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
Arya Raychaudhuri
kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
>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:
>: >: >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
Although the days of Da Vinci are long gone, the most successful
engineering professionals often have multidisciplinary grasp.
Hence, cross posting between different engineering groups should
be valid.
rgds
ARC
>: Regards
>: ARC
>: >regards,
>: >kulbir singh
Prantik Mazumder
In article <31EF93...@shiva.3dem.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu>,
Sharmila Mukherjee <s...@shiva.3dem.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>Automoderation niye ayto torkatorki, hoi espaar noi ospaar; kintu ta
>shotte-o keu alternative kono solution-er kotha bhaabchen na. Eta dekhe
>shotti ektu obaak laagche. Aamra ki shotti-ee ayto close-minded hoye
>gechi? Aami shobaike onurodh korbo, jNara onek kichu bolechen ebong
>jNara aykhono obdhi kichu bolen ni, ektu bhebe dekhte aei byapare.
>Aykhono kintu haate shomoi aache.
>
>Regards,
> Sharmila
>--
>Dept. of Biochemistry
>Room 376A
>
>Ph:(713)798-8432
I am back...
one question:
1. What's Auto moderation?
If it's about blocking cross-postings then:
As I mentioned loooong ago it doesn't make any difference to me whether
SCB allows cross-posting or not...But personally the whole idea seems
quite juvenile...
I can't comment on what others should do, but skipping 'don't want to
read this' mails is not too difficult for me...I am not forced to read
every single article, am I?
Regards
Prantik
PS: Sharmila, Bongo-Sommelon-o ki Auto-Moderated?
--
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
Apratim Sarkar
rayc...@sfu.ca (Arya Raychaudhuri) writes:
>asa...@us.oracle.com (Apratim Sarkar) writes:
>
>
>>Aryababu bolechhen:
>
>>>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.
>
>> 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.
>
>Ei kheyechhe re! Founder-babur leje pa poDechhe! :-)
Mon keRe niyechhen Aryababu, mon keRe niyechhen!
>By the way, one does not apply the democratic process to every possible
>idea, I guess. That was the essence of my suggestion as quoted above.
One does not, but in any _public_ fora one _may_. And, that option
_may not_ be taken away from them.
Unless we abolish democracy. And you have made a very convincing
case for doing so, I must note.
>I did not welcome the idea of highhandedness in making such decisions
>that are more appropriate for voting.
Guru, eta ki holo? Apni gomvirbhabe bole dilen some idea's do not
even merit a vote. Ami chyala habar taal khNujchhi, omni bhokki?
>>>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?:-)
>> ^^^^^^
>> Is this an argument for or against moderation?
>
>Against. I meant to say that many nettors represent interest groups.
>Such as IIT KGP, SPS, religious groups etc. Hence it is not difficult
>to mobilize a large section of the members of their respective groups
>to gather votes. That is, the voters no longer remain free thinking
>individuals. Their group affinity will dominate the democratic process.
Eta ekdam thik bolechhen. Lok'e vote deba'r age Aryababu'r kachh
theke "free-thinking" e'i certificate'ti nite bhulben na. Noile kintu
apnar vote disqualify kore deowa habe. IITKGP ebang SPS'r SCB a-m
kore deowa'r chakranta nipat jaak!
Achchha Aryababu, IITKGP ar SPS e byapar'ta elo ki kore? Ami SPS ar
IITKGP'r chhatro bole? Dekhun ekhon obdhi e'i thread'e IITKGP ar SPS'r
ami chhaRa ar keu to bishesh vocal hoini, IITK ebang SPS'r Shububabu
a-m'r badole kill-file use korte bolechhen.
Ta, Brown University baad gelo keno? Computer Science. e'i discipline
in general?
>This amounts to booth capture and rigging.
Absolutely. Booth capture ar rigging'r moto vote'r byapare kono
special interest group'e inclusion (jemon dhorun political parties,
ki organized labor) be-aini kore deowa uchit.
