so attached to the diversity of threads in
: : his "thek" one would have expected Mr. Doogar to pay a little more
: : attention to posts that were not violating the charter, merely trying to
: : make an appeal to others for adhering to it. Too much preoccupation with
: : others' itches would leave little time for a newsgroup, naturally.
: I think that you are taking an indefensible position. First, I did
: and do post from time to time when the mood takes me but not with any
: frequency. Even if I did not post at all but simply lurked and
: enjoyed others' postings, this line says more about you and how you
: view yourself in relation to scb: YOU get to decide if MY behavior on
: scb entitles me to an opinion? sad fact: nobody died and made you
: god. who cares what YOU expect? :) Ironically for someone who is
: lecturing another person on the facts of life, this little snippet
: seems to have escaped you attention.
What are you talking about Mr. Doogar? Hashbo na kNadbo? Let's
recapitulate what happened here. First someone called Rajib Doogar
said this:
"... Nobody has said the charter has been violated yet we see a
move to auto-mod. Why? Whose itch is being scratched here I wonder?"
Anyone who has read scb with some degree of regularity knows how many
times netters have decried the violation of the charter. The support for
auto-moderation didn't grow out of thin air. It came from months of
groaning, part of which has already been archived. Obviously
Rajib Doogar is unaware of what goes on in scb.
Having made this thoroughly mindless remark he goes on to ask cavalierly
about the the itch that pro-auto-mod people may have.
Isn't that silly? If that is not irresponsible behaviour bordering on the
juvenile, then what is?
But Rajib Doogar doesn't need any advice on how he should behave. Who
cares if others expect him to be a little more mature!
If you ask my opinion, I agree completely with him! Only a moron would
tell a child to grow up when the child obviously loves playing in the dirt!
I was that moron.
: : I had a feeling that Srabani's one liners would result in repetitions of
: : Mr. Doogar's sentimental outpourings. Therefore I made an attempt to
: : explain gently and patiently what precisely pro-auto-moderation people
: Your *feelings* while commendable, by your own standards extracted
: above (wherein your poor eyes have had to consume my sentimental
: outpourings), should not be something you should be so eager to share
: with us when you are intolerant of others doing the same.
: Additonally, a net god like you should be aware of the temporal
: asynchroncity of the net. My posting was made before your erudite
: exposition excreted itself upon my screen. So how could your wisdom
: have travelled back in time o great one, or is the practice of padding
: by self-citation so deeply ingrained that you just cannot resist
: telling us what you told us? :)
Er.. what is the point? (Did you get it from my gentle and patient and
extremely comprehensive post?). Thanks for writing a whole para about me
being a net-god etc. Man to man, let me tell you this, I really
appreciate all the pain some people take to tell me what I am.
But I wrote those lines strictly to give Srabani a hint or two.
No other motives. Honest.
: : it. We are talking of VOTING auto-moderation into effect.
: So? You can vote to make anything illegal. So what? Heard of
: tyranny of the majority? Not that it applies to a-m, but for a god of
: logic like you one expects pearls of perfection and nothing but! :)
"..god of logic.."! I like that. :-)
Your concern about tyranny of the majority opens a whole new point for
discussion. Frankly, you were so busy blaming others for what they had
never done that you never gave yourself a fair chance to bring this
vital point up before.
: : I don't quite know what a "useful post" is, but if someone wants to make
: : a post to scb, all he needs to do is send a copy of the post to scb.
: Yes by editing the header. Is that time free?
Presumably not. Nothing's free. Maybe the air is free. So what? Never
paid for anything in your life?
: : Posting to scb is not made difficult at all. What is made harder is to
: : carry a flame war in scb, while never actually logging in scb. I'll
: : explain this to Mr. Doogar later, after he has gotten through the
: : earlier confusions.
: Yes, but do it slowly because as you can see you are way ahead of me :)
No matter what others say, I'll stick with you to the end of this. Have
faith in me Rajib. I'll even calm you down.
: : Mr. Doogar will be well advised to take a look at some auto moderated
: : newgroups before making learned-sounding comments. Auto moderation
: : deters precisely those people who invest their time to be flame-lords.
: Maybe. But my point still stands that some people will not take time
: to make posts to scb.
Absolutely. We just sacrifice those posts. Prothom thekei tai bola hochchhe.
: : Apni mairi nijer jogote achhen. KuDi koti bangali "unanimous" hoye jabe
: : bole akhkhep korchhen! Ami to unish koti niranobboi lokhkho niranobboi
: : hajar nosho niranobboi jon akmot holei kalibaDi-te tirashi takar pujo
: : diye ditaam (notun kichhu dekhlaam bole). Ei gonotontr-er juge
: : "unanimity" niye oto bhable chole, bhai? Amra to odhikangsho scb
: : netter-ra raji hoye gelei auto-moderation koriye debo bhabchhi. Oirokom
: : ekti lok baad jabe na unanimity - hay - sherokom shopno shudhu apni-i
: : dekhen. Mairi bolchhi, apnar hridoy ar spleen unanimous hote pare, kintu
: : shobar khetre tao hoy na.
: accha ami ki unanimity cheyecchi? eta kamon holo. gaal deben she
: din. kono apotti nei karon apnar bhasha otyontoi shumarjito ebong
: karna-madhur. kintu bhai, aapni ekta point miss korecchen -- srabani
: bollen je ami (je ami unanimityke apacchanda kori bole post
: korecchilam) shei ami ki ebar unanimity chaicchi? Tatei amar ei uttor
: lekha hoyecche. srabani-debi e-byapare ki aapni shakhyo deben? aar
: indranil babu ebar aapni'i bolun je ke taar nijer jogote baash kore?
: Apni to amon rege gelen je clean bowled hoye gelen! :)
scb-te aro kichhudin thakle ingriji horofe bangla lekha joler moto poDte
parben. Tokhon, kindly bhaitu, ekbar khobor deben. Ami apnake nije abar
oi lekhata poDiye debo. Eta akhon apnar ar amar bhitorei thak. Chepe
jaoai bhalo.
: : Dudin shukh holo bhai, chirokaal ato bhalo murgi ar pabo kothay? Auto
: : moderation-er por to bhodroloker paDa hoye jabe mone hochchhe. Apnake
: : niyomito paoa jabe e durasha rakhchhi na.
: Aami to niramisheshi, tai murgi'r katha jani na, kintu aapnar
: monosthiti ektu tok ebong anekta teto mone hoy -- bhalo begun-pora
: habe -- bhojer shurute deoata khoob'i apposite :) kintu beshi-khhon
: chalaben na, tahole khaota bhondul hoye jaabe. Begun-pora'r motoi
: probesh kore'i shore podun mishti'r jono jayga cchede din :) Bakita
: thak, gha(n)tiye labh nei, karon ki post korbo aar podbo, sheta apnar
: moto self-appointed and auto-acclaimed "bhadralok"'er kacche ontoto
: shikhte jabo na, aar jai kori :)
Abar phoshkalen? :-)
Bhodroloker paDa hoye gele murgi paoa jabe na bole ekti (nitanto dhurto
o otyonto obhodro) dNeto srigaal
dukhkho prokaash korchhe, ei bhebe amar lekhata arekbar poDte agNya hok.
: : Kake ki bolchhen, mairi? Srabani jodi jhopang-ta ber koren apni chokher
: : polok poDar age terobar bhotang hoye jaben.
: Sheta onar-amar byapar, tabe amader teekhno alochonay bodh-hay apnar
: moto mahapurusher kono ruchi habe-na tai sheta onyo khetrosthale loda
: hocche! :) Apni nijer light-weight'ta eto shahaje prokashyo samabeshe
: swikar korben ta jana cchilo na. :) Srabani-debi'r dose'ta aapni shahoje
: bhulte paren ni sheta ebar amra shabai bujhlam. :) Amar byaparta gopon
: roilo.
Srabani je heavy weight tate shondeho nei. Peyara gachhe uthle muhurmuhu
dal bhange. Tal gachhe uthle gachhta-i matite dhuke jay. Apnader
"khetrosthol"-ti gopon rekhe khub doordorshitar porichoy
diyechhen. SPCA-r phone nombor-ta pocket-e rakhben.
: : Ashole na, emni bollam. Kajer kotha: Chutki katar koushol-ta apnar kachh
: : theke ropto korte chai. Kichhu reference deben naki nijer lekhar? scb-te
: : to beshi nei tai bolchhi.
: Accha, aage a-m-ta hoye jaak tar pore debo. Tahole aapniyo dekhte
: parben je bhadraloker paday jete amar apotti nei aar taari sange sange
: ektu training-o paben. Promise roilo.
Tahole auto-mod-ta hoyei jak. Shudhu apnake pabo bolei auto-mod
jotheshto lobhoniyo mone hochchhe.
: ei slesh-juddhe apni'i bijeta, ami khetro-tyag korchii karon er
: beshi samay bod-mejaji tarke dhalar icche nei. uttorta dilam karon
: amar mote apni amar posting'ta'ke nijo-arthe ati-bikrito korecchen.
: ebar aapni chaliye jaan.
Amar browser-e sposhto dekhchhi apnar arekti post. Chhelemanushi-ta
korte giyeo jokhon koren ni, tokhon pith na chapDe thakte parchhi na.
Shabash.
Indranil.
Aniruddha Das
let us not get too excited about the automoderation proposal. Use a good
newsreader, which threads articles, use a kill file and IGNORE posts you
don't want to read about. It takes only a week or two at the max before you
have a good understanding about which messages are junk and which are not.
That way you should be able to get rid of all the trauma of reading junk
posts.
Nandan
if even this is too traumatic, then come and join us on the irc on #bengali :)
*******************************************************************************
Aniruddha Das (Nandan) Life is a camera -- smile
Harvey Mudd College, http://www2.hmc.edu/~adas
Claremont,CA-91711 summer phone # ---> Ph (619)-759-5636
*******************************************************************************
Indranil DasGupta
rajib doogar (rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu) wrote:
: Indranil Dasgupta (dgu...@budoe.bu.edu) wrote:
: : I have tried similar methods before and it is only normal for me to be
: : excessively sympathetic toward anyone trying to repeat my mistakes.
: : Pardon my saying so, but Rajib, your model-message may be better
: : recieved as children's literature than as the deterrent it is supposed
: : to be.
: The allusion to children's literature delights me. The ambiguity is
: stupendous -- at first sight there is no logical connection so one
: thinks of abol-tabol. Then one thinks does idg think childrens'
: literature is not literature? Or is he saying that the flames will be
: received and read by the flamee with all the breathless joy that
: children's literature is read? Nice! And properly framed by the
: immediately preceding self-reference, a delightfully innocent touch of
: narcissism that is characteristic of children and that good upbringing
: is supposed to weed out of adults. Bahoba!
Apni to alpin DEKHE-I jhNajra hoye gelen! :-) Bachchader shahityo ar
amon ki kharap jinish? Chomotkar hochchhe!
: <snip> stuff...
: : high ranking labour union leader of CITU. Two days ago, Mr. Doogar urged
: : us impassionedly to make pearls out of grains of sand. In the last eight
: : months, counting at the conservative rate of 20 a day, there have been
: : about five thousand posts in scb which definitely make a mockery of the
: : scb charter. In that period, someone with the missionary fervor of Mr.
: : Doogar, could make only three posts. How many pearls does that leave the
: : scb with? I'll leave the counting to Mr. Doogar again.
: Indranil this is simply illogical. *I* do not want to auto mod. I'm
: not the one complaining about "postings which make a mockery of the
: charter." *You* are the one who wants auto-mod so I suggested you try
: flaming. If flaming fails then there isn't enough of a problem is
: there -- I mean not enough people wnat to yell about it? Second, if I
: *am* flaming a spammer, why would I post it on the scb? Then I'd be a
: spammer myself. You are not a newbie so you should know that the
: flame would be sent to the spammer by e-mail, not on scb. As for your
: pre-occupation with *my* posting rate, glad as I am to have such
: devoted fans and readers as you, posting on scb doesn't pay the bills
: you know.
Dekhun Rajib-babu, apnar kothar khei khNujte ebar goyenda lagate hobe.
Bhalo kore bhebe bolun nicher linegulo apni shogyane likhechhilen kina.
"... Think only of the "irrelevant" posting as the sand in your oyster
and may the pearls of sarcasm, satire and ridicule never run dry on scb..."
All I wanted to
convey is that a conservative estimate of the grains of sand far
outnumbers the pearls that even a netter of your prowess could make out
of them. My humble point is that no one really has the time or the
energy to make pearls out of grains of sands.
: : discouraged it. If you try to keep politics out of scb you must do
: : everything openly. And if you try to enforce large scale mail-bombing
: : openly then in a very short time you'll make scb the biggest dungheap in
: : the usenet, surpassing even our big brother, the one of its kind - sci.
: probably true unless the mail-bombers are intelligent enough to edit
: the header line to remove scb from the header.
I was referring to the pearls of ridicule that I assumed were to precede
and accompany the mail-bombing. I also had Amitabha's clearly spelled
strategy for mail-bombing in mind.
I didn't realize that you had proposed two distinct and mutually
exclusive alternatives for dealing with the irrelevant posts. My
observations should help you to make a better and more lucid
presentation of your ideas during the RFD. From the rest of your post I
could figure that you have the following worthwhile points of argument.
1. Auto moderation imposes a "cost" on cross-posters of scb.
2. The present move for auto-moderation may be tyranny of the majority.
3. The problem of irrelevant post exists. We could deal with it in two
different ways:
a) Make "pearls" out of "grains of sand".
b) Mail bomb individually and in an uncoordinated fashion. Hope that
700 e-mails will be generated for some offenders now and then.
I strongly urge you to stick to points such as the above during the RFD
and not go on a cribbing trip about "preposturously posturesome
postulates" and "blatant attempt" by "group founders" etc.
Since you are given toward discussing your sensitivity to
being _told_ what to do, I remind you that (as always)
this is just a friendly, compulsion-free advice in the interest of the ng.
So please don't get upset.
: : and start making some of it. There is nothing "filthy" about
: : auto-moderation, Mr. Doogar. No more filthy than safe sex. It doesn't
: I agree that auto-moderation is not censorship. In fact, my post to
: the effect that I regret using the word censorship should have reached
: your site or will, soon, I hope. It does impose a cost on
: participation. On a public forum I am loathe to impose that cost.
: Safe sex is a bad analogy as are newspapers because they are
: ultimately private transactions, whereas usenet is a public
: good. mailing lists are not public goods. that is my entire point.
: if scb were a mailing list, I would have NO problems with a-m. None.
: Zero. Zippo. Zilch. Squat. Nada. Nil. It is not. It is a public
: site.
About the analogy with safe sex, I'll admit that nothing's really
analogous to it except safe sex itself. Tomar tulona tumi, arki. Note
the aspect about no fluid exchange though.
scb is a public forum and also a community newsgroup. There are rules
and guidelines for its use. These rules were made by its users and will
be enhanced in scope or modified by its users as they deem fit.
This is very reasonable and normal. It's going to be like this whether
you like it or not.
If a rule imposes a cost, it'll have to be weighed against the
pay-offs. In that respect a newsgroup and a private mailing list are
identical.
: : hurt freedom of speech and whatever you have. It doesn't discriminate
: : between individuals, fiduciaries or political parties. It simply cleans
: : up in a politically correct, technically feasible and environmentally
: : friendly way.
: Not. If someone who can cross-post sci to scb automatically (I have
: no idea how to do this) wants to, they can easily evade auto-mod.
To carry on a flame war in this fashion would require the concerted teamwork
of a number of malicious people. If all the world is against us, what
can we do?
: : Vote against it, if you want.
: Wow! Can I *really* do that? Gee thanks, I didn't know I could!!!
If you did, why were you cribbing so much about "blatant attempts" by a few
people? If anything that was a blatant attempt by you to settle whatever
personal scores you may have in an inappropriate way and in a wrong place.
: : But don't waste your
: : imagination, unless you are serious about kiddie books.
: What *is* your fascination with kiddie stuff? anybody know?
Thik achhe, thik achhe. :-) Ar bolbo na.
Indranil.
rajib doogar
Indranil DasGupta (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
: Dekhun Rajib-babu, apnar kothar khei khNujte ebar goyenda lagate hobe.
lagiye phelun! taa'r pore shei goyenda nijer galpo-ta scb'te post kore
shabar monoranjan korbe. bhalo'i to. :)
: Bhalo kore bhebe bolun nicher linegulo apni shogyane likhechhilen kina.
:
: "... Think only of the "irrelevant" posting as the sand in your oyster
: and may the pearls of sarcasm, satire and ridicule never run dry on scb..."
likhecchi. taar aage e-o likhecchi -- "back to work! there are .."
taar mane ei je scb'te je dharaner shadharon alochana ebong dapadapi
hoy shegulo ei alochanar theke anek beshi phaloprodo. ebong, jehetu
bohu lekhak'er paraspar'er proti bhalobasha, shahridya, byanga, slesh
amon ki tiroshkar prokash porjyonto pode mon tripto hoyecche, ami
bishwa-kartar' kacche amar ei anurodhti-o jude diyecchi. tate ki
kharap korecchi bhai? "may the ..." kore'i to classically manush'e
ek'e aparer proti invocation dake tai na? arthat ei topic-ta baad
diye, ami scb'r talented lekhakder anurodh korecchi je t(n)aara
t(n)aader niyomito programming'a phire jaan ebong T(n)aar ashim
anukampay jyano t(n)ader kalamer kali (dui arthei) kahono na phuroe.
ete goyenda lagiye ki habe bolun to?
:
: All I wanted to
: convey is that a conservative estimate of the grains of sand far
: outnumbers the pearls that even a netter of your prowess could make out
: of them. My humble point is that no one really has the time or the
: energy to make pearls out of grains of sands.
ta thik! e'te kono apotti nei.
: : : discouraged it. If you try to keep politics out of scb you must do
: : : everything openly. And if you try to enforce large scale mail-bombing
btw, eta aage bolini, ashor-bhango hobar risk-e-o bolcchi, scb is a
very open group and that's what is so nice about it. kicchu mone
korben na, jhagra-ta interrupt korlam bole. :)
: I was referring to the pearls of ridicule that I assumed were to precede
: and accompany the mail-bombing. I also had Amitabha's clearly spelled
: strategy for mail-bombing in mind.
I think this is now clear, I understand where you were coming from.
: I didn't realize that you had proposed two distinct and mutually
: exclusive alternatives for dealing with the irrelevant posts. My
only one, that is part b) below. amitabha lahiri may have proposed the
other (I am not sure about this -- in case he did not, my apologies to
him and to whoever did moot that idea) but *I* do not call for a
*coordinated* mail-bombing. I merely proposed a *form* for replying
to the offending post with minimal effort, though I guess, to
knowledgable people, the form itself may have appeared a bit too
obvious a thing to even mention.
: observations should help you to make a better and more lucid
: presentation of your ideas during the RFD. From the rest of your post I
: could figure that you have the following worthwhile points of argument.
:
: 1. Auto moderation imposes a "cost" on cross-posters of scb.
: 2. The present move for auto-moderation may be tyranny of the majority.
: 3. The problem of irrelevant post exists. We could deal with it in two
: different ways:
: a) Make "pearls" out of "grains of sand".
: b) Mail bomb individually and in an uncoordinated fashion. Hope that
: 700 e-mails will be generated for some offenders now and then.
agree. I would further agree to strike a) and simply leave b) in. a)
was not meant that way. if i had my way, the **** posts would simply
die without further public discussion i.e. e-mail the poster *but* do
not even touch the topic on the group.
:
: I strongly urge you to stick to points such as the above during the RFD
: and not go on a cribbing trip about "preposturously posturesome
: postulates" and "blatant attempt" by "group founders" etc.
h(n)ya, "blatant attempt by group founders" ta ektu imprecise hoye
gyacche bodh hocche: "by at least one group founder" bollei bhalo
hoto. ebong "blatant" shabdotao gaye lagtei paare. tobu blatant-ta
withdraw korcchi na. plural-ta'r jonye sorry. ota phoshke giyecche.
practice na hole ja hoy (niche dekhun). tabe cribbing trip'e jete na
parle, scb'r point'tai to nashto hoye galo!
: Since you are given toward discussing your sensitivity to
: being _told_ what to do, I remind you that (as always)
: this is just a friendly, compulsion-free advice in the interest of the ng.
: So please don't get upset.
na, na, upset hobar acche-ta ki? shastriya sangit gaite gele reyaz
korte hoy to. ta na hole shur thik dhara jay na. bak-dwanda-ta ki
kam karukarjyer byapar? dekhtei to paarchen, practice na thakle kyamon
dobba'i hoy.
: scb is a public forum and also a community newsgroup. There are rules
: and guidelines for its use. These rules were made by its users and will
: be enhanced in scope or modified by its users as they deem fit.
: This is very reasonable and normal. It's going to be like this whether
: you like it or not.
perhaps you didn't mean this -- if you did, this would imply that I
was claiming that we *could* not do the modification -- I was only
arguing we *should* not. I never claimed anything but what you have
just said. If I did, please quote ( I ask you to quote because it is
possible that in doing the final editing, some draft material that was
not intended to be in the final post got left in. In that case, I
would like to retract the offending parts.)
: If a rule imposes a cost, it'll have to be weighed against the
: pay-offs. In that respect a newsgroup and a private mailing list are
: identical.
True. I agree and deal with this at more length in my other post.
: To carry on a flame war in this fashion would require the concerted teamwork
: of a number of malicious people. If all the world is against us, what
: can we do?
now I need a goyenda. if we both use the same one, will we get a
group discount? why would it require the concerted effort of several
people to simply write a script that would compose headers to
individual groups and append the same garbage to each posting so
generated. here is how to do it: first get the stuff typed or
scanned. then compose an article to sci (say) in your news-reader,
import the input text into it and save it. then using sed/awk
replicate it into 1000 postings by changing the string
soc.culture.indian to whatever group you want to spam and store the
mutated file on disk. Then, write a little script that mails all the
thousand copies to your news-reader machine. done. If you are short
of disk-space, you can shove it into /usr/temp or do it in batches.
I'm not yet sure how to write the script for posting the copies.
Other than that, *even for someone like me*, with *no* knowledge of
programming, it is trivial. Is it that hard to write a script to mail
these files? Anyone know? yeah I know this is taking it too
seriously, but it can be done so we might as well know how it is done.
: If you did, why were you cribbing so much about "blatant attempts" by a few
: people? If anything that was a blatant attempt by you to settle whatever
^^^^^^^^
: personal scores you may have in an inappropriate way and in a wrong place.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are none and I hope you are not trying to suggest that there
are. I name names and point fingers in public, so there ought not to
be. Or perhaps this is just a bit of projection on your part like you
did with your conjectures about how Srabani would react. :) Seriously,
though, the irrelevant to bengalis theme made me uncomfortable, that
is the *only* thing I was responding to. Blatant attempt was used to
describe the implicit assumption that what is not interesting to shyam
will also not be interesting to jadu and madhu.
: Thik achhe, thik achhe. :-) Ar bolbo na.
:
: Indranil.
:
--
accha, tahole ekhanei thak...
rajib
Indrani DasGupta
GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Arnab Gupta) wrote:
>Samir Bhattacharya wrote:
>
>>Indrani DasGupta <ID2...@american.edu> wrote:
>
>>[...]
>
>>>2700 threads in that group. Compared to that, on an exceptionally busy
>>>day, SCB has a mere 700. And, I do believe that auto-moderation would
> ^^^^^^^^
>Ei shonkhyagulo'te bodhoi aykta kore shunyo beshi pore gyachhe|:)
BoDo-i du:kkho dile. Fellow bodyi hoye dhapachchho? Kolonko-i hoi
aar jai hoi na kano, shedin rattir-ei to koshto kore metro thhele
school-e eshe arekta posting korlaam ota correct kore. At least Srabani
hoyto poDechhe. Kire, poDishni? Bol-na ektu.
>>I wouldn't like to risk missing IDG's Glory Days!
>
>`Glory Days' was crossposted indeed, but I hope Indranil Dasgupta would
>not hesitate to take the pain of posting it twice if this group becomes
>auto-moderated. The question that arises is what about other posts that
>are cross-posted? Well, unlike `Glory Days', most of these deal with
either
Deja news check kore dekhlam je IDG "Glory Days" prochondo enthu niye
barongbar post kore gyachhen. Miss hole amaader-i dosh. :)
>politics or religion. What these threads ultimately reduce to is a free
>for all display of mud-slinging, name calling and blatant chauvinism.
>One way of doing away with these, in my opinion, is to avoid answering
>to these articles altogether. However, in a free forum, it is expectable
>(and rightfully so) that many people will not agree with this. In this
>context I would like to request those readers of SCB who respond to
these
>articles to put forward their views regarding auto-moderation. Also to
be
>kept in mind is the fact that the SCB charter discourages articles based
>on politics and religion.
Kano boloto? America-r school gulo-te eta aachhe manlaam. Sheta hoyto
justified-o. Kintu scb charter-e eta je kano royechhe eta kintu shottyi
bujhte paarchhina. Tomra ki kolkata-y coffeehouse-e jete shudhu
"infusion" er jonno? :) Eta-o ki akta adda noy? Kharap kotha byabohar ki
kaaror shaathe mot-e na mille korte-i hobe? Tahole politics, religion
ityaadi niye alochona baad kano?
Indrani.
rajib doogar
Indranil DasGupta (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
<snip>
Look, Indranil, jokes apart, perhaps you are responding the way you
are because you think I'm stuck on my point. Perhaps I am, and
perhaps you are right that I was too harsh in my original condemnation
of the a-m proposal. That's fine, I chose my language and you can
take exception to it. I'll defend myself below. But between
bickering, let us take a minute to get the main point straight,
irrespective of any inflammatory terminology I have used thus far.
Then we can get back to fun.
Your main contention is that I have misunderstood the proposal and
that the vote was proposed in keeping with the traditions of
: democracy because they want to find out and do precisely what is in the
: " .. the overall :) interest of all ..".
sure. but an acceptable answer depends entirely on what is meant by
"in the overall interest of all?" To *me* it means not thwarting
possibly any threads that may be of legitimate interest to even a few
potential readers. That may be a standard that will result in a lot
of noise, but for a *public* forum like scb, it is just not
appropriate to depart from this standard. IMO scb should be held to
the same standards as speech on the street corner in Boston or
Milwaukee or South Bend or Gol Park, maybe even looser standards. Why
you may ask. Think of the medium we are using to have this debate:
the internet world is often hyped as a brave new world where there are
*no* barriers to participation and indeed one can simultaneously
attend n theks. And here we are, in response to the opportunity and
challenge of this new medium, overwhelmed and trying to snuggle back
like a retreat into a clubby comfort. I find this impulse a bit
defeatist and also counter to the experimentation that should
accompany a new medium. Apart from threaded readers which were
suggested as a means of coping with the problem, I would even support
the move to set up another, moderated group. But leave scb open as it
is. It is not that hard to start a new group now that we have so many
hard-core readers. perhaps the group can even be set up to eschew
religion and politics (though how any discussion that is meaningful
can be politics free and still remain palatable boggles my mind).
certainly filthy laguage can be ruled out (though hopefully not
suitably garbed personal attacks :) ).
The other costs, and benefits, I think you have done a nice job of
summing up in your other post. They are there and we can do a
calculus of cost-benefit. But this reservation is what I have been
trying to articulate, obviously unsuccessfully. I think that we
should not cry uncle in the face of diversity, noise and admittedly a
bunch of low-level garbage. It is an aesthetic issue if you please.
On the other hand, I do read sci. So maybe none of this is relevant.
Enough said. Now back to the regularly scheduled WWF match....
: Then you step in and you say this:
:
: " ..I find it preposturously posturesome to postulate that some threads
: are more relevant than others to ALL readers of scb...".
:
: This leaves some of us wondering: why is Mr. Doogar talking about a
: "preposturously posturesome postulate" when NO ONE, absolutely no one
: but him seems to have the idea in his head in the first place? Everyone
To set the record straight: From your posts I conclude that we *both*
probably agree that: If a thread is of interest to even a small number
of people, it should appear on scb. Here majority rule is not enough.
In order to decide if some post *ought* not to appear on scb, one has
to consider if even a *small* number of "bengalis" might find it
genuinely interesting.
Now here is what I was saying in the passage that you are crticizing:
Implicit in the complaint that we do not like these threads and they
have nothing to do with bengal or bengalis, so we should have a-m, or
words to that effect, is a complaint that what I do not like is
assumed to be self-evidently not of interest to all others also (as
you agree this is a claim that cannot be upheld). I was making this
inference by reading between the lines of the posts and I was, in the
excerpt you take exception to, pointing out that imo, people who were
talking about irrelevant posts were making this fallacious assumption.
I think that much is clear from the context of my original post.
: So what is bugging Mr. Doogar?
: When Mr. Doogar is asked this plain question,
: instead of coming up with a sensible answer like .." I couldn't
: resist playing with bombastic fustian.." he assumes he's been
: flamed and takes a defensive posture.
this plain language is new, at least in your post.
ans: I don't like the idea of making access harder. let a thousand
flowers bloom. I said this before i think and in case i did not,
please see above.
: Are quoting them from that big red rulebook of usenet?
no, just from what I understand to be the case and from what I have
seen on other newsgroups. seriously though : is there a big red
rulebook? i thought that these things were convention only.
: Incidentally my sysad thinks that going for automoderation is a
: perfectly respectable and legitimate thing. And he does not think that
: private mailing list is the _only_ option. He also asked me to find out
This is a separate topic, nothing to do with violation of charter.
You have changed the topic. I did not see your sysadmin refute my
contention that if you complain about clearly inaapropriate posts,
site sysadmins will *usually* yank the poster's priviledges or get the
point across to them in no uncertain terms. Is this contention of
mine incorrect? Please do settle this issue once and for all. What
your sys-admin thinks on the topic of respectability and legitimacy of
automod is a separate thread. I respectfully disagree with your
sys-admin on this separate topic -- his value judgement about the
appropriateness of auto-mod *for scb* is obviously different from
mine. I would never argue that auto-mod is a blanket bad. I have
tried to confine my comments in the context of scb only. If this was
not clear before, I hope it is now.
: What are you talking about Mr. Doogar? Hashbo na kNadbo? Let's
: recapitulate what happened here. First someone called Rajib Doogar
: said this:
:
: "... Nobody has said the charter has been violated yet we see a
: move to auto-mod. Why? Whose itch is being scratched here I wonder?"
:
: Anyone who has read scb with some degree of regularity knows how many
: times netters have decried the violation of the charter. The support for
: auto-moderation didn't grow out of thin air. It came from months of
: groaning, part of which has already been archived. Obviously
: Rajib Doogar is unaware of what goes on in scb.
Come on now, what was the `charter dekhan' debate all about? My point
is that no case was made that these posts that allegedly have little
to do with bengal or bengalis are violating the charter. Allegations
were made. Names were named. No analysis or evidence was posted
comparing postings, their language and content to the language of the
charter. If a well documented case was put forward, either on this
thread, or in scb over the last few months, where charter violations
were *explicitly* identified, I must have missed it. Charter
violation decrying is hardly the same as establishing that it did
occur.
: Having made this thoroughly mindless remark he goes on to ask cavalierly
: about the the itch that pro-auto-mod people may have.
: Isn't that silly? If that is not irresponsible behaviour bordering on the
: juvenile, then what is?
I do not think this is mindless. Make a case with evidence that
something violates the charter, complain to the sysadmin of the poster
and then we'll talk, else this is all building tall tales based on a
fevered imagination. Show us that you did try and failed. I have not
heard this claim yet.
: Your concern about tyranny of the majority opens a whole new point for
: discussion. Frankly, you were so busy blaming others for what they had
: never done that you never gave yourself a fair chance to bring this
: vital point up before.
No. This is a trival and I would have thought obvious consequence of
my earlier point about considering the welfare of all before making a
decision. Clearly it was not obvious. :-(
: Absolutely. We just sacrifice those posts. Prothom thekei tai bola
: hochchhe.
aapni jodi balen tahole maantei habe. ami kintu sheta amitabha
lahiri cchada karur post'e dekhi ni. chokh phoske giye thakte paare.
: scb-te aro kichhudin thakle ingriji horofe bangla lekha joler moto poDte
: parben. Tokhon, kindly bhaitu, ekbar khobor deben. Ami apnake nije abar
: oi lekhata poDiye debo. Eta akhon apnar ar amar bhitorei thak. Chepe
: jaoai bhalo.
bujhlam na -- amar boktobyer shathe ingriji harafe bangla likhte parar
ki samparko thakte paare? amar leka-te prochur banaan bhul khunje
pacchen? ba banan'er inconsistency paccchen? ta na hoi primer'er
site'ta bole din, ftp kore, bhalo kore pode, banaan shodhrabar cheshta
korbo (tobu typing bhul thaktei pare). kintu amar banan bhuler-shathe
apnar bowled hoye jabar samparko-ta bujhte ektu koshto hocche. :)
: Bhodroloker paDa hoye gele murgi paoa jabe na bole ekti (nitanto dhurto
: o otyonto obhodro) dNeto srigaal
: dukhkho prokaash korchhe, ei bhebe amar lekhata arekbar poDte agNya hok.
O. Tahole amar'i bhul hoyecche, khoma korben! Ek muhurter jonyo mone
hocchilo jyano daa(n)tgulo amar dike flash korcchen. Ektu bhabna'e
phelecchilen, karon ei dehota'r ja size, thik murgi'r role'ta manabe
na. Tao jene shanti je shei bajro-danti chowal-gulo amar ghader
shathe mela-meshar cheshta korbe na. Bohutara dhanyobad.
: Srabani je heavy weight tate shondeho nei. Peyara gachhe uthle muhurmuhu
: dal bhange. Tal gachhe uthle gachhta-i matite dhuke jay. Apnader
: "khetrosthol"-ti gopon rekhe khub doordorshitar porichoy
: diyechhen. SPCA-r phone nombor-ta pocket-e rakhben.
She'ki. Ay'ddur to kono heavyness dekhcchi-na, shabi'to sweetness and
light. Uni nischoi apnar joyo rudra-moorti'ta reserve kore
rekhecchen. Amake to shamane'i mishti-mishti e-mail pathacchen. O
bujhecchi, ami cruelty kori na tai uni amake SPCA'r dorja dekhan na.