>And the few individuals
>who just don't represent anyone else would be crushed.
I.e., jader mat'r shange majority'r maat millo na, tara jhule gelo.
Which is precisely why we need to abolish the democratic process and
introduce minority decision-making by fiat.
Down with the proponents of resolving the a-m proposal by vote!
>I term these invisible group activities over private e_mail/mailing
>lists etc. as "subway" activities. They can potentially sabotage
>the "highway" voting process.
In fact USENET RFD/CFV process'e je newsgroup'e post kara hoi appeal'
guli, mailing list'eo post kara hoi, that should be banned as well.
For, it is quite clear that any newsgroup or mailing list represents
a special interest group and hence are not worthy of a "free-thinker"
certificate from Aryababu.
I urge Aryababu to take this to news.groups.
>rgds
>ARC
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.
Arnab Gupta
Rajib Doogar wrote:
>Arnab Gupta (GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
><snip>
>why I a(rajib doogar) am complaining about Apratimbabu's suggestions that:
Hold a minute. Do you think you restricted yourself just to that complaining
part? I am again jotting down below parts of your queries to Apratim.
Query 1.
"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."
Query 2.
"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?"
Query 3.
"I was questioning what
made their preferences so important that they could claim the
prerogative to convert the charter of a public group?"
Query 4.
"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?"
>he asks:
>: 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.
>why should i do that? that is *not* my point.
I told you at the beginning of my article that `I hope you are reponding
to Apratim's last post' - right? You have confirmed that above also:
"why I a(rajib doogar) am complaining about Apratimbabu's suggestions that:"
Now here goes your argument:
*************************************************************************
>my point of objection to Apratimbabus's statement is:
>: >: 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
>Apratimbabu's statement is that:
>I think that A has made a very convincing case above for {x} and
>replacing it with {y}. It is also very encouraging to see C chiming
>at the same note.
>Rajib urges that Apratimbabu is being ironic here. He is meaning the
>opposite of what he is formally stating. In effect he is saying:
>I think that A has *not* made a very convincing case above for {x} and
>replacing it with {y}. It is also *not* very encouraging to see C chiming
>at the same note.
>footnote: here {x} = democratic etc... {y} = fiat etc.
>The implication is that (bhalo kore poDben)
>A suggested replacing {x} with {y} with unconvincing arguments. C
>supports the same poor arguments that A makes.
>The fact being of course that B and C merely reject applying procedure
>{x} to proposal {P}. Nowhere have *B or C* proposed {y}. Apratimbabu
>is implying that A and C are saying {y}. That is what is
>objectionable. I cannot let this false statement pass unchallenged.
>It is poor logic. It is objectionable mischaracterization of A and
>C's position. It paints A and C as claiming {y} when they do not. It
>is poor taste. It is poor morality. It is a {that whose name if
>taken invokes Goodwin's law}-style distortion. The poor gentleman
>Aryababu who appears to me from reading his posts to be a democratic
>soul is being called a fiatist by implication. Then by association I
>am being smeared.
*********************************************************************
So, let me sum up the way I have understood it:
1. You think Aryababu's arguement here refers to a particular case,
not a general one as Apratim has suggested.
2. You think Apratim has wrongly accused you, too, because you have
supported Aryababu's views.
Good, now please go back to the four queries from your response
that I have quoted above and substantiate them by quoting Apratim.
>And then *I* am the one accused of oposhonghskriti by j random poster.
If someone accuses you of `oposhongoshkriti' because of this, I definitely
don't support his viewpoint.
>wow! scb-moderation jindabad!
UNhu, incorrect. Boltei jodi hoi taholey
`scb-automoderation jindabad' bolun!
>: 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....'?
>as you realize, that is not my complain.
Good, so you did accuse Apratim of saying/suggesting something that
he did not, right?
> you have every right to say
>"Rajib you have no right to say this should not be put to a vote." I
>have no right to stop you from saying "Rajib you have no right to say
>that this should not be put to a vote." Everybody has the right to
>say all they like. But the truth. Not lies. Not implications that
>are plainly smear campaigns.