Tate ki bojha galo? ke jane! ki ba aashe jay?
: Tahole auto-mod-ta hoyei jak. Shudhu apnake pabo bolei auto-mod
: jotheshto lobhoniyo mone hochchhe.
: Amar browser-e sposhto dekhchhi apnar arekti post. Chhelemanushi-ta
: korte giyeo jokhon koren ni, tokhon pith na chapDe thakte parchhi na.
: Shabash.
Dhonyobad, kintu oi uttor-ta age lekha hoyecchilo, karon apnar oi
posting'ta prothom eshecchilo. Post korar order'ta ulte geleo ulte
giye thakte paare. Tabe ami ekhon shapath mukto, tai ebar aar dwidha
nei -- tabe hoye'i jaak!
:
: Indranil.
rajib
Arya Raychaudhuri
>: >regards,
>regards,
>kulbir singh
>: regards
>: ARC
Yes, the idea of auto-moderation is so negative, that the first thing thta
came to my mind was ethnic cleansing. There are some ideas that do not
even merit the VOTE. While the VOTE is an important instrument of the
democratic process, its utility, IMO, should not be overemphasized.
For example, if Saddam took a popular vote before the takeover of
Kuwait, he would probably be heavily endorsed. If the people of India
were polled to find out if a religious outfit should enter politics
the answer would make BJP proud, don't you think? But the problem
with vote is that once the results have gone in someone's favor,
you are duty-bound to acknowledge the victory.
You may say, well, this situation is different. This is information
super highway. Everything is in the open. Ideal atmosphere for the
VOTE. But the question is, is it all highway and no subway?:-)
Regards
ARC
N.B. malice to one and all :-)
Indranil DasGupta
rajib doogar (rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu) wrote:
: Indranil DasGupta (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
: : Bhalo kore bhebe bolun nicher linegulo apni shogyane likhechhilen kina.
: :
: : "... Think only of the "irrelevant" posting as the sand in your oyster
: : and may the pearls of sarcasm, satire and ridicule never run dry on scb..."
: likhecchi. taar aage e-o likhecchi -- "back to work! there are .."
: taar mane ei je scb'te je dharaner shadharon alochana ebong dapadapi
: hoy shegulo ei alochanar theke anek beshi phaloprodo. ebong, jehetu
: bohu lekhak'er paraspar'er proti bhalobasha, shahridya, byanga, slesh
: amon ki tiroshkar prokash porjyonto pode mon tripto hoyecche, ami
: bishwa-kartar' kacche amar ei anurodhti-o jude diyecchi. tate ki
: kharap korecchi bhai? "may the ..." kore'i to classically manush'e
: ek'e aparer proti invocation dake tai na? arthat ei topic-ta baad
: diye, ami scb'r talented lekhakder anurodh korecchi je t(n)aara
: t(n)aader niyomito programming'a phire jaan ebong T(n)aar ashim
: anukampay jyano t(n)ader kalamer kali (dui arthei) kahono na phuroe.
: ete goyenda lagiye ki habe bolun to?
AgNye karon achhe. "irrelevant" posting bolte apni jodi shei
dhoroner "irrelevant" lekha-i bujhiye thaken ja niye ei shutoy kotha
shuru hoyechhilo, tahole apnar kothar mane dNaDay eirokom. "Irrelevant"
post dekhlei take bidrup kore muktor chash kora hok.
Er uttore ami bollam -
" Two days ago, Mr. Doogar urged
us impassionedly to make pearls out of grains of sand. In the last eight
months, counting at the conservative rate of 20 a day, there have been
about five thousand posts in scb which definitely make a mockery of the
scb charter. In that period, someone with the missionary fervor of Mr.
Doogar, could make only three posts. How many pearls does that leave the
scb with? I'll leave the counting to Mr. Doogar again."
Ekhane mail-bombing-er kotha ami tulini. Kintu apni jobabe bollen -
"*You* are the one who wants auto-mod so I suggested you try
flaming. If flaming fails then there isn't enough of a problem is
there -- I mean not enough people wnat to yell about it? Second, if I
*am* flaming a spammer, why would I post it on the scb?.."
Kotha-ta SCB-TE muktor chash niye-i hochchhilo. Nijer post poDlei sheta
porishkar hoye jabe. Shutorang "why would I post it on the scb?" obantor
prosno.
Oboshyo apni jodi prothom theke-i "irrelevant" post bolte onyo kichhu
bujhiye thaken tahole apnar aro goDar dikei kothar khei chhoDiye gachhe.
: :
: : All I wanted to
: : convey is that a conservative estimate of the grains of sand far
: : outnumbers the pearls that even a netter of your prowess could make out
: : of them. My humble point is that no one really has the time or the
: : energy to make pearls out of grains of sands.
: ta thik! e'te kono apotti nei.
Orthat "irrelevant" post-guli-ke mukto kore tola ar holo na. Eta dhorte
parlei apni abar nijer kothar khei khNuje paben.
: : : : discouraged it. If you try to keep politics out of scb you must do
: : : : everything openly. And if you try to enforce large scale mail-bombing
: btw, eta aage bolini, ashor-bhango hobar risk-e-o bolcchi, scb is a
: very open group and that's what is so nice about it. kicchu mone
: korben na, jhagra-ta interrupt korlam bole. :)
Prothom theke-i amar-o ei shondeho-i chhilo. Apni jhogDa kortei
nemechhilen. ANya?
RFD-te kintu matha thanda rekhe kajer kotha bolai uchit hobe.
[..]
: :
: : 1. Auto moderation imposes a "cost" on cross-posters of scb.
: : 2. The present move for auto-moderation may be tyranny of the majority.
: : 3. The problem of irrelevant post exists. We could deal with it in two
: : different ways:
: : a) Make "pearls" out of "grains of sand".
: : b) Mail bomb individually and in an uncoordinated fashion. Hope that
: : 700 e-mails will be generated for some offenders now and then.
: agree. I would further agree to strike a) and simply leave b) in. a)
: was not meant that way. if i had my way, the **** posts would simply
: die without further public discussion i.e. e-mail the poster *but* do
: not even touch the topic on the group.
Very good. Joler moto hoye gachhe.
: : I strongly urge you to stick to points such as the above during the RFD
: : and not go on a cribbing trip about "preposturously posturesome
: : postulates" and "blatant attempt" by "group founders" etc.
: h(n)ya, "blatant attempt by group founders" ta ektu imprecise hoye
: gyacche bodh hocche: "by at least one group founder" bollei bhalo
: hoto. ebong "blatant" shabdotao gaye lagtei paare. tobu blatant-ta
: withdraw korcchi na. plural-ta'r jonye sorry. ota phoshke giyecche.
: practice na hole ja hoy (niche dekhun). tabe cribbing trip'e jete na
: parle, scb'r point'tai to nashto hoye galo!
Abar very good. Tahole akhon apni bolchhen ontoto akjon "group founder"
"blatant" kichhu ekta kore phelechhen. Naamta chepe-i rakhun. Beshi
kichhu na bolai bhalo. Abhashe, ingite, dhNoya dhnoya bhashay durnaam
korar moto bhalo jinish ar ki achhe? Oposhongshkriti-r moto upadeyo
kichhu hoy na. Shabash.
[..]
: : scb is a public forum and also a community newsgroup. There are rules
: : and guidelines for its use. These rules were made by its users and will
: : be enhanced in scope or modified by its users as they deem fit.
: : This is very reasonable and normal. It's going to be like this whether
: : you like it or not.
: perhaps you didn't mean this -- if you did, this would imply that I
: was claiming that we *could* not do the modification -- I was only
: arguing we *should* not. I never claimed anything but what you have
: just said. If I did, please quote ( I ask you to quote because it is
: possible that in doing the final editing, some draft material that was
: not intended to be in the final post got left in. In that case, I
: would like to retract the offending parts.)
I didn't say that you were claiming that we _could_ not do the
modification. However, you had implied that a _few people_ were trying
to change the rules in scb. My point is that, as long as the "few" make
a majority the rules will be changed. Instead of accusing the "few" you
disagree with, with having ulterior motives, it would be a lot nicer if
you find a "few" who agree with you and see if _your_ opinion can be the
majority opinion. Rest assured that no one will accuse you of blatant
attempts.
[..]
: : To carry on a flame war in this fashion would require the concerted teamwork
: : of a number of malicious people. If all the world is against us, what
: : can we do?
: now I need a goyenda. if we both use the same one, will we get a
: group discount? why would it require the concerted effort of several
: people to simply write a script that would compose headers to
: individual groups and append the same garbage to each posting so
: generated. here is how to do it: first get the stuff typed or
: scanned. then compose an article to sci (say) in your news-reader,
: import the input text into it and save it. then using sed/awk
: replicate it into 1000 postings by changing the string
: soc.culture.indian to whatever group you want to spam and store the
: mutated file on disk. Then, write a little script that mails all the
: thousand copies to your news-reader machine. done. If you are short
: of disk-space, you can shove it into /usr/temp or do it in batches.
: I'm not yet sure how to write the script for posting the copies.
: Other than that, *even for someone like me*, with *no* knowledge of
: programming, it is trivial. Is it that hard to write a script to mail
: these files? Anyone know? yeah I know this is taking it too
: seriously, but it can be done so we might as well know how it is done.
Thanks for explaining exactly how much trouble one would need to do the
automatic posting. I have seen no precedent of this kind in the Indian
newsgroups. And to carry a flame war, you need to find partners. Even if
you reposted the replies of your partners you still can not see the
flame you get from scb-iites unless you log in to scb. Typically
flame-lords do not like to let flame go un-answered.
[..]
: There are none and I hope you are not trying to suggest that there
: are. I name names and point fingers in public, so there ought not to
Tai? Shei jonyei doshta angul ak shonge dosh-dike dekhiye boshe achhen?
: be. Or perhaps this is just a bit of projection on your part like you
: did with your conjectures about how Srabani would react. :) Seriously,
: though, the irrelevant to bengalis theme made me uncomfortable, that
: is the *only* thing I was responding to. Blatant attempt was used to
: describe the implicit assumption that what is not interesting to shyam
: will also not be interesting to jadu and madhu.
I see. So every attempt to legislate in a democracy is a "blatant"
attempt? If the "assumption" is implicit in one case, no reason it
should not be implicit everywhere.
Indranil.
Srabani Banerjee
Rajib Doogar writes:
>Indranil DasGupta (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
[...]
>: Srabani je heavy weight tate shondeho nei. Peyara gachhe uthle muhurmuhu
>: dal bhange. Tal gachhe uthle gachhta-i matite dhuke jay. Apnader
>: "khetrosthol"-ti gopon rekhe khub doordorshitar porichoy
>: diyechhen. SPCA-r phone nombor-ta pocket-e rakhben.
>
>She'ki. Ay'ddur to kono heavyness dekhcchi-na, shabi'to sweetness and
>light. Uni nischoi apnar joyo rudra-moorti'ta reserve kore
>rekhecchen. Amake to shamane'i mishti-mishti e-mail pathacchen. O
>bujhecchi, ami cruelty kori na tai uni amake SPCA'r dorja dekhan na.
>Tate ki bojha galo? ke jane! ki ba aashe jay?
It does appear that you are free from whatever obligations you had and
can, once again, discuss auto-moderation on SCB. So, if there is anything
left for us to discuss, may I suggest we bring it back to SCB? Which would
be better, in a way. Maintaining this `sweetness and light' front is
beginning to weigh rather heavy.
Srabani
Arnab Gupta
Indrani Dasgupta wrote:
>GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Arnab Gupta) wrote:
>>Samir Bhattacharya wrote:
>>
>>>Indrani DasGupta <ID2...@american.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>
>>>>2700 threads in that group. Compared to that, on an exceptionally busy
>>>>day, SCB has a mere 700. And, I do believe that auto-moderation would
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>Ei shonkhyagulo'te bodhoi aykta kore shunyo beshi pore gyachhe|:)
>BoDo-i du:kkho dile.
du:khito
> Fellow bodyi hoye dhapachchho? Kolonko-i hoi
>aar jai hoi na kano, shedin rattir-ei to koshto kore metro thhele
>school-e eshe arekta posting korlaam ota correct kore. At least Srabani
>hoyto poDechhe. Kire, poDishni? Bol-na ektu.
Mairi bolchhi tomar posting chokhe poreni| Ar tachhara Sameerbabur
posting-ta pore mono holo uni shonkhyagulo niye ektu confused, tai
arki..
>>>I wouldn't like to risk missing IDG's Glory Days!
>>
>>`Glory Days' was crossposted indeed, but I hope Indranil Dasgupta would
>>not hesitate to take the pain of posting it twice if this group becomes
>>auto-moderated. The question that arises is what about other posts that
>>are cross-posted? Well, unlike `Glory Days', most of these deal with
>>either
>Deja news check kore dekhlam je IDG "Glory Days" prochondo enthu niye
>barongbar post kore gyachhen. Miss hole amaader-i dosh. :)
Bhaggish korechhilen, amar ja news-reader! Shadhe a-m'er jonyey loDchhi!
>>politics or religion. What these threads ultimately reduce to is a free
>>for all display of mud-slinging, name calling and blatant chauvinism.
>>One way of doing away with these, in my opinion, is to avoid answering
>>to these articles altogether. However, in a free forum, it is expectable
>>(and rightfully so) that many people will not agree with this. In this
>>context I would like to request those readers of SCB who respond to
>>these
>>articles to put forward their views regarding auto-moderation. Also to
>>be
>>kept in mind is the fact that the SCB charter discourages articles based
>>on politics and religion.
>Kano boloto?
Konta kano? Charter? Otar boktobyo-ta shmoron kore diyechhi to matro,
ar to kichhu bolini| Bakita charter-er sroshtara porishkar kore ditey
paren hoito|
hNYa amar mot-er kotha jodi hoy taholey boltei hobe je ami SCB-r
charter toiri korle ogulo rakhtam, karon ami bhobishwotdroshta
noi| Jei charter-ti baniye thhak tNar oshadharon durodrishti-ke
ami hajarbar tarif janai|
> America-r school gulo-te eta aachhe manlaam. Sheta hoyto
>justified-o.
Ki karoney justified? Proshongo bodlano uddeshhyo noi kintu, shudhui
bortoman alochona-r shonge ei bishoytar shomporko bujhe nebar jonyey
bollam|
> Kintu scb charter-e eta je kano royechhe eta kintu shottyi
>bujhte paarchhina.
Thhakar kotha noi, amio mani (theoretically)|
> Tomra ki kolkata-y coffeehouse-e jete shudhu
>"infusion" er jonno? :)
Pagol! Aro koto ki paoa jeto - chop, cutlet, moglai, pokoura| Coffee
House-e koyekta takar binimoye onek kichhu peyechhi jibone| Phau
hishebe digene-keo peyechhi jiboner pothey!
> Eta-o ki akta adda noy?
Onekta aykmot tobe purota noi| Ja shunechhi tatey bodhoi IRC shommondhe
oi mot-ta aro projojyo|
Aykta kotha amar barbar mone hoi| Shudhui jodi adda marar jonyey hobe,
tahole SCB keno? Ayto bibhinno bishoy-er newsgroup-i ba keno? Adda-r
`analogy'ta puropuri khatey na| Coffee-house'e khisti-r chorchao
probolbhabe hoto| SCB-te sheta hole tomar bhalo lagbe ki?
Amar kachhe eta aykta `discussion/exchange forum', jekhaney adda
marar kichhu moja oboshyoi paoa jai| Namtatey jehetu aykta Bangali
byapar achhe tai eta asha kora hoyto onyai hobe na je alochonagulo
(puropuri na holeo) Bangali jati o shongoshkriti ghirei hobe|
> Kharap kotha byabohar ki
>kaaror shaathe mot-e na mille korte-i hobe? Tahole politics, religion
>ityaadi niye alochona baad kano?
Karongulo tomar nijer kothagulotei achhe| `Manush keno churi kore?'
proshno korar shonge shonge pulish thhaka-tao apato-shubidhajonok noiki?:)
Religion ar Politics Bangalider baad diye - e kotha bolar du:shahosh
amar nei| Kintu thhakle ki hoy chokhe porchhe na?
>Indrani.
Regards,
Arnab.
Kulbir Singh Bhatia
: >: >regards,
: >regards,
: >kulbir singh
: Regards
: ARC
I would rather confine myself to the original issue which I phrased
in these words:
If a subset of South Asian readership desires to have a separate
forum for discussion why should others object ? Why should some people
go out of their way to deny the separateness others so desperately seek ?
For example if a subset of bengali readership wants a separate forum
for discussion on Bankim, Bose or Tagore why should others
scuttle their efforts ?
regards,
kulbir singh
Srabani Banerjee
Indrani DasGupta writes:
>GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Arnab Gupta) wrote:
>>Samir Bhattacharya wrote:
>>
>>>Indrani DasGupta <ID2...@american.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>
>>>>2700 threads in that group. Compared to that, on an exceptionally busy
>>>>day, SCB has a mere 700. And, I do believe that auto-moderation would
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>Ei shonkhyagulo'te bodhoi aykta kore shunyo beshi pore gyachhe|:)
>BoDo-i du:kkho dile. Fellow bodyi hoye dhapachchho? Kolonko-i hoi
>aar jai hoi na kano,
Kolonko abar ki re? Ami to bhablam tui Bodyi kul-e Prohlad gochhe kichhu
ekta.
>shedin rattir-ei to koshto kore metro thhele
>school-e eshe arekta posting korlaam ota correct kore. At least Srabani
>hoyto poDechhe. Kire, poDishni? Bol-na ektu.
Tor shob posting mon diye poDi - kothay jhogda kora jay tai khNujte :)
Tui ekta posting-e likhli je ota threads hobe na, postings hobe. Mairi
bolchhi, amar newsserver-ta eto kharap, ami ek din-e keno, ek shoptaheo
konodin shaat-sho-ta notun posting dekhini.
[...]
Also to
>>be
>>kept in mind is the fact that the SCB charter discourages articles based
>>on politics and religion.
>Kano boloto? America-r school gulo-te eta aachhe manlaam. Sheta hoyto
>justified-o. Kintu scb charter-e eta je kano royechhe eta kintu shottyi
>bujhte paarchhina. Tomra ki kolkata-y coffeehouse-e jete shudhu
>"infusion" er jonno? :)
Eta ki holo? Cofee-house ar SCB ek? Thik achhe, ei niye jhogDa korbo,
tar aage tui ekbar, just ekbar, Babu R-er shathe coffe-house-e giye
`infusion' kheye ay.
[...]
Srabani
Arya Raychaudhuri
>: >: >regards,
>: >regards,
>: >kulbir singh
>: Regards
>: ARC
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, that is better.
>in these words:
>If a subset of South Asian readership desires to have a separate
>forum for discussion why should others object ? Why should some people
>go out of their way to deny the separateness others so desperately seek ?
To ask for separateness on a public forum such as scb is to shut the
door to ideas from outside the compartment. Read the famous poem by
Tagore against compartmentalization, in Jimmy's signature.
While some people may feel good about compartmentalization, others
don't. So this amounts to imposition. And a potentially imposition
situation cannot be worthy of voting. Also, you must appreciate that
these ngs are not run by anyone's father's money. Hence, the rules
must be simple.
>For example if a subset of bengali readership wants a separate forum
>for discussion on Bankim, Bose or Tagore why should others
>scuttle their efforts ?
I do not see any movement to scuttle any efforts. There is this
newsgroup (scb) to discuss about their works.But bengali culture is
broader than Bankim, Bose, and Tagore taken together. For example, my
favorite singer was Usha Uthup.:-) I know that many bengalis thought
that her songs should be banned. She was destroying the elite culture
of Tagore and Ray. But I think she is just fine. She represents energy
and vitality. Life.
Regards
ARC
>regards,
>kulbir singh
-S.BHATTACHARYA
Arnab Gupta <GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Indrani Dasgupta wrote:
....
>Mairi bolchhi tomar posting chokhe poreni| Ar tachhara Sameerbabur
^^^^^^^^^^
Bah:, pitri-dotto sadher namta-ke amar aymon-bhabe jokhom kore....
jak, samle nilum nijeke! Ashole koyekdin age ami nije erokom bhul koray
ekta choR kheyechhilum scb-te, tai hat-ta nish-pish kore uThchhilo ar ki :)
>posting-ta pore mono holo uni shonkhyagulo niye ektu confused, tai
>arki..
Na, ami ar ekdom confused noi; 700'r bodole 70 hobe. Tobe ota thread noy,
posting, tai na? :)
...
>Religion ar Politics Bangalider baad diye - e kotha bolar du:shahosh
>amar nei| Kintu thhakle ki hoy chokhe porchhe na?
>
"Nei tai khaccho, thakle kothay pete
Kohen kobi Kalidas, pothe jete jete."
Regards,
-Samir
>Regards,
>Arnab.
>
rajib doogar
Indranil DasGupta (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
: AgNye karon achhe. "irrelevant" posting bolte apni jodi shei
: dhoroner "irrelevant" lekha-i bujhiye thaken ja niye ei shutoy kotha
: shuru hoyechhilo, tahole apnar kothar mane dNaDay eirokom. "Irrelevant"
: post dekhlei take bidrup kore muktor chash kora hok.
kintu ami ki bolecchi konTake irrelevant bole gonyo kora hok?
Udaharan diyecchi, kintu byakkha to koirini je bhai. irrelevant is
*always* for the individual to judge. Irrelevent bolte ami sref
bojhacchi je pathak jeTa irrelevant mone karen. If you read the
second and third sentence of the first para of the original you will
see what I mean. Having written those two sentences, why *I* would
find the things that pro-a-m people find irrelevant to be "irrelevant"
is puzzling. My language took care to reflect the possibility that
*each* of us would find *different* grains of sand to cultivate
pearls. My whole point against a-m is that we can *never* agree on
what is mukto-bij, hence a-m is a bad idea. To me a-m is eminently
suitable for mukto-chash -- is it to you?
: Er uttore ami bollam -
:
: " Two days ago, Mr. Doogar urged
: us impassionedly to make pearls out of grains of sand. In the last eight
: months, counting at the conservative rate of 20 a day, there have been
: about five thousand posts in scb which definitely make a mockery of the
: scb charter. In that period, someone with the missionary fervor of Mr.
: Doogar, could make only three posts. How many pearls does that leave the
: scb with? I'll leave the counting to Mr. Doogar again."
ei lekhaTar mane ami korlam je aapni bolcchen "rajib tumi upadesh
diccho kintu koi tomake to mukto chash korte dekhlam na." taar
uttore'i amar lekha. ebar abar pode dekhun sense mile jabe. scb'te
bohu garbage pode. kintu sheTa garbage holeo tate bodoshodo mukto
habe na tai cchede dei. tobe majhe modhye apnar priyo a-m'er moto
ekta roshalo kaju-badam deoa vegetable cutlet chokhe pode. tokhon aar
lobh sham(h)lano jay na, mukto chash korte nami. ete mysterious
kicchu nei, khuchro mukto chash poshay na ei ar ki. ei bardhakye ar
bodoshodo mukto'r prospect na thakle jole nami na. tacchada je ageo
bolecchi, kon postingtake irrelevant bolte hobe sheta nijo-bibechonar
byapar, tai shekhane ami hastakhep korcchina.
: Ekhane mail-bombing-er kotha ami tulini. Kintu apni jobabe bollen -
:
: "*You* are the one who wants auto-mod so I suggested you try
: flaming. If flaming fails then there isn't enough of a problem is
: there -- I mean not enough people wnat to yell about it? Second, if I
: *am* flaming a spammer, why would I post it on the scb?.."
tar mane shudhu je age je posting-gulo poDecche, arthat jegulo apnar
kacche abantar, shegulo amake birokto kore na. apnake kore. ar
jehetu chash'er proposal apnar kacche bedona-dayi, (ba hashyakar --
karon kaNdben ki hashben sheTa to janen na) ami suggest korlam je apni
na hoy flame korun. Tai, apanar uddhrito, amar lekha, uporborti
passage'a bollam je `amaketo postingulo birokto kore na ebong ami to
a-m chaicchi na, kintu apnake obviously korecche tai apni a-m chan, ta
na hoy apni flame korun. jodi flame fail kare tahole apnar durbhagya
je anyera apnar shonge ekmot noy.' Ebong shei flame'er proshongei
bollam je 'ami jodi flame kori sheta scb'te dekha jabe na (arthat aami
jodi flame kore thaki taholeo sheta mukto chash-er porjyaye podbe na
-- eta lekha hoyecche in respone to your criticism je ami kyano mukto
chash kori na)'. Kintu sheta apni anyo bhabe bujhe likcchen:
: Kotha-ta SCB-TE muktor chash niye-i hochchhilo. Nijer post poDlei sheta
: porishkar hoye jabe. Shutorang "why would I post it on the scb?" obantor
: prosno.
"why would I .." bola hoyecche *flame*er bishoye. arthat jodi kauke
flame kori tahole shei flame-ta scb-te post korbo kyano? apni puro
sentenceta context'e podeo jodi erokom bhul karen tahole to mushkil.
"why should i post it" mukto'r bishoye je boli ni, sheta to bakko
gathan thekei porishkar.
: Oboshyo apni jodi prothom theke-i "irrelevant" post bolte onyo kichhu
: bujhiye thaken tahole apnar aro goDar dikei kothar khei chhoDiye gachhe.
rajib goDa theke bole ashcche shudhu ei-tuku "tomar je jinishtake
irrelevant bole mone hoy sheta niye mukto chash koro a-m koro na."
: : : All I wanted to
: : : convey is that a conservative estimate of the grains of sand far
: : : outnumbers the pearls that even a netter of your prowess could make out
: : : of them. My humble point is that no one really has the time or the
: : : energy to make pearls out of grains of sands.
:
: : ta thik! e'te kono apotti nei.
:
: Orthat "irrelevant" post-guli-ke mukto kore tola ar holo na. Eta dhorte
: parlei apni abar nijer kothar khei khNuje paben.
na. orthat shudhu-matro je apni jokhon bollen "mukto chash kora durlobh."
ami mene nilum. eTate amar kono apotti thaktei paare na karon aapni
ki mone koren tate amar ki aashe jaay. durlobh bodh hole, chash
korben na. ami to sref mukto-chashe shobbai-ke protsahan diyecchi,
bolini je mukto chash na korle dukkho pabo. dabi to korte paarina,
tai asha prokash kore ebong protshahon diye-i tushto hoyecchi amar
original lekhay.
: : : : : discouraged it. If you try to keep politics out of scb you must do
: : : : : everything openly. And if you try to enforce large scale mail-
: : : : : bombing
:
: : btw, eta aage bolini, ashor-bhango hobar risk-e-o bolcchi, scb is a
: : very open group and that's what is so nice about it. kicchu mone
: : korben na, jhagra-ta interrupt korlam bole. :)
:
: Prothom theke-i amar-o ei shondeho-i chhilo. Apni jhogDa kortei
: nemechhilen. ANya?
smiley-ta dekhecchen? dekhe-o dekhen ni? na ki nijey smiley dite bhule
gyacchen? na ki onyo kicchu? aami smiley juDe nebo?
: RFD-te kintu matha thanda rekhe kajer kotha bolai uchit hobe.
aar aapni line-gulo bhalo kore poDe ektu bhebe niye taar pore likhben.
: Abar very good. Tahole akhon apni bolchhen ontoto akjon "group founder"
: "blatant" kichhu ekta kore phelechhen.
ekkebare thik dhorecchen.
: Naamta chepe-i rakhun. Beshi
: kichhu na bolai bhalo. Abhashe, ingite, dhNoya dhnoya bhashay durnaam
: korar moto bhalo jinish ar ki achhe? Oposhongshkriti-r moto upadeyo
: kichhu hoy na. Shabash.
na. abar nogonyo bishoye apotti tulcchen. jNara pro-a-m tNara keu
anonymously post koren ni. jNara thread-ta poDcchen, tNara shabbai
janen ke kon dike boshe acche. ete aar bolar ki acche? ar opore
bujhiye diyecchi je ingit kori ni abhas di ni, shoja accuse korecchi.
Mukto kanthe ghoshona korecchi je *amar mote* eTa ekTa baje ebong
blatant attempt to do something bad (ingriji bad) based on inadequate
reason (niche bishod alochana poDben). Kothay ingit royecche?
Porishkar byakto korecchi jeTa bolte chai. tabe hNya, oposhongshkriti
shobdo-ta khub maniyecche apnar mukhe. aaro koyekbar bolben.
: I didn't say that you were claiming that we _could_ not do the
: modification. However, you had implied that a _few people_ were trying
: to change the rules in scb. My point is that, as long as the "few" make
: a majority the rules will be changed. Instead of accusing the "few" you
: disagree with, with having ulterior motives, it would be a lot nicer if
'ulterior' mane 'concealed (Shorter Oxford, Clarendon 1993, p. 3447
col 2)', tar shathe tulona korun 'blatant' mane 'loud and noisily
offensive, conspicuous (ibid, p. 240)' (col # bhule giyecchi, uthe
dekhar enthu nei.) blatant bolecchi. ulterior boli ni. ulterior
maneta apnar kriti. plus motive niye kicchu boli ni, bolecchi je tNara
bolcchen je "eta amar mate abanter tai taDiye deoa hok jate amra
nijeder post-gulo aro shahaje khunje pete paari". er beshi kicchu
boli ni. bakiTa aapni juDe nile aami dai? Uddhriti diye dicchi:
> My take on this thread is that it appears at present to simply be a
> blatant attempt by a handful of prolific posters including group
> founders, who feel that THEY should not have to wade through what THEY
> don't like.
ete kothay ulterior motive'r abhijog? the point the sentence makes is
about the thread and it just says that the thread is a blatant attempt
to do something. what is that something? Aami shudhu-matro point out
korecchi je ekta mushthimeyo loke je prostabta korecche sheta'r pokkhe
tara argument diyecche jeta giye mulato danDacche je "egulo aami poDte
chai na, tai eguloke baad deoa hok." shei thread of arguments-Ta-ke
ami blatant hishebe characterize korecchi. karur ki motive ba
ulterior motive ekkebarei bolini, ota aapni whole-cloth theke
manufacture korle, aami ki korte paari bolun?
apni ki odike boshe boshe amake motive ascribe korcchen? ami apnake
ektai motive ascribe korcchi -- apni alochona korte chan. Ja bolben
sheta niyei torko hok. Amar torko jodi baje lage tahole shetate
apni-o tika dite paren boi ki. Tar baire eke oporke baaje motive
ascribe kore ki labh? Abar bole di: a-m'er prostaab-er thread-Ta-ke
baje ebong blatant attempt to argue for a bad proposal based on
insufficient reason bolecchi, lokguloke kicchui bolini.
: you find a "few" who agree with you and see if _your_ opinion can be the
: majority opinion. Rest assured that no one will accuse you of blatant
: attempts.
how can or do you speak for others? I am sure some will.
: Thanks for explaining exactly how much trouble one would need to do the
: automatic posting. I have seen no precedent of this kind in the Indian
you may have missed my point which was that all you have to do is
write the script ONCE and you can cross-post as much as you like by
getting around the way auto-mod works. clearly you didn't understand
this or you would not have written what you did. as for precedent,
when has that stopped innovation? The point *I* was making is that
even auto-mod can defeated by automating the posting process.
: newsgroups. And to carry a flame war, you need to find partners. Even if
: you reposted the replies of your partners you still can not see the
I was under the impression that we were both talking about spamming or
making irrelevant cross-postings because that is what a-m tries to
deter. You have now switched to flamewars which I understand to be a
different problem.
: flame you get from scb-iites unless you log in to scb. Typically
: flame-lords do not like to let flame go un-answered.
Which is also why I could not follow what you are saying here. maybe
you are saying something unrelated to the spamming problem. that is a
separate topic worthy of discussion perhaps? let me stick to spamming
here since that is what got us this far.
: : There are none and I hope you are not trying to suggest that there
: : are. I name names and point fingers in public, so there ought not to
:
: Tai? Shei jonyei doshta angul ak shonge dosh-dike dekhiye boshe achhen?
see my response above. ekta angul diye ekta baje prostab-er shapokkhe
shomosto lekha-guloke indict korecchi. je je likhecchen, tNader naam
sharbagNyato, tai repeat korar proyojon gonyo kori ni.
: : is the *only* thing I was responding to. Blatant attempt was used to
: : describe the implicit assumption that what is not interesting to shyam
: : will also not be interesting to jadu and madhu.
:
: I see. So every attempt to legislate in a democracy is a "blatant"
: attempt? If the "assumption" is implicit in one case, no reason it
: should not be implicit everywhere.
Things are not that simple na. Apratim ebong Amitabha'r exchange'ta
dekhun on the topic of RFD. Things are not as democratic as you
either like to think or at least publicly suggest they are. The power
of the agenda-setter is a well known fact of political life, so this
is not really a good argument on your part. Rather it is a attempt to
use nice sounding words when you reserve all the power to the
proposer. This is exactly the kind of misleading assertion that makes
people like me worry that either the proponent is naive or is
untrustworthy. Caveat: Please do note that I am not accusing anyone
of anything, merely saying that such blanket assertions which are
meant to sound smooth and plausible often contain very troublesome
subtleties which cannot be easily glossed over. I am, like Amitabha
Lahiri in his response to Apratim, merely asking that when you make
such glossed over statements, how are we to interpret that?
Arya Raychaudhuri (AMR) said it well: not everything deserves to be put
to a vote. I think he is correct. Some ideas are so blatantly silly
or noxious that they deserve to be strangled at birth. a-m is one of
them. scb is a come as you like party. now you are putting in
frictions that will keep it the clubby chubby place a few people have
hitherto found it to be. Why?
You/whoever complains about noise had it good when traffic was low.
Now others want to use it for their purpose. Bengal is not a closed
system cut off from India and Bangladesh, or from the things and
trends there, so those will spill over into Dalhousie Square and its
equivalent in Dacca and thus by implication into scb. Make way for
those waves. Found your own list if you want to avoid the clutter of
the highway, but do not do pukur-churi and propose to convert the
highway into a driveway.