Have you considered a second possibilty Mr. Doogar - Apratim may have
misunderstood your viewpoint? I did not know one can accuse another person
on that basis!
>: 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*.
>for the third time I submit to you, this is not my point.
And again for the n-th time, who were those four queries directed to?
Will not that let one to believe that Apratim does not believe in
freedom of speech' for others?
my point is
>mischaracterization. that is disturbing. disturbing because a less
>charitable soul might suspect Apratimbabu of ulterior motives. But I
>do not accuse him of that I say he has misunderstood my position. I
>explain my position. I find he describes me as chiming in with
>Aryababu, which is factually correct on his part. Ergo, in defending
>myself, I *have* to defend Aryababu. I am not Aryababus chamcha,
>belcha, khunti, jhorna, grad student, childhood buddy, college mitro,
>paid agent, shadow or alter ego. I am not his ghost account. I am
>me. Others on the net will vouch for my real existence as a seperate
>entity from Aryababu. I am defending him to defend myself. Because
>Apratimbabu has first implicated him in {y} and then by extension, me.
>Aryababu may be too gentlemanly to participate here. I will not take
>this lying down. Hence my protest.
I think you too are commiting the same mistake as you accuse Apratim
of doing. Please read what you have written above and I request you
not to malign opposing viewpoint by colouring it with your imagination.
>: 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'?
>First question: no answer. second question: absolutely. third
>question: no. I do not.
>: 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
>100%
>: 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,
>by making the proposal. actions louder than words.
The proposal seeks to change the future course of action. The RFD
part is all there to discuss matters and change the suggestions.
Tell me where does the claim to someone having `prerogative' in this
matter come from. Will you tell the same about anyone who first raises
this matter?
>: I think I understand the meaning of the word `claimed'. Do
>: correct me if I am wrong and I will take back the question.
>please think of what I have said above.
Regards,
Arnab.
Arnab Gupta
Arya Raychowdhury wrote:
>Although the days of Da Vinci are long gone, the most successful
>engineering professionals often have multidisciplinary grasp.
>Hence, cross posting between different engineering groups should
>be valid.
So, first we admit the necessity for the `multidisciplinary'
part, right? Now, nobody is denying the necessity for cross-cultural
discussion. Also, cross-posting is the best tool for that no doubt (though
definitely not the only tool). But when this tool is used freely to
spread all sorts of views which are not even remotely connected
to the purpose of a particular group, we ought to think about it, right?
Now there can be three responses to this. First, the articles that
I am talking about may in fact be connected to the purpose of this
newsgroup. I do not know your view, but even the other oppsers of a-m
think they are not. Second, to modify the charter so that it can accomodate
the views in those articles (after all, why not, if the majority wants).
Third, if you do not agree to both of the above, devise a method to counter
those articles. Some of the nettors have decided for auto-moderation.
Please note it does not seek to eliminate any point of view, but only
seeks a change in the format of posting. If you think this is `Ethnic
Cleansing', as you mentioned in an earlier article, do put forward
your views. I think questioning why some other nettors are going for
a constitutional way to solve the problem, is not the way to go.
Regards,
Arnab.
Srabani Banerjee
Sharmila Mukherjee writes:
>Automoderation niye ayto torkatorki, hoi espaar noi ospaar; kintu ta
>shotte-o keu alternative kono solution-er kotha bhaabchen na.
Sharmila-di, alternative-ta ki? Ekta suggested hoyechhilo - cross-
poster ke shobai mile e-mail kora. Eta jodi apnar practical mone-o hoy,
(amar monet hoyna, kano pore bolchhi) tahole-o ki eta
onyay julum noy?
Practical noy ei karon-e je cross-poster-er jonyo ekta serious
problem pose korte gele joto lok-er e-mail kora dorkar apni
oto lok paben na. SCB-te motamuti kojon regularly lekhe bole apnar
dharona? JNara SCB-tei lekhen na tNara regularly cross-poster
taDate e-mail korben, eta apni bishwash koren? JNara SCB-te
lekhen tNarao je korben e'rom to kono kotha nei. Ei dhorun, ami
to konodin korbona.
Ar, alternative khNojar proshno to nishchoi ei karon-e je a-m-er
idea-ta apnar bhalo laage ni. Kano bhalo laage ni?
Eta dekhe
>shotti ektu obaak laagche. Aamra ki shotti-ee ayto close-minded hoye
>gechi?
Auto-moderation manet close-mindedness kano?
Aami shobaike onurodh korbo, jNara onek kichu bolechen ebong
>jNara aykhono obdhi kichu bolen ni, ektu bhebe dekhte aei byapare.
>Aykhono kintu haate shomoi aache.
Regards,
Srabani
Arnab Gupta
Arya Raychaudhury wrote:
>asa...@us.oracle.com (Apratim Sarkar) writes:
>>Aryababu bolechhen:
>>>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.
>> 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.
>Ei kheyechhe re! Founder-babur leje pa poDechhe! :-)
>By the way, one does not apply the democratic process to every possible
>idea, I guess. That was the essence of my suggestion as quoted above.
>I did not welcome the idea of highhandedness in making such decisions
>that are more appropriate for voting.
Well, Aryababu name an alternative method to voting in solving a
debate in a public forum like SCB. From your posts it seems you are
all for free speech. What I cannot understand is how you can you take
selective positions with respect to a democratic system.
>>>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?:-)
>> ^^^^^^
>> Is this an argument for or against moderation?
>Against. I meant to say that many nettors represent interest groups.
>Such as IIT KGP, SPS, religious groups etc. Hence it is not difficult
>to mobilize a large section of the members of their respective groups
>to gather votes. That is, the voters no longer remain free thinking
>individuals. Their group affinity will dominate the democratic process.
>This amounts to booth capture and rigging. And the few individuals
>who just don't represent anyone else would be crushed.
>I term these invisible group activities over private e_mail/mailing
>lists etc. as "subway" activities. They can potentially sabotage
>the "highway" voting process.
So that is your ground for opposition - you think there are groups
that would `rig' elections.
For your kind information, I am neither from SPS, nor from IITKGP.
And rest assured, I do not belong to any religious group. About
the others who have supported a-m, tell me how many of them do you
know who belongs to those mystical SPS or IITKGP groups ?
Regards,
Arnab.
S Bhattacharyya
>: engineering professionals often have multidisciplinary grasp.
>: Hence, cross posting between different engineering groups should
>: be valid.
>
>: ARC
To those who think a-m will not change readership, I present
Mr Singh. He is one of the most prolific cross posters here, yet he
obviously has taken the time to read SCB for and of itself, as evident
from his contribution here. Since this thread is confined to scb, his
interest reflects his interest in the future of this ng per se,
one wishes others would take a similar, (desirable ? :-) interest.
Regards,
Santanu
>I am sorry. I didn't realize that Mr. Raychoudhuri was objecting
>only to auto-moderation. I got off track by one of his postings in which
>he wrote:
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>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.
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>I thought he was opposed to the creation of special interest groups.
>
>I apologize.
>
>regards,
>
>kulbir singh
Srabani Banerjee
Santanu Bhattacharya writes:
>>> 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.
>> May I suggest that you are making the mistake of taking his
>>words literally?
> I have been reading Mr Sarkar since before the formation of
>this forum and in my personal view he has always had a WYSIWYG form of
>authorship.
In this case, though, you must have been wrong, as Apratim Sarkar's posting
on this matter suggests.
>If you will pardon a personal observation, sarcasm and
>double entendre seems more your forte.
Thank you!
[...]
>>On the basis of what has been written till date in this thread, I
>>don't think your fear is justified. And, in case, moderation is
>>ever suggested, I'm counting on you to oppose it. There will be
>>others to follow, believe me.