Tobe abar bole dei: pukur churir abhijog-ta ulterior motiver abhijog
noy, sref brazen-facedness-er abhijog. I am not suggesting that
anyone is doing this for personal gain (other than to keep their adda
from being overrun). Well, you had fun using scb as a site for adda.
Now a multi-lane highway is going up on the site and you are yelling
banaben na, banaben na, amader thek nashto hoye jabe. That is quite
blatantly a silly argument -- you are essentially claiming squatters
rights on a public property! Eta to Dhaha dupure dakati'r proposal.
Jyamon bilete industrial revolution'er shomoye landlord'ra commons
grab kore niyecchilo. tamon-i blatant. Blatant hole to blatant
boltei hobe.
: Indranil.
rajib
Arnab Gupta
Samir Bhattacharya wrote:
>Arnab Gupta <GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>Indrani Dasgupta wrote:
....
>>Mairi bolchhi tomar posting chokhe poreni| Ar tachhara Sameerbabur
^^^^^^^^^^
>Bah:, pitri-dotto sadher namta-ke amar aymon-bhabe jokhom kore....
>jak, samle nilum nijeke! Ashole koyekdin age ami nije erokom bhul koray
>ekta choR kheyechhilum scb-te, tai hat-ta nish-pish kore uThchhilo ar ki :)
Aykdom bhul hoye gyachhe, kichhu mone korben na| Ar ye maneo, otar poreo
aro aykta thread-e ei bhul-ta korechhi| Apnar ei lekhata chokhe poreni|
>..[deleted]..
Regards,
Arnab.
Indrani DasGupta
Indranil Dasgupta wrote:
>
>> Indrani DasGupta (ID2...@american.edu) wrote:
>
>> : What auto-moderation might...actually, will surely do, is get rid of
the
>> : _good stuff_ as well as the "flying monkeys...and "khisti-s". That,
I am
>> : not looking forward to. There are a lot of interesting threads that
I
>> : pick up on SCB without travelling any further. That is a luxury, I
grant
>> : you.
>>
>
>It may be possible to get the entire usenet cross-posted to scb
>everyday. That way, you'll get _all_ the good things of life right here
>in scb. All you have to do is to start a campaign for this. (Nothing's
>really free).
>Actually the best things in sci are NEVER cross posted to scb. You never
>get Ramesh Madhavan's articles here. Neither do Bala or Thattachari
>cross post their stuff to scb. All that can be arranged though. It takes
>only a few minutes to cross post the entire sci to scb. Might as well
>get the soc.culture.tamil. I am sure some netters can write codes that'd
>do it automatically. If you can't do it, ask them. Nicely.
>
>Indranil.
I am. Nicely.
Indrani.
Kulbir Singh Bhatia
: >Arya Raychaudhuri (rayc...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: >: kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
: >: >Arya Raychaudhuri (rayc...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: >: >: kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
: >I would rather confine myself to the original issue which I phrased
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Yes, that is better.
: >in these words:
: >If a subset of South Asian readership desires to have a separate
: >forum for discussion why should others object ? Why should some people
: >go out of their way to deny the separateness others so desperately seek ?
: To ask for separateness on a public forum such as scb is to shut the
: door to ideas from outside the compartment. Read the famous poem by
: Tagore against compartmentalization, in Jimmy's signature.
: While some people may feel good about compartmentalization, others
: don't. So this amounts to imposition. And a potentially imposition
: situation cannot be worthy of voting. Also, you must appreciate that
: these ngs are not run by anyone's father's money. Hence, the rules
: must be simple.
If the creation of special interest groups is equivalent to
compartmentalization and needs to be decried then it is unfortunate
that there are different groups for different branches of engineering.
Actually in that case we should just stick to one ng soc.culture.universe.
regards,
kulbir singh
: Regards
: ARC
: >regards,
: >kulbir singh
Indranil Dasgupta
> kintu ami ki bolecchi konTake irrelevant bole gonyo kora hok?
> Udaharan diyecchi, kintu byakkha to koirini je bhai. irrelevant is
> *always* for the individual to judge. Irrelevent bolte ami sref
Irrelevant bolte apni ekhane ja bujhiyechhen, ontoto ami chirokaal tai
bujhechhi. Ei thread-e pro a-m lokera onyo kichhu bolchhilo boleo amar
mone hoy ni.
[..]
> ei lekhaTar mane ami korlam je aapni bolcchen "rajib tumi upadesh
> diccho kintu koi tomake to mukto chash korte dekhlam na." taar
> uttore'i amar lekha. ebar abar pode dekhun sense mile jabe. scb'te
> bohu garbage pode. kintu sheTa garbage holeo tate bodoshodo mukto
> habe na tai cchede dei. tobe majhe modhye apnar priyo a-m'er moto
Etai thik line. Ebong ekhanei kothar shesh hoa uchit. Apni muktor chash
korte upodesh diyechhen. Balir gNuDo je achhe tao shwikar korechhen. Ei
thread-er age ekti-o mukto banan ni.
Amar boktobyo: Onyoder-o shokti nei. Tara kichhu shohoj shidhdhir poth
khNujchhe.
[..]
> tar mane shudhu je age je posting-gulo poDecche, arthat jegulo apnar
> kacche abantar, shegulo amake birokto kore na. apnake kore. ar
> jehetu chash'er proposal apnar kacche bedona-dayi, (ba hashyakar --
> karon kaNdben ki hashben sheTa to janen na) ami suggest korlam je apni
> na hoy flame korun. Tai, apanar uddhrito, amar lekha, uporborti
> passage'a bollam je `amaketo postingulo birokto kore na ebong ami to
> a-m chaicchi na, kintu apnake obviously korecche tai apni a-m chan, ta
> na hoy apni flame korun. jodi flame fail kare tahole apnar durbhagya
> je anyera apnar shonge ekmot noy.' Ebong shei flame'er proshongei
> bollam je 'ami jodi flame kori sheta scb'te dekha jabe na (arthat aami
> jodi flame kore thaki taholeo sheta mukto chash-er porjyaye podbe na
> -- eta lekha hoyecche in respone to your criticism je ami kyano mukto
> chash kori na)'. Kintu sheta apni anyo bhabe bujhe likcchen:
Abar kothar khei chhoDiye dichhen. Let me try once again.
1. Kotha hochchilo "irrelevant" post niye.
2. Apni bollen "irrelevant" post theke mukto banano hok.
3. Amar protibedon: Apni-o beshi baniye uth-te paren ni. Amra to kon
chhar! Tai bole ki balir dana gaye lagchhe na?
4. Apni bollen : " *You* are the one who wants auto-mod so I suggested
you try flaming. "
5. Amar nibedon: Apni je flame korar upodesh-ti diyechhen e niye to
onyotro onek kichhu bolechhi ebong bolbo. Kintu akhon ta niye kichhu-i
boli ni. Bortoman proshonge shudhu muktor chasher kotha-i hochchhe.
Shudhu muktor chasher proshonge jodi ami kichhu "illogical" bole thaki
doya kore sheta dekhan. Noile jete din.
6. "Hashbo na kNadbo?" ei montobyo-ti ami korechhilaam shompurno bhinno
proshonge, apni ei kothati bolar por : "Nobody has said the charter has
been violated yet we see a move to auto-mod." Apnar clutch gear shob
joDiye giye amon jotil obostha je jot chhaDano ar amar kommo noy. Akhon
ja likhlam ektu porei apni ta onyo kothar shathe guliye phelben she
bishoye akhon ami nihshondeho.
> "why would I .." bola hoyecche *flame*er bishoye. arthat jodi kauke
> flame kori tahole shei flame-ta scb-te post korbo kyano? apni puro
> sentenceta context'e podeo jodi erokom bhul karen tahole to mushkil.
> "why should i post it" mukto'r bishoye je boli ni, sheta to bakko
> gathan thekei porishkar.
Amar to boktobyo shetai. "Why would I .." bola hoyechhe flame-er
bishoye. Kintu flame-er bishoye to kotha hochhilo na!! Kotha hochhilo
muktor chash niye. Apni bollen ami naki "illogical" kichhu bolechhi.
Ebar bhebe chinte shesh o nirdishto bhabe janan je ami ki bishoye
"illogical" kotha bolechhi. "mukto chash" niye na "flame" niye?
> : Oboshyo apni jodi prothom theke-i "irrelevant" post bolte onyo kichhu
> : bujhiye thaken tahole apnar aro goDar dikei kothar khei chhoDiye gachhe.
>
> rajib goDa theke bole ashcche shudhu ei-tuku "tomar je jinishtake
> irrelevant bole mone hoy sheta niye mukto chash koro a-m koro na."
Amio shetai bhebechhilaam. Tahole apnar kothar khei hariyechhe 14 Jul
1996 21:15:19 GMT te post kora lekhati-te.
> : : : All I wanted to
> : : : convey is that a conservative estimate of the grains of sand far
> : : : outnumbers the pearls that even a netter of your prowess could make out
the time or the
> : : : energy to make pearls out of grains of sands.
> :
> : : ta thik! e'te kono apotti nei.
> :
> : Orthat "irrelevant" post-guli-ke mukto kore tola ar holo na. Eta dhorte
> : parlei apni abar nijer kothar khei khNuje paben.
>
> na. orthat shudhu-matro je apni jokhon bollen "mukto chash kora durlobh."
Tai to bolechhi re baba. Abar "na" bolchhen kano?
> ami mene nilum. eTate amar kono apotti thaktei paare na karon aapni
> ki mone koren tate amar ki aashe jaay. durlobh bodh hole, chash
> korben na. ami to sref mukto-chashe shobbai-ke protsahan diyecchi,
> bolini je mukto chash na korle dukkho pabo. dabi to korte paarina,
> tai asha prokash kore ebong protshahon diye-i tushto hoyecchi amar
> original lekhay.
Kintu apni mene nichchhen je "..no one really has the time or the energy
to make pearls out of grains of sand ..". And if no one has the time and
the energy how would the pearls be made?
[..]
> : Naamta chepe-i rakhun. Beshi
> : kichhu na bolai bhalo. Abhashe, ingite, dhNoya dhnoya bhashay durnaam
> : korar moto bhalo jinish ar ki achhe? Oposhongshkriti-r moto upadeyo
> : kichhu hoy na. Shabash.
>
> na. abar nogonyo bishoye apotti tulcchen. jNara pro-a-m tNara keu
> anonymously post koren ni. jNara thread-ta poDcchen, tNara shabbai
> janen ke kon dike boshe acche. ete aar bolar ki acche? ar opore
> bujhiye diyecchi je ingit kori ni abhas di ni, shoja accuse korecchi.
Dekhun apnar lekhar age ei thread-e ontoto pNachjon "group founder"
a-m shomorthon kore likhechhen. Apni ki ekti loker-i pNachti benaami
account dhore niyechhen? Naki eNder modhye akjonkei shotyikar-er
"founder" bole mone koren? Shojashuji-i jiggesh kori - Apni ki Sutapa
Bhattacharya-r dike angul dekhachchhen?
> Mukto kanthe ghoshona korecchi je *amar mote* eTa ekTa baje ebong
> blatant attempt to do something bad (ingriji bad) based on inadequate
> reason (niche bishod alochana poDben). Kothay ingit royecche?
> Porishkar byakto korecchi jeTa bolte chai. tabe hNya, oposhongshkriti
> shobdo-ta khub maniyecche apnar mukhe. aaro koyekbar bolben.
Oposhongshkriti. Oposhongshkriti. Oposhongshkriti.
Oposhongshkriti. Oposhongshkriti. Oposhongshkriti.
Oposhongshkriti. Oposhongshkriti. Oposhongshkriti.
Oposhongshkriti. Oposhongshkriti. Oposhongshkriti.
[..]
> 'ulterior' mane 'concealed (Shorter Oxford, Clarendon 1993, p. 3447
> col 2)', tar shathe tulona korun 'blatant' mane 'loud and noisily
> offensive, conspicuous (ibid, p. 240)' (col # bhule giyecchi, uthe
> dekhar enthu nei.) blatant bolecchi. ulterior boli ni. ulterior
> maneta apnar kriti. plus motive niye kicchu boli ni, bolecchi je tNara
> bolcchen je "eta amar mate abanter tai taDiye deoa hok jate amra
> nijeder post-gulo aro shahaje khunje pete paari". er beshi kicchu
> boli ni. bakiTa aapni juDe nile aami dai? Uddhriti diye dicchi:
> > My take on this thread is that it appears at present to simply be a
> > blatant attempt by a handful of prolific posters including group
> > founders, who feel that THEY should not have to wade through what THEY
> > don't like.
>
> ete kothay ulterior motive'r abhijog? the point the sentence makes is
> about the thread and it just says that the thread is a blatant attempt
> to do something. what is that something? Aami shudhu-matro point out
> korecchi je ekta mushthimeyo loke je prostabta korecche sheta'r pokkhe
> tara argument diyecche jeta giye mulato danDacche je "egulo aami poDte
> chai na, tai eguloke baad deoa hok." shei thread of arguments-Ta-ke
> ami blatant hishebe characterize korecchi. karur ki motive ba
> ulterior motive ekkebarei bolini, ota aapni whole-cloth theke
> manufacture korle, aami ki korte paari bolun?
Amio ekta udhriti di.
" IF the charter is being
violated. Nobody has said the charter has been violated yet we see a
move to auto-mod. Why? Whose itch is being scratched here I wonder?"
A-M korar karongulo to amra shobar shamnei rekhechhilaam. Tobu apnar
prosno : kar chukaitachhe? Amader prosno: Apni ki shob bishoyei `karo
chulkaitachhe' ei shondeho koren? Amader "motive" to amra janiyechhi.
Sheti apnar bishwashjogyo mone hole "chulkanir" khobor pete kano ato
utshaho? Bishwashjogyo na mone hole-i "ulterior motive"-er kotha othe.
Amar nibedon: Poroshporer Chukanir khNoje shomoy noshto na kore ashun
kajer kotha kichhu boli.
> apni ki odike boshe boshe amake motive ascribe korcchen? ami apnake
> ektai motive ascribe korcchi -- apni alochona korte chan. Ja bolben
> sheta niyei torko hok. Amar torko jodi baje lage tahole shetate
> apni-o tika dite paren boi ki. Tar baire eke oporke baaje motive
> ascribe kore ki labh? Abar bole di: a-m'er prostaab-er thread-Ta-ke
> baje ebong blatant attempt to argue for a bad proposal based on
> insufficient reason bolecchi, lokguloke kicchui bolini.
Then why bring up "at least one group founder .." etc? Why not just say
that the proposal to a-m sucks. Why call names (or make fuzzy allusions
to people)? Why talk of "itch"? Why even say a "blatant attempt"? The
adjective "blatant" says nothing about the proposal itself. It only
qualifies the methods or motives of people. The method has been
completely democratic.
[..]
> you may have missed my point which was that all you have to do is
> write the script ONCE and you can cross-post as much as you like by
> getting around the way auto-mod works. clearly you didn't understand
> this or you would not have written what you did. as for precedent,
> when has that stopped innovation? The point *I* was making is that
> even auto-mod can defeated by automating the posting process.
Look writing the script even once is hard for many. I don't know how to
do it. I haven't seen anyone do that stuff.
> : newsgroups. And to carry a flame war, you need to find partners. Even if
> : you reposted the replies of your partners you still can not see the
>
> I was under the impression that we were both talking about spamming or
> making irrelevant cross-postings because that is what a-m tries to
> deter. You have now switched to flamewars which I understand to be a
> different problem.
I haven't seen much spamming in scb. The problems some scb netters face
are the excessive and irrelevant flame wars that are cross posted from
sci and that go on and on and on.
> Which is also why I could not follow what you are saying here. maybe
> you are saying something unrelated to the spamming problem. that is a
> separate topic worthy of discussion perhaps? let me stick to spamming
> here since that is what got us this far.
I wasn't talking about spamming. I do not see it as a part of our
present problems.
> : Tai? Shei jonyei doshta angul ak shonge dosh-dike dekhiye boshe achhen?
>
> see my response above. ekta angul diye ekta baje prostab-er shapokkhe
> shomosto lekha-guloke indict korecchi. je je likhecchen, tNader naam
> sharbagNyato, tai repeat korar proyojon gonyo kori ni.
E niye ar kopchate chai na. Prostabti bhalo noy bolar jonyo prostabti
kano bhalo noy shetuku bolai jotheshto chhilo. I would only appeal to
other scb readers from not following Mr. Doogar's example.
> : I see. So every attempt to legislate in a democracy is a "blatant"
> : attempt? If the "assumption" is implicit in one case, no reason it
> : should not be implicit everywhere.
>
> Things are not that simple na. Apratim ebong Amitabha'r exchange'ta
> dekhun on the topic of RFD. Things are not as democratic as you
> either like to think or at least publicly suggest they are. The power
> of the agenda-setter is a well known fact of political life, so this
[..]
I have no comments. I think Mr. Doogar's point is rather silly. It is
time for me to stop harping on to the same things again and again. I
have no illusions of being able to persuade Mr. Doogar that to call for
a discussion on _anything_ is not a blatant attempt, unless it is a
blatant attempt to practice free speech. All this talk of "power of the
agenda seeker" makes no sense to me in the present context. Frankly I am
quite sick of people pointing fingers at others instead of talking about
the issue.
Personally I'd say, to hell with it. I am outta here. I'll vote for a-m
if there is a CV. If other readers of scb have the desire to blatantly
discuss the future of their newgroup then they should probably speak up
at some point. Or they could be content with Mr. Doogar deciding what
they should discuss and what not, what they should opine on and what
not, what they should put to vote and what not.
For the moment I'd like to be blatantly silent for a while.
Ciao.
Indranil.
Indranil DasGupta
rajib doogar (rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu) wrote:
: Indranil DasGupta (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
[..]
: calculus of cost-benefit. But this reservation is what I have been
: trying to articulate, obviously unsuccessfully. I think that we
: should not cry uncle in the face of diversity, noise and admittedly a
: bunch of low-level garbage. It is an aesthetic issue if you please.
: On the other hand, I do read sci. So maybe none of this is relevant.
: Enough said. Now back to the regularly scheduled WWF match....
At last a truely enlightening post from Mr. Doogar. All points made in
the first section duly noted.
: : Then you step in and you say this:
: :
: : " ..I find it preposturously posturesome to postulate that some threads
: : are more relevant than others to ALL readers of scb...".
: :
: : This leaves some of us wondering: why is Mr. Doogar talking about a
: : "preposturously posturesome postulate" when NO ONE, absolutely no one
: : but him seems to have the idea in his head in the first place? Everyone
: To set the record straight: From your posts I conclude that we *both*
: probably agree that: If a thread is of interest to even a small number
: of people, it should appear on scb. Here majority rule is not enough.
: In order to decide if some post *ought* not to appear on scb, one has
: to consider if even a *small* number of "bengalis" might find it
: genuinely interesting.
From which post of mine do you conclude that " ..we *both* probably
agree that: If a thread is of interest to even a small number
of people, it should appear on scb..."?
(If that were the case, I'd be cross posting the entire alt.sex to
scb.)
: Now here is what I was saying in the passage that you are crticizing:
: Implicit in the complaint that we do not like these threads and they
: have nothing to do with bengal or bengalis, so we should have a-m, or
: words to that effect, is a complaint that what I do not like is
: assumed to be self-evidently not of interest to all others also (as
: you agree this is a claim that cannot be upheld). I was making this
: inference by reading between the lines of the posts and I was, in the
: excerpt you take exception to, pointing out that imo, people who were
: talking about irrelevant posts were making this fallacious assumption.
: I think that much is clear from the context of my original post.
Look, what you are saying is this. You read between lines, infer that
people are making preposturous assumptions and then freely make
accusations against them. If this is what it boils down to, fine. Your
method is deplorable, but at least it is clear now.
[..]
: : Are quoting them from that big red rulebook of usenet?
: no, just from what I understand to be the case and from what I have
: seen on other newsgroups. seriously though : is there a big red
: rulebook? i thought that these things were convention only.
I was kidding. You see, auto-moderation is not unconventional at all.
: : Incidentally my sysad thinks that going for automoderation is a
: : perfectly respectable and legitimate thing. And he does not think that
: : private mailing list is the _only_ option. He also asked me to find out
: This is a separate topic, nothing to do with violation of charter.
: You have changed the topic. I did not see your sysadmin refute my
: contention that if you complain about clearly inaapropriate posts,
: site sysadmins will *usually* yank the poster's priviledges or get the
: point across to them in no uncertain terms. Is this contention of
: mine incorrect? Please do settle this issue once and for all. What
Are you really serious about this question? Both you and I know that
most sysads don't/won't/can't do anything with regard to garbage
posts. Only `.com' account holders need be a little careful. They
shouldn't post something that is outright obnoxious. Everything else is
allowed.
Think of the sysads in universities. The university always retains
sweeping powers over our computer access. It can even look at my files
if it desires. But freedom of speech is so sacred that unless I actually
break the law somewhere they can not *legally* force me to keep my mouth
shut, no matter what I say. Most sysads simply avoid confronting such
situations.
I have complained to sysads for racist, filthfilled posts without _any_
effect. Besides, here in scb, a lot of the garbage, imo, is garbage
simply because it is irrelevant to the common scb reader. A sysad would
have to be a comon scb reader to have a feel for that.
: your sys-admin thinks on the topic of respectability and legitimacy of
: automod is a separate thread. I respectfully disagree with your
: sys-admin on this separate topic -- his value judgement about the
: appropriateness of auto-mod *for scb* is obviously different from
: mine. I would never argue that auto-mod is a blanket bad. I have
: tried to confine my comments in the context of scb only. If this was
: not clear before, I hope it is now.
I was replying to your assertion that there are rules for usenet and
that they could be obtained by asking my sysad. The point being that
rules for usenet are many, and your argument is not an argument for
rejecting auto-moderation. Recall that you implied that "rules" were not
being followed, only "itches" were being scratched.
: : What are you talking about Mr. Doogar? Hashbo na kNadbo? Let's
: : recapitulate what happened here. First someone called Rajib Doogar
: : said this:
: :
: : "... Nobody has said the charter has been violated yet we see a
: : move to auto-mod. Why? Whose itch is being scratched here I wonder?"
: :
: : Anyone who has read scb with some degree of regularity knows how many
: : times netters have decried the violation of the charter. The support for
: : auto-moderation didn't grow out of thin air. It came from months of
: : groaning, part of which has already been archived. Obviously
: : Rajib Doogar is unaware of what goes on in scb.
: Come on now, what was the `charter dekhan' debate all about? My point
: is that no case was made that these posts that allegedly have little
: to do with bengal or bengalis are violating the charter. Allegations
: were made. Names were named. No analysis or evidence was posted
: comparing postings, their language and content to the language of the
: charter. If a well documented case was put forward, either on this
: thread, or in scb over the last few months, where charter violations
: were *explicitly* identified, I must have missed it. Charter
: violation decrying is hardly the same as establishing that it did
: occur.
But who said anything about "establishing" charter violation? Isn't
the fact that people did decry the violation of charter enough to
disprove your contention that "... Nobody has said the charter has been
violated .."?
People felt that the charter was being violated. And, imo, that genuine
frustration led to the proposal for auto-moderation. Rules were
followed. I don't see a sinister move or a blatant attempt or a hidden
itch anywhere.
: : Having made this thoroughly mindless remark he goes on to ask cavalierly
: : about the the itch that pro-auto-mod people may have.
: : Isn't that silly? If that is not irresponsible behaviour bordering on the
: : juvenile, then what is?
: I do not think this is mindless. Make a case with evidence that
: something violates the charter, complain to the sysadmin of the poster
: and then we'll talk, else this is all building tall tales based on a
: fevered imagination. Show us that you did try and failed. I have not
: heard this claim yet.
Personally, I have done this several times a few years ago when scb was
not born. It didn't work. I have complained to posters (although not to
sysads) after scb was born. That didn't work. So I am more in favour of
auto-moderation this time. If you are saying that unless I repeat my
mistakes all over again my feelings about the charter violation are not
worth anything and that every attempt I make to stop this must arise
from an "itch", then once again you are making an assumption about me
that I deplore and regret very much.
: : Your concern about tyranny of the majority opens a whole new point for
: : discussion. Frankly, you were so busy blaming others for what they had
: : never done that you never gave yourself a fair chance to bring this
: : vital point up before.
: No. This is a trival and I would have thought obvious consequence of
: my earlier point about considering the welfare of all before making a
: decision. Clearly it was not obvious. :-(
It wasn't indeed. I thought you were saying that a "few" were trying to
arm-twist the rest into auto-moderation.
: : Absolutely. We just sacrifice those posts. Prothom thekei tai bola
: : hochchhe.
: aapni jodi balen tahole maantei habe. ami kintu sheta amitabha
: lahiri cchada karur post'e dekhi ni. chokh phoske giye thakte paare.
Apni jodi bhebe thaken je ei dhoroner auto-moderation-e bechhe bechhe
kharap post-i baad deoa hobe tahole dukhkhito. Amra prothom thekei
shomosto cross-post baad deoa hok ei kotha-i bolechhi. "Shomosto" mane
SHOB. Kharap-i hok ar bhalo-i hok. Chokh phoshkano kono maratwok bhul
noy.
: : scb-te aro kichhudin thakle ingriji horofe bangla lekha joler moto poDte
: : parben. Tokhon, kindly bhaitu, ekbar khobor deben. Ami apnake nije abar
: : oi lekhata poDiye debo. Eta akhon apnar ar amar bhitorei thak. Chepe
: : jaoai bhalo.
: bujhlam na -- amar boktobyer shathe ingriji harafe bangla likhte parar
: ki samparko thakte paare? amar leka-te prochur banaan bhul khunje
: pacchen? ba banan'er inconsistency paccchen? ta na hoi primer'er
: site'ta bole din, ftp kore, bhalo kore pode, banaan shodhrabar cheshta
: korbo (tobu typing bhul thaktei pare). kintu amar banan bhuler-shathe
: apnar bowled hoye jabar samparko-ta bujhte ektu koshto hocche. :)
AgNye ami to bolini apnar banane bhul achhe. Ami bolechhi ingreji horofe
bangla _poDte_ oshubidhe achhe bodh-hoy. _Amar_ lekha niye-i kothata
bolechilaam. Apnar lekha oti chomotkar. Banan niye amar kono obhijog
nei.
Tobe amar lekhati arekbar mon diye poDte onurodh kori. Maneta apni
ekbare dhorte paren ni.
[..]
: : Srabani je heavy weight tate shondeho nei. Peyara gachhe uthle muhurmuhu
: : dal bhange. Tal gachhe uthle gachhta-i matite dhuke jay. Apnader
: : "khetrosthol"-ti gopon rekhe khub doordorshitar porichoy
: : diyechhen. SPCA-r phone nombor-ta pocket-e rakhben.
: She'ki. Ay'ddur to kono heavyness dekhcchi-na, shabi'to sweetness and
: light. Uni nischoi apnar joyo rudra-moorti'ta reserve kore
: rekhecchen. Amake to shamane'i mishti-mishti e-mail pathacchen. O
: bujhecchi, ami cruelty kori na tai uni amake SPCA'r dorja dekhan na.
: Tate ki bojha galo? ke jane! ki ba aashe jay?
Heaviness-er kichhu ingeet uni nije-i diyechhilen. ONyotro apni-o nijer
gurubhar-er kotha janiyechhen. Apnader "khetrosthole" keu dhorashayi
hole hatir daktar daka-i shongoto hobe bhebe SPCA-r kothata
bolechhilaam.
Indranil.
rajib doogar
Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
: I think that Aryababu has made a very convincing case above for
: doing away with democratic processes and replacing it with minority
: rule by fiat provided by enlightened more-equal members of the
: population. It is also very encouraging to see Rajibbabu chiming
: in at the same note, shedding his doubts (as expressed in SCB a
: few days back) about whether the demise of any particular individual
: has endorsed another with royal privileges.
Apratimbabu:
Your message is both revealing and disturbing.
Revealing:
I think you misunderstand my position else you would never
mischaracterize it this way. Let me try to explain it simply. I
found/continue to find the idea of a-m to be noxious. Something that
i would not ever have suggested. I would have suggested a mailing
list, a moderated list or some other more private venue where all like
minded people can get together. Making scb closed is not a worthy
idea for consideration. It is a shockingly bad idea. *I* find it
shocking that it comes from people in universities. Can *I* not say
this? Can I not say this *loudly*?
Please tell us what is wrong with rajib (or X) expressing their
strongly held conviction that this is an inappropriate response to a
minor problem -- one cannot close one's ears in response to filth. I
find the idea of a bengali group doing this problematic to say the
very least.
Disturbing:
: doing away with democratic processes and replacing it with minority
: rule by fiat provided by enlightened more-equal members of the
: population.
First Indranil Dasgupta made a similar remark, then srabani made
something similar to that, and now you are making this remark. This
is not a correct or logical thing to say. Why are you suggesting that
there is something unfair or dictatorial about *my or X's* criticisng
*your* proposal? After all that is exactly what a proposal is for is
it not? Surely in response I can say "this proposal is ill-concieved,
flawed and should, in the first place, never have been put forth by
thinking people who favor free speech." what is the mistake on my
part here?
: It is also very encouraging to see Rajibbabu chiming
: in at the same note, shedding his doubts (as expressed in SCB a
: few days back) about whether the demise of any particular individual
: has endorsed another with royal privileges.
The question about privileged people arises because a handful of
people find it hard to read what they find interesting in scb. so
they are proposing to change the constitution. I was questioning what
made their preferences so important that they could claim the
prerogative to convert the charter of a public group? I find it
unseemly. I said so. Now John Hall suggests that you try to add a
moderated group instead of taking scb private. Was that not something
that was suggested by others on this thread a while before Mr. Hall's
posting came online?
I *know* that many good people are bothered by the **** we see here.
Have you seen me post that stuff? Have you seen Amitabhababu post
that stuff? Have you seen Aryababu post that stuff? No. What makes
you think we *like* it? All I am saying is that taking scb in the
direction of a-m is not a good solution to the minor problem we are
facing. In addition I have shown how a determined spammer can get
around the a-m stricture anyway.
The other thread is simply full of misunderstanding. Perhaps on this
thread, we can start again towards a logical discussion.
once again I am *not* saying you *cannot* do it.
i am suggesting we *should* not do it.
regards,
rajib
Srabani Banerjee
Santanu Bhattacharya writes:
>rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu (rajib doogar) writes:
>
>>Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>
>>: I think that Aryababu has made a very convincing case above for
>>: doing away with democratic processes and replacing it with minority
>>: rule by fiat provided by enlightened more-equal members of the
>>: population. It is also very encouraging to see Rajibbabu chiming
>>: in at the same note, shedding his doubts (as expressed in SCB a
>>: few days back) about whether the demise of any particular individual
>>: has endorsed another with royal privileges.
[...]
> I had so far been in favour of auto-moderation. However,
>Mr Sarkar's views as expressed above has just caused me to reverse my
>views on the matter. I still think auto-moderation as proposed is a
>good idea, however if the person writing up the charter for the
>proposal is in favour of minority fiat,
But he isn't! I would request you to re-read what Mr.Sarkar has written.
He actually says that what Aryababu writes implies a `minority rule by
fiat'. The `person writing the charter' has been constantly asking for
a vote to be taken. What could be more democratic than that?
>it bodes ill for the future of
>my favourite ng. Thank you Mr Doogar for sticking to your guns on this
>issue. I am ideologically opposed to a moderated news group.
So am I. But nobody has asked for a moderated newsgroup. Mr.Doogar did
suggest it once, but I don't think he wants it either.
People have asked for an auto-moderated newsgroup to eliminate cross-
posting.
>The
>initial idea of auto-moderation in its innocuous form had sounded very
>appealing. At this point however, I realise that from there on, having
>cut the whole ng size down to a few regular contributors, conversion
>to a fully moderated, content based newsgroup is a distinct, and
>very unattractive possibility.
I fail to follow this a-m = few regular contributors logic. Would
a-m make it impossible for some people to post?
And, besides, even without auto-moderation, I still seem to find
only a `few regular contributors' (some of them being the habitual
cross-posters) to this ng. Which is rather unfortunate.
>As it now stands, I will certainly vote
>no to this idea. I realise that a lot of people are very anxious to
>see this go through, for a whole host of different reasons. Many of us
>have to download a whole bunch of files just to read a few which are
>indeed pertinent to this newgroup. Some of us simply hate to see a
>bunch of wacko's despoil this forum with their hate filled garbage, or
>with deliberately excerpted news posts to denigrate India or all that
>is Indian. Personally, these are the ones I hate the most. Finally
>there are those of us who would like to have better control over what
>is said, or left unsaid, in this forum.
But that is not possible, right? Not, unless we allow it?
> The last scare me. They should not, under any
>circumstances, be allowed to hijack this forum, and as Mr Doogar
>rightly points out, some remarks made in this thread have brought this
>out as a very real threat.
What remarks?
>I encourage others to seriously consider
>this possibility. BTW, while browsing WWW last night, I stumbled
>across the South Point High School home page, and was
>starled to recognise several of the more prolific posters on this
>forum on that list. To the best of my knowledge they have *all*
>expressed similar stands on this issue, the intelligent are invited to
>draw their own conclusions....
I must be unusually stupid, but I really don't know what conclusions
to draw? Is this some sort of a South Point conspiracy to hijack the
ng? Now I know why I always had reservations about this school. :)
> Regards,
>
> Santanu
Regards,
Srabani
p.s. I am including the relevant portion of Mr. Raychaudhury's posting.
Hope this helps.
Srabani Banerjee
Rajib Doogar writes:
>Arya Raychaudhuri (AMR) said it well: not everything deserves to be put
>to a vote. I think he is correct.
And who decides what deserves to be put to vote? Mr. Raychowdhury and you?
And why is that correct? Because he says so and you think so?
I do have some problems comprehending your rather long-winded postings.
It would be helpful if you could answer this without resorting to
analogies and metaphors.
>Some ideas are so blatantly silly
>or noxious that they deserve to be strangled at birth. a-m is one of
>them.