> We do not all have the same faith in humanity, Ms Banerjee. I am
>cursed with cynicism of a high degree and am loth to see moderation of
>any form at all,
This must be a recent development, because in your first posting in this
thread you had said that you were not, initially, opposed to the idea of
auto-moderation. In fact, the reason that you gave for changing your position
was Apratim's posting - and many of us, including Apratim himself, have
pointed out that you misunderstood him.
>even if that means having to tolerate this blight of
>gibberish spouting baboons despoiling the cybescape of this forum.
regards,
Srabani
S Bhattacharyya
GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Arnab Gupta) writes:
>> 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.
>I do not understand how a-m will reduce readership. Do you think the
>people who regularly cross-post articles to SCB go through it?
Some do, I believe. Mr Bhatia's contributions to this thread
appear to indicate that, he at least, does take an interest in the future
of this forum. If memory serves me right, he used to be one of the most
prolific cross posters here.
regards,
Santanu
>Regards,
>Arnab.
Indranil DasGupta
Srabani Banerjee (BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: 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?
:-) Perhaps we should have a vote on whether to have "the vote". But
then, why not go a step further and take a vote on whether to take a
vote on whether to take "the vote"? Or may be another step further and
..
Who decides *this*?
Case-ta porsihkar korte giye aro jhuliye dilaam naki? Sar jo tera
chakra-ye... aur dil duba jaye..
.gotta go...
Indranil.
S Bhattacharyya
BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Srabani Banerjee) writes:
>Santanu Bhattacharya writes:
>> We do not all have the same faith in humanity, Ms Banerjee. I am
>>cursed with cynicism of a high degree and am loth to see moderation of
>>any form at all,
>This must be a recent development, because in your first posting in this
>thread you had said that you were not, initially, opposed to the idea of
>auto-moderation. In fact, the reason that you gave for changing your position
Ah! Allow me, if you will, to correct this apparent ambiguity.
Initially I had considered a-m a form of corrective technique to force
folks to follow the stated charter of scb, which I thought at the time
was a good thing. I had not considered the consequent drop in
readership or the attendant risk of group hijack inherent therein.
This is why, I have now come to regard a-m as a censorship threat,
rather than a corrective tool.
>was Apratim's posting - and many of us, including Apratim himself, have
>pointed out that you misunderstood him.
I stand corrected, though I must say it took Mr Sarkar's
statement to the effect to clarify the issue. However, the spectre of
censorship, once raised, is not that easily dispelled. While I
sympathize with those in favour because of the various reasons
espoused by the pro camp, I have fallen pray to my own fears of
censorship.
Regards,
Santanu
>regards,
>Srabani
Kulbir Singh Bhatia
S Bhattacharyya (san...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
: >
: >: Although the days of Da Vinci are long gone, the most successful
: >: engineering professionals often have multidisciplinary grasp.
: >: Hence, cross posting between different engineering groups should
: >: be valid.
: >
: >: rgds
: >: ARC
: To those who think a-m will not change readership, I present
: Mr Singh. He is one of the most prolific cross posters here, yet he
: obviously has taken the time to read SCB for and of itself, as evident
: from his contribution here. Since this thread is confined to scb, his
: interest reflects his interest in the future of this ng per se,
: one wishes others would take a similar, (desirable ? :-) interest.
: Regards,
: Santanu
I love Bengalis. A person raised in South Asia must take interest
in Bengal.
What Bengal thinks today, India would think tomorrow.
regards,
kulbir singh
: >I am sorry. I didn't realize that Mr. Raychoudhuri was objecting
S Bhattacharyya
kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
>S Bhattacharyya (san...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>I love Bengalis. A person raised in South Asia must take interest
>in Bengal.
>
>What Bengal thinks today, India would think tomorrow.
>
>regards,
>
>kulbir singh
We are flattered by your interest Mr Singh. Do keep close tabs
on this discussion, it could very well put a stop to your cross posts
here and deprive us all of your news posts and informed opinion.