Thus spaketh Mr.Doogar. Lesser mortals beg to differ. But we cannot afford
to have a vote, can we?
>scb is a come as you like party. now you are putting in
>frictions that will keep it the clubby chubby place a few people have
>hitherto found it to be.
No, it won't. Even if you say so.
[...]
Srabani
Arnab Gupta
Santanu Bhattacharya writes:
> Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is this supposed to be
>in the sarcastic vein ?
Apni konta mone koren? Ami kintu dutor ayktao chaini| Ami a-m niyeo
discuss kortey chaini, ami shudhu Apratim-er biruddhe ana obhijoguloke
`substantiate' korte bolechhi Rajivbabu-ke|
> When the person writing up the charter and
>a group of other frequent posters start saying things like
>"rule by minority fiat", its high time to start climbing on
>soapboxes!!
Ektu dNaran| Apnar kontatey apotti shob guliye jachhe| Ektu
agey aykta posting-e bollen je apni initially a-m support korchhilen|
Bhalo kotha, to shey proshongo to tulechhilo kichhu regular poster-rai?
Tai to? Tokhono ki ayki apotti chhilo?
> Do you realise Sir, that you might fall foul of the
>moderation police, and that in the future your posts might be
>destined for /dev/null - the garbage can for icon lovers ?
>Do yourself a favour, think this through before berating Mr Doogar for
>his stand on the issue!
All I am for is `Auto-moderation' which seeks to eliminate crossposted
articles. Rest assured, if there is a proposal for moderated newsgroup
I will be the first to oppose it.
>[[[[[[[[[[[[,.........................]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Regards,
Arnab.
Apratim Sarkar
BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Srabani Banerjee) writes:
>It is definitely not my house. There, everybody understands what a
>vote is. And I have not yet heard anyone there say that there are ideas
>that do not merit a vote.
Bachchha manush korte hoi na tai eto baRo baRo katha. Biye hok,
ghaRe ekti tNyete bachchha poruk je katha'i katha'i veto debe,
parbe takhan tar katha felte?
>Srabani
Regards,
Apratim.
--
Paramagati, tomar hashi chokhe Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are
Hridaye neel dheu balo ke rokhe? are my own and shouldn't be construed in
- Bishnu Dey. any way to represent that of my employer.
rajib doogar
Srabani Banerjee (BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: You had supported Mr. Raychaudhury's statement that there are some
: ideas that do not even merit the vote. I am simply asking you who
: is to decide what merits the vote and what does not. You believe
: that a-m does not merit the vote. I believe it does. So in this case,
: who decides?
nobody. look, you propose. I put my view that this should not even
be put up for a vote. perhaps you read my post and agree that yes it
is a bad idea. you can withdraw your proposal. perhaps you think my
points are not right, then you can and should stick to your guns and
start a RFD and then have a vote a vote. I can and should and will
stick to my guns and keep saying this is a bad idea. then there will
be a vote. if people agree with me, they will vote no. if they
disagree they will vote yes. bottom line is that this is campaigning
time -- we are advocating distinct positions. I am opposing it on
grounds, you are defending it on grounds. good. i still cannot be
told not to say that this is not a bad idea that should have been
stangled at birth, never. That is exactly what freedom is all
about. sigh!
: Its correct because you think so. Bujhechhi.
Na. It is MY opinion. it is *in my mind* correct. it need not be
*correct* in the sense of inter-subjective acceptability. ekhono
bojhen ni je shamajik byapare, *baroari* byapare aapni ekta kicchu
bolle aami shetake *boka prolaap* boltei pari. Apni *boka prolap*
biboroni-te apotti oti oboshyoi janate paren, kintu kohonoi bolte
paren na je ami *boka prolap* bolte pari na. ami ki bolbo sheta ami'i
thik korbo to.
: Sure. My participation in this ng, for the past eight months, at least,
: has been slightly more than yours. So I don't think _I_ am in a position
: to forget that this is SCB.
tobu dekhcchen to amake dictator boyan kore deoa holo. apnio shei
dole bhiDe gelen!
rajib
Srabani Banerjee
Rajib Doogar writes:
>Srabani Banerjee (BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>: You had supported Mr. Raychaudhury's statement that there are some
>: ideas that do not even merit the vote. I am simply asking you who
>: is to decide what merits the vote and what does not. You believe
>: that a-m does not merit the vote. I believe it does. So in this case,
>: who decides?
>
>nobody. look, you propose. I put my view that this should not even
>be put up for a vote. perhaps you read my post and agree that yes it
>is a bad idea. you can withdraw your proposal. perhaps you think my
>points are not right, then you can and should stick to your guns and
>start a RFD and then have a vote a vote. I can and should and will
>stick to my guns and keep saying this is a bad idea. then there will
>be a vote. if people agree with me, they will vote no. if they
>disagree they will vote yes.
Simple.
bottom line is that this is campaigning
>time -- we are advocating distinct positions. I am opposing it on
>grounds,
You are opposing the idea of a vote.
>you are defending it on grounds.
I am defending my position that any idea can merit a vote. And,
of course, I am also defending auto-moderation.
> good. i still cannot be
>told not to say that this is not a bad idea that should have been
>stangled at birth, never.
But you have not been told to do anything of that sort. I am just
telling you that yours is a bad idea. I do believe that I have the
right to say that.
>That is exactly what freedom is all
>about. sigh!
:) Why do you sigh? Do you wish freedom had been about something
else.
>: Its correct because you think so. Bujhechhi.
>
>Na. It is MY opinion. it is *in my mind* correct. it need not be
>*correct* in the sense of inter-subjective acceptability. ekhono
>bojhen ni je shamajik byapare, *baroari* byapare aapni ekta kicchu
>bolle aami shetake *boka prolaap* boltei pari. Apni *boka prolap*
>biboroni-te apotti oti oboshyoi janate paren, kintu kohonoi bolte
>paren na je ami *boka prolap* bolte pari na. ami ki bolbo sheta ami'i
>thik korbo to.
For crying out loud, Mr.Doogar, I have never said that you cannot
decide what you want to say. Why do you keep suggesting that I have?
>: Sure. My participation in this ng, for the past eight months, at least,
>: has been slightly more than yours. So I don't think _I_ am in a position
>: to forget that this is SCB.
>
>tobu dekhcchen to amake dictator boyan kore deoa holo. apnio shei
>dole bhiDe gelen!
Apni ki bolte chaichhen je ami apnake `dictator' bolechhi? Ekhon porjonto
bolini, tobe amar mukhe jokhon kotha gNuje dichchhen-i - tokhon shunun.
I believe that saying that an idea (however trivial or stupid it may appear
to be) does not merit a vote is pretty undemocratic.
I know that what I support may be turned down by the majority, and
I am willing to accept that. Are you?
Srabani
S Bhattacharyya
GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Arnab Gupta) writes:
>Rajib Doogar wrote:
[[[[[[[[[[...........]]]]]]]]]]]]
>>Disturbing:
>>: doing away with democratic processes and replacing it with minority
>>: rule by fiat provided by enlightened more-equal members of the
>>: population.
>>First Indranil Dasgupta made a similar remark, then srabani made
>>something similar to that, and now you are making this remark. This
>>is not a correct or logical thing to say. Why are you suggesting that
>>there is something unfair or dictatorial about *my or X's* criticisng
>>*your* proposal?
>For the third time - where has he `suggested that there is something
>unfair or dictatorial'about your or X's* criticising his proposal.
>If he has indeed suggested something`unfair or dictatorial' about you,
>it is with regard to your *position on voting*.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is this supposed to be
in the sarcastic vein ? When the person writing up the charter and
a group of other frequent posters start saying things like
"rule by minority fiat", its high time to start climbing on
soapboxes!! Do you realise Sir, that you might fall foul of the
moderation police, and that in the future your posts might be
destined for /dev/null - the garbage can for icon lovers ?
Do yourself a favour, think this through before berating Mr Doogar for
his stand on the issue!
Santanu
[[[[[[[[[[[[,.........................]]]]]]]]]]]]]
>>regards,
>>rajib
>Regards,
>Arnab.
Indranil DasGupta
Indrani DasGupta (ID2...@american.edu) wrote:
: I am. Nicely.
: Indrani.
Kake? R babu-ke?
Apnake kichhu bolle R babu kintu shanghatik chNechamechi korchhen
ajkaal. Onake ektu shanto hote bolte paren na? Nicely?
GNof-ta oboshyo ebarkar moto chheDe-i din. Akjoner ota
mote pochhondo noy.
Ekta kajer kotha boli? Apni auto-moderator hoye jan. Shomosto
cross-post age apnar baDite jabe. Bounce korar age nijer jonyo du copy
rekhe neben! Puro scb apnar bNa payer buro anguler niche!
Power-ta bhabun!! Group Founder na hote parar akhkhep thakbe na!
Indranil.
S Bhattacharyya
rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu (rajib doogar) writes:
>Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>: I think that Aryababu has made a very convincing case above for
>: doing away with democratic processes and replacing it with minority
>: rule by fiat provided by enlightened more-equal members of the
>: population. It is also very encouraging to see Rajibbabu chiming
>: in at the same note, shedding his doubts (as expressed in SCB a
>: few days back) about whether the demise of any particular individual
>: has endorsed another with royal privileges.
>Apratimbabu:
>Your message is both revealing and disturbing.
>Revealing:
>I think you misunderstand my position else you would never
>mischaracterize it this way. Let me try to explain it simply. I
>found/continue to find the idea of a-m to be noxious. Something that
>i would not ever have suggested. I would have suggested a mailing
>list, a moderated list or some other more private venue where all like
>minded people can get together. Making scb closed is not a worthy
>idea for consideration. It is a shockingly bad idea. *I* find it
>shocking that it comes from people in universities. Can *I* not say
>this? Can I not say this *loudly*?
I had so far been in favour of auto-moderation. However,
Mr Sarkar's views as expressed above has just caused me to reverse my
views on the matter. I still think auto-moderation as proposed is a
good idea, however if the person writing up the charter for the
proposal is in favour of minority fiat, it bodes ill for the future of
my favourite ng. Thank you Mr Doogar for sticking to your guns on this
issue. I am ideologically opposed to a moderated news group. The
initial idea of auto-moderation in its innocuous form had sounded very
appealing. At this point however, I realise that from there on, having
cut the whole ng size down to a few regular contributors, conversion
to a fully moderated, content based newsgroup is a distinct, and
very unattractive possibility. As it now stands, I will certainly vote
no to this idea. I realise that a lot of people are very anxious to
see this go through, for a whole host of different reasons. Many of us
have to download a whole bunch of files just to read a few which are
indeed pertinent to this newgroup. Some of us simply hate to see a
bunch of wacko's despoil this forum with their hate filled garbage, or
with deliberately excerpted news posts to denigrate India or all that
is Indian. Personally, these are the ones I hate the most. Finally
there are those of us who would like to have better control over what
is said, or left unsaid, in this forum.
The last scare me. They should not, under any
circumstances, be allowed to hijack this forum, and as Mr Doogar
rightly points out, some remarks made in this thread have brought this
out as a very real threat. I encourage others to seriously consider
this possibility. BTW, while browsing WWW last night, I stumbled
across the South Point High School home page, and was
starled to recognise several of the more prolific posters on this
forum on that list. To the best of my knowledge they have *all*
expressed similar stands on this issue, the intelligent are invited to
draw their own conclusions....
Regards,
Santanu
>regards,
>rajib
Arnab Gupta
Rajib Doogar wrote:
>Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>: I think that Aryababu has made a very convincing case above for
>: doing away with democratic processes and replacing it with minority
>: rule by fiat provided by enlightened more-equal members of the
>: population. It is also very encouraging to see Rajibbabu chiming
>: in at the same note, shedding his doubts (as expressed in SCB a
>: few days back) about whether the demise of any particular individual
>: has endorsed another with royal privileges.
>Apratimbabu:
>Your message is both revealing and disturbing.
>Revealing:
>I think you misunderstand my position else you would never
>mischaracterize it this way. Let me try to explain it simply. I
>found/continue to find the idea of a-m to be noxious. Something that
>i would not ever have suggested. I would have suggested a mailing
>list, a moderated list or some other more private venue where all like
>minded people can get together. Making scb closed is not a worthy
>idea for consideration. It is a shockingly bad idea. *I* find it
>shocking that it comes from people in universities. Can *I* not say
>this? Can I not say this *loudly*?
I hope you are referring to the last post by Apratim.
Tell me where has Apratim mentioned (or suggested) that you *cannot*
express your `shock' at this `shockingly bad idea' of auto-moderating
SCB.
>Please tell us what is wrong with rajib (or X) expressing their
>strongly held conviction that this is an inappropriate response to a
>minor problem -- one cannot close one's ears in response to filth. I
>find the idea of a bengali group doing this problematic to say the
>very least.
All I understand from Apratim's post is that he has criticized Aryababu's
suggestion (and your conviction in that) that this `shocking' idea of
auto-moderating SCB does not even `merit a vote'. I am asking you once again -
where has Apratim said or suggested that it `is wrong with rajib (or X)
expressing their strongly held conviction that....'?
>Disturbing:
>: doing away with democratic processes and replacing it with minority
>: rule by fiat provided by enlightened more-equal members of the
>: population.
>First Indranil Dasgupta made a similar remark, then srabani made
>something similar to that, and now you are making this remark. This
>is not a correct or logical thing to say. Why are you suggesting that
>there is something unfair or dictatorial about *my or X's* criticisng
>*your* proposal?
For the third time - where has he `suggested that there is something
unfair or dictatorial'about your or X's* criticising his proposal.
If he has indeed suggested something`unfair or dictatorial' about you,
it is with regard to your *position on voting*.
After all that is exactly what a proposal is for is
>it not? Surely in response I can say "this proposal is ill-concieved,
>flawed and should, in the first place, never have been put forth by
>thinking people who favor free speech." what is the mistake on my
>part here?
Who said you have done a mistake? I hope people can criticize or
put forward their views on the matter too? Do you consider this
as suggesting that `you have made a mistake'?
>: It is also very encouraging to see Rajibbabu chiming
>: in at the same note, shedding his doubts (as expressed in SCB a
>: few days back) about whether the demise of any particular individual
>: has endorsed another with royal privileges.
>The question about privileged people arises because a handful of
>people find it hard to read what they find interesting in scb. so
>they are proposing to change the constitution. I was questioning what
>made their preferences so important that they could claim the
>prerogative to convert the charter of a public group?
Well, you do have the right to ask the above question, no one is
questioning that. But do also support the right of others to express
their views on the future course a group might take. And pray tell
me where has someone *claimed* it is his/her/their prerogative to
convert the charter of a public group? I will be obliged if you
site a reference instead of playing around with words. Also,
I think I understand the meaning of the word `claimed'. Do
correct me if I am wrong and I will take back the question.
I find it
>unseemly. I said so. Now John Hall suggests that you try to add a
>moderated group instead of taking scb private. Was that not something
>that was suggested by others on this thread a while before Mr. Hall's
>posting came online?
>
>I *know* that many good people are bothered by the **** we see here.
>Have you seen me post that stuff? Have you seen Amitabhababu post
>that stuff? Have you seen Aryababu post that stuff? No. What makes
>you think we *like* it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What makes you think that we think that you like it?
All I am saying is that taking scb in the
>direction of a-m is not a good solution to the minor problem we are
>facing. In addition I have shown how a determined spammer can get
>around the a-m stricture anyway.
>
>The other thread is simply full of misunderstanding. Perhaps on this
>thread, we can start again towards a logical discussion.
>
>once again I am *not* saying you *cannot* do it.
>i am suggesting we *should* not do it.
>regards,
>rajib
Regards,
Arnab.
Srabani Banerjee
Rajib Doogar writes:
>Srabani Banerjee (BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>: And who decides what deserves to be put to vote? Mr. Raychowdhury and you?
>
>anybody can have their say no? including what he/I said? I said it
>*should* not be put to a vote because there was a proposal to vote on
>it and I gave reasons why I thought it was unworthy of consideration.
>my opinion.
You had supported Mr. Raychaudhury's statement that there are some
ideas that do not even merit the vote. I am simply asking you who
is to decide what merits the vote and what does not. You believe
that a-m does not merit the vote. I believe it does. So in this case,
who decides?
>what is your problem here?
See above.
>by this token no proposal can
>be objected to?
Why so?
>what is this -- your house or scb?
It is definitely not my house. There, everybody understands what a
vote is. And I have not yet heard anyone there say that there are ideas
that do not merit a vote.
>: And why is that correct? Because he says so and you think so?
>obviously yes.
Its correct because you think so. Bujhechhi.
you don't have to agree. argue your case.
>critique/lampoon/ridicule my case if you can. but do not question my
>right to question/comment.
I have not.
>this is scb remember?
Sure. My participation in this ng, for the past eight months, at least,
has been slightly more than yours. So I don't think _I_ am in a position
to forget that this is SCB.
>: I do have some problems comprehending your rather long-winded postings.
>: It would be helpful if you could answer this without resorting to
>: analogies and metaphors.
>
>I pity you your handicap, but let it never be said that a Doogar
>failed to oblige a lady.
In that case, why don't you please answer my question?
>: Thus spaketh Mr.Doogar. Lesser mortals beg to differ. But we cannot afford
>: to have a vote, can we?
>
>sigh! cannot is not what I said.
I did not say you did. I was merely asking you a question.
>*should not* is what I *did* say.
>read. consult a dictionary. take your time since as you admit you
>have a handicap. but please do not be deliberately obtuse.
Cute. Now, could we get back to the point, please?
>ekta kotha kobar bolbo?
Apnar jotobar morji. Ghure-phire ek-i kothay apnar jotobar ashte
ichchhe kore ashun, keu to apotti koreni.
should mane can noy. can korte parlei je
>should korte hobe ta noy.
E'rom kotha to keu boleni, Sir. Shudhu kothay `should' hobe ar kothay
`should not' hobe, sheta kibhaabe decide kora hobe, shei proshno kora
hoyechhe.
dakati-r udahoron diyecchi tai. kintu na
>paren argument bujhte, na paren udahoron. ki bojhen bhai?
Onek kichhui bujhina. Jemon apni kothay kothay eto udahoron kano dyan -
argument-er shathe udahoron-ke guliye phyalen na to?
>bujhecchen?
Apni?
Srabani
rajib doogar
Srabani Banerjee (BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: And who decides what deserves to be put to vote? Mr. Raychowdhury and you?
anybody can have their say no? including what he/I said? I said it
*should* not be put to a vote because there was a proposal to vote on
it and I gave reasons why I thought it was unworthy of consideration.
my opinion. what is your problem here? by this token no proposal can
be objected to? what is this -- your house or scb?
: And why is that correct? Because he says so and you think so?
obviously yes. you don't have to agree. argue your case.
critique/lampoon/ridicule my case if you can. but do not question my
right to question/comment. this is scb remember?
: I do have some problems comprehending your rather long-winded postings.
: It would be helpful if you could answer this without resorting to
: analogies and metaphors.
I pity you your handicap, but let it never be said that a Doogar
failed to oblige a lady.
: Thus spaketh Mr.Doogar. Lesser mortals beg to differ. But we cannot afford
: to have a vote, can we?
sigh! cannot is not what I said. *should not* is what I *did* say.
read. consult a dictionary. take your time since as you admit you
have a handicap. but please do not be deliberately obtuse.
ekta kotha kobar bolbo? should mane can noy. can korte parlei je
should korte hobe ta noy. dakati-r udahoron diyecchi tai. kintu na
paren argument bujhte, na paren udahoron. ki bojhen bhai?
bujhecchen?
rajib
rajib doogar
Indranil Dasgupta (dgu...@budoe.bu.edu) wrote:
: Amar boktobyo: Onyoder-o shokti nei. Tara kichhu shohoj shidhdhir poth
: khNujchhe.
er uttore goDa thekei bola hocche je shohoj shiddhir poth dekhano ba
asha deoa ba asha kora nitantoi bhul. Bola hocche je jodi mailing
list-e jaoa hoy, shiddhi keno nirban paoa jete paare. usenet'e asha
korben na.
: 3. Amar protibedon: Apni-o beshi baniye uth-te paren ni. Amra to kon
: chhar! Tai bole ki balir dana gaye lagchhe na?
kintu *amar* gaye je laghcche na, tai *ami* banacchi na. kotobar bolbo?
: Shudhu muktor chasher proshonge jodi ami kichhu "illogical" bole thaki
: doya kore sheta dekhan. Noile jete din.
amar protibedon: *apnar* kacche mukto chash durlobh holeo bolte paaren
na je bali-r danaTake taDiye dite hobe. onekei daNt kamDe shojhyo
korcchen, apnio korun. noyto list hok, moderated group hok. monbancchito
moderator kore nin. auto-mod kore nin. ja khushi tai kore nin. just
leave scb the way it is. choice up, not down -- that's all that is being
said.
: 6. "Hashbo na kNadbo?" ei montobyo-ti ami korechhilaam shompurno bhinno
: proshonge, apni ei kothati bolar por : "Nobody has said the charter has
: been violated yet we see a move to auto-mod."
abar shei eki kotha: bollam je hajarta montobyo kora hoyecche je omuk
post-e charter violate hocche. exact analysis kore ektao udahoron
deoa hole, ami sheta miss korecchi, shikar korlam. udhahoron diye
dekhiye din je violate hoyecche. eishab byapare to niyom tai na?
you allege violations so please analyze a posting you dislike and show
where the violation happpens. thta is all I ask.
: Kintu apni mene nichchhen je "..no one really has the time or the energy
mancchi only that *you* *say* *you think so*. no more, no less.
: Dekhun apnar lekhar age ei thread-e ontoto pNachjon "group founder"
: a-m shomorthon kore likhechhen.
tahole amar original ukti "including group founders" accurate ei bolcchen?
tobe kano apotti korecchilen age?
: Apni ki ekti loker-i pNachti benaami account dhore niyechhen?
mone-o ashe ni. apni ki e-bhabei bhaben?
: Naki eNder modhye akjonkei shotyikar-er "founder" bole mone koren?
eta-o mone ashe ni. apnar mone elo kano jante pari ki?
: Shojashuji-i jiggesh kori - Apni ki Sutapa Bhattacharya-r dike angul
: dekhachchhen?
na. e proshno korlen kano? amar kon lekha theke eTar abhash pelen?
bhalo kore bolcchi, jamon apni onyo ek post-e bolte bolecchilen --
apni kano Smt. Bhattacharya'r nam korlen? (Smt. juDlam karon onekei
tNake di bolen) jate shobai jante pare? jotodur jani onar shathe
konodino direct contact hoyni, tai I am compleatly mystified. na ki
er modhye subtle ekta kicchu royecche?
: prosno : kar chukaitachhe? Amader prosno: Apni ki shob bishoyei `karo
: chulkaitachhe' ei shondeho koren?
hNya. na chulkaile shacharachar keho upadrab koren na. tobe chulkani
je nitanto byektigoto labher jonye-i hobe sheta bolcchi na.
: Amader "motive" to amra janiyechhi.
hNya - nijer monojogya posting khuNjite koshto hoitecche. kintu eta
apni nijei motive bolcchen, ami etake throughout objective ba uddeshyo
hisabe dhore niyei ja bolar bolcchi. apnar motive'a amar bindu matro
interest nei, believe it or not. apni amar ke ar ami ba apanr ke je
eke oporer motive niye du second shomoy noshto korbo? Objective'a
objection. ebare bujhlen?
: Sheti apnar bishwashjogyo mone hole "chulkanir" khobor pete kano ato
bishwashjogyo ebong chulkani simultaneously dutoi hoite pare na kano?
: Then why bring up "at least one group founder .." etc?
I originally did not. You objected to "handful of prolific posters
including group founders", so since I knew that at least one was involved,
and I do not care to carry in my head who is or is not a founder, I
reduced the count to at least one. Didn't want to point fingers unless
called for. Now you say several were involved. so it seems that you
carried on a long and futile argument about "founder" vs. "founders" etc.
when several founders *were* involved in pro-a-m proposal. sigh!
: Why not just say that the proposal to a-m sucks.
I did. in effect.
: Why call names (or make fuzzy allusions to people)?
I used a handy label which conveys the sense of the object being
described perfectly and is completely accurate to boot. Handful.
Prolific. Posters. Including. Group. Founders. What is fuzzy here?
What is inaccurate? what names do I call here?
: Why talk of "itch"?
The irritation of a handful of people at not being able to easily find
interesting (to them) posts and thus proposing increasing, however
minimally, frictions to the public is definitely an itch.
: Why even say a "blatant attempt"? The
: adjective "blatant" says nothing about the proposal itself.
It perfectly captures the weak logic and *my* judgement as to the
undesirable nature of the proposal. I prefer blatant to sucks. Your
mileage may vary. Not only that bhadro bhabe-i proshno tola hoyecchilo.
Tokhon RFD dekhano aar goNph-chash protshahon kar posting-e dekha
giyecchilo? Shudhu ami ki tate birokoto hoyecchi? Amitabha Lahiri'r
posting'ta tule dhorbo? Ei shob ghotecche tokhon-i ami chashe nemecchi.
tar age chupchap poDcchilam, kono abhijog kori ni, kauke birokto korini.
shojashoji uttor dyan ni, RFD dekhiyecchen taer pore abar akhon amake
kopchacchen?
: It only qualifies the methods or motives of people.
Na re baba. Bhebe dekhun je it can equally well qualify objectives
(just as well as motives) -- the proposed method of achieving the
proposed objective of shiddhi are both equally blatantly problematic.
no motive occurs in this parsing. motive is an unobservable.
objective you can state and I can verify if the proposed solution is
likely to achieve said objective. hence emphasis must be on
objective, not motive. apni bare bare "motive" behbe bhoDkacchen
jekhane ami shudhu "objective" niye taDpacchi. ki kore bojhabo apnake
motive ar objectiver parthokyo?
: The method has been completely democratic.
never denied this. however note what ARC said.
: I haven't seen much spamming in scb. The problems some scb netters face
: are the excessive and irrelevant flame wars that are cross posted from
: sci and that go on and on and on.
sheta spamming noy? irrelevant jinish flame hok ar jai hok abantar
cross post korata spamming noy? jargon file theke dekhe debo? nin:
spam: vt. 1. (deleted -rkd) 2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded
with irrelevant or inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup
with as little as one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g. asking
"What do you think of abortion" on soc.women). This is often done
with {cross-post}ing (e.g. any message which is cross-posted to
alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost
invariably spam both groups. (jargon file 3.2.0 21 mar 1995)
cross-posting *irrelevant* flames *is* spamming *by defintion*.
technical shobder mane niye jodi kusti korte hoy tahole ar ki bolbo?
Ami goDa thekei shondeho korecchi je scb'te spamming niye problem
hocche tai to barbar bolcchi je determined spamming cannot really be
jammed by auto-moderation. kotobar bojhabo?
: at some point. Or they could be content with Mr. Doogar deciding what
: they should discuss and what not, what they should opine on and what
: not, what they should put to vote and what not.
huh? look, you can't make/support a proposal to change
the fundamental character of a "public" group, to change its
constitution in a repressive (yes it may only technically be
repressive and may be respectable and legitimate in someone's eyes,
but it is towards restriction, not away from it) and then accuse *me*
of trying to be a dictator. By your own evidence I do not post much.
So obviously, I neither flame nor spam nor try to participate in
dictating what can or cannot be done.
I have pointed out that your proposal has logical holes. I have also
pointed out how a spammer *can* get around auto-mod. I jumped in when
there were a bunch of non-replies with the most cryptic and dismissive one
being yours. My post came after this and at that stage I had every right
to say what I said. Now *you* throw up your hands and accuse me of
wanting to dictate direction to the group. At the same time you have also
belabored me for my absence from the group. Which is it? Make up your
mind please.
If I stand up and complain when you want to do something to the
fundamental basis of the group, then you play the injured party and
make this utterly baseless comment. I hope if anybody else is still
following this, they draw their own conclusions about my motivation
and desire for dictatorship. For my part, I have tried to engage
every point on which I could clarify -- if you have not the time or
patience to work through the details of a complex discussion, and say
dhuttor emni ke temni, it says something about you, not about others.
regards,
rajib
S Bhattacharyya
BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Srabani Banerjee) writes:
>Santanu Bhattacharya writes:
>>rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu (rajib doogar) writes:
>>
>>>Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>>
>>>: I think that Aryababu has made a very convincing case above for
>>>: doing away with democratic processes and replacing it with minority
>>>: rule by fiat provided by enlightened more-equal members of the
>>>: population. It is also very encouraging to see Rajibbabu chiming
>>>: in at the same note, shedding his doubts (as expressed in SCB a
>>>: few days back) about whether the demise of any particular individual
>>>: has endorsed another with royal privileges.
>[...]
>> I had so far been in favour of auto-moderation. However,
>>Mr Sarkar's views as expressed above has just caused me to reverse my
>>views on the matter. I still think auto-moderation as proposed is a
>>good idea, however if the person writing up the charter for the
>>proposal is in favour of minority fiat,
>But he isn't! I would request you to re-read what Mr.Sarkar has written.
>He actually says that what Aryababu writes implies a `minority rule by
>fiat'. The `person writing the charter' has been constantly asking for
>a vote to be taken. What could be more democratic than that?
Pardon me if I am missing the obvious, but "I think that
Aryababu has made a very convincing case above for doing away with
democratic" seems to mean only one thing, that Mr Sarkar supports the
views espoused therein. Do please correct me if I am somehow missing
the boat here.
>>it bodes ill for the future of
>>my favourite ng. Thank you Mr Doogar for sticking to your guns on this
>>issue. I am ideologically opposed to a moderated news group.
>So am I. But nobody has asked for a moderated newsgroup. Mr.Doogar did
>suggest it once, but I don't think he wants it either.
>People have asked for an auto-moderated newsgroup to eliminate cross-
>posting.
>>The
>>initial idea of auto-moderation in its innocuous form had sounded very
>>appealing. At this point however, I realise that from there on, having
>>cut the whole ng size down to a few regular contributors, conversion
>>to a fully moderated, content based newsgroup is a distinct, and
>>very unattractive possibility.
>I fail to follow this a-m = few regular contributors logic. Would
>a-m make it impossible for some people to post?
I think not, though some have been known to complain that they do not
receive several other groups which they somehow access through scb.
That however, IMHO, does not justify opposition to a well intentioned
move to switch over to an a-m forum.
A-M would however considerably cut down overall volume, and
hence readership. That would make it very easy for a determinded
individual, or group of individuals, to vote for, and pass, full
context based moderation.
>And, besides, even without auto-moderation, I still seem to find
>only a `few regular contributors' (some of them being the habitual
>cross-posters) to this ng. Which is rather unfortunate.
>>As it now stands, I will certainly vote
>>no to this idea. I realise that a lot of people are very anxious to
>>see this go through, for a whole host of different reasons. Many of us
>>have to download a whole bunch of files just to read a few which are
>>indeed pertinent to this newgroup. Some of us simply hate to see a
>>bunch of wacko's despoil this forum with their hate filled garbage, or
>>with deliberately excerpted news posts to denigrate India or all that
>>is Indian. Personally, these are the ones I hate the most. Finally
>>there are those of us who would like to have better control over what
>>is said, or left unsaid, in this forum.
> But that is not possible, right? Not, unless we allow it?
We are not always around to pass judgement on it. There are
times the year when hardly a single post appears here over extended
periods of time. If a-m is applied, a lot of people who read it now
because it also provides them with a glimpse of what's going on
in other groups, might consider unsubscribing from scb. This decrease
in readership might be crucial in any future attempts by concerned
individuals towards full moderation. After all, my holy cow might very
well be your beef!!
[[[[[[[[[[........]]]]]]]]]]
>>I encourage others to seriously consider
>>this possibility. BTW, while browsing WWW last night, I stumbled
>>across the South Point High School home page, and was
>>starled to recognise several of the more prolific posters on this
>>forum on that list. To the best of my knowledge they have *all*
>>expressed similar stands on this issue, the intelligent are invited to
>>draw their own conclusions....
>I must be unusually stupid, but I really don't know what conclusions
>to draw? Is this some sort of a South Point conspiracy to hijack the
>ng? Now I know why I always had reservations about this school. :)
And why not, after all they had a murderer as a Principal!
S Bhattacharyya
GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Arnab Gupta) writes:
>Santanu Bhattacharya writes:
>> Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is this supposed to be
>>in the sarcastic vein ?
Prathamei dukhho prakash korchhi, transliteration kora amar
pakhhe khoob difficult, tai english e respond korchhi...
>Apni konta mone koren? Ami kintu dutor ayktao chaini| Ami a-m niyeo
>discuss kortey chaini, ami shudhu Apratim-er biruddhe ana obhijoguloke
>`substantiate' korte bolechhi Rajivbabu-ke|
Thanks for clearing that up.
>> When the person writing up the charter and
>>a group of other frequent posters start saying things like
>>"rule by minority fiat", its high time to start climbing on
>>soapboxes!!
> Ektu dNaran| Apnar kontatey apotti shob guliye jachhe| Ektu
>agey aykta posting-e bollen je apni initially a-m support korchhilen|
>Bhalo kotha, to shey proshongo to tulechhilo kichhu regular poster-rai?
>Tai to? Tokhono ki ayki apotti chhilo?
Not at the time, since they had not made remarks to the effect that
they support a minority fiat...
>> Do you realise Sir, that you might fall foul of the
>>moderation police, and that in the future your posts might be
>>destined for /dev/null - the garbage can for icon lovers ?
>>Do yourself a favour, think this through before berating Mr Doogar for
>>his stand on the issue!
>All I am for is `Auto-moderation' which seeks to eliminate crossposted
>articles. Rest assured, if there is a proposal for moderated newsgroup
>I will be the first to oppose it.
Unfortunately, a deliberate attempt to cut down on readership
also means less people to do the objecting if and when the necessity
arises. That is my current fear about scb a-m.
Regards,
Santanu
>>[[[[[[[[[[[[,.........................]]]]]]]]]]]]]
>Regards,
>Arnab.
S Bhattacharyya
With apologies to nettors I've been privileged to converse with in this
thread, time constraints dictate that I must now retire for a while. I will
however keep time to the music here, so carry on one and all...
Regards,
Santanu