Regards,
Santanu
rajib doogar
Arnab Gupta (GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: Hold a minute. Do you think you restricted yourself just to that complaining
: part? I am again jotting down below parts of your queries to Apratim.
:
:
: Query 1.
:
: "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."
Recall that in the post you are citing, I objected to what I saw as a
misunderstanding and a mischaracterization of my position. In saying
what he did I assumed that Apratimbabu would *not* have jumped in
without good reason since he has held himself aloof from the exchanges
involving *me* so far, except to clarify issues. Thus it is natural
to ask what did I say that he found to impute the motive {y} to me? I
hope this serves as the answer to the other queries also, which are
included below so that there is no further question as to which
queries I mean.
:
: Query 2.
:
: "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?"
:
: Query 3.
:
: "I was questioning what
: made their preferences so important that they could claim the
: prerogative to convert the charter of a public group?"
This is not a query *articulated* in the post you are asking me to
justify. *in the post that you are citing from*, I am making this as
a statement regarding a query I had made earlier. I am not
propagating the query since that has already been thrashed out. I
hope this addresses whatever your point is here.
: Query 4.
:
: "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?"
again please see answer to query 1.
: >wow! scb-moderation jindabad!
oops. that WAS an unintended slip. In the interests of not fanning
flames any further, apnar poramorsho onujayi bolcchi:
scb-automoderation jindabad! :)
: >: 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....'?
:
: >as you realize, that is not my complain.
:
:: Good, so you did accuse Apratim of saying/suggesting something that
: he did not, right?
Not. Let me take another shot at it. The way I see it first you tell
me what you understand Apratimbabu to be saying. Excellent. That is
what you think. That is not what I think. So based on your thinking
you frame the clarificatory question I have asked as an accusatory
one. I will not step into that trap. Time is scarce. So I say what
you have framed as an accusation from me to Apratimbabu is not my
*complain*. I say it "is not my complaint" because as I have said
above it is meant as a *question* to Apratimbabu. You interpret my
clarificatory question as explained above as an accusation against
Apratimbabu. Who am I to come between a man and his imagination? you
want to read my question as an accusation or complaint, suit yourself.
I will keep on trying to explain myself. Maybe it will work. Maybe not.
: Have you considered a second possibilty Mr. Doogar - Apratim may have
: misunderstood your viewpoint? I did not know one can accuse another person
: on that basis!
That is why I said in the very first paragraph: I am assuming a
misunderstanding has led to mischaracterization. Then I explained my
position -- you can say anything as long as it is the truth, but not
the other things.
: And again for the n-th time, who were those four queries directed to?
: Will not that let one to believe that Apratim does not believe in
: freedom of speech' for others?
to apratim babu to see why he ascribed {y} to me.
: I think you too are commiting the same mistake as you accuse Apratim
: of doing. Please read what you have written above and I request you
: not to malign opposing viewpoint by colouring it with your imagination.
no. i hope i did not and this explanation has cleared that up.
rajib
Sharmila Mukherjee
Srabani Banerjee wrote:
> Sharmila-di, alternative-ta ki? Ekta suggested hoyechhilo - cross-
> poster ke shobai mile e-mail kora. Eta jodi apnar practical mone-o hoy,
> (amar monet hoyna, kano pore bolchhi) tahole-o ki eta
> onyay julum noy?
Eta aapnar onyay julum kyano mone hochche bolunto? Kauke jodi politely
request kora hoi(and I am not yet convinced je bolle kaaj hobe na, sheta
aamar naivete-ee bolun aar jai bolun) je aamra mone kori je aei
post-guli thik scb-r upojukto noi, ebong aapni post na korle baadhito
hobo, etey to aami julumer kichu dekhi na.
>
> Practical noy ei karon-e je cross-poster-er jonyo ekta serious
> problem pose korte gele joto lok-er e-mail kora dorkar apni
> oto lok paben na. SCB-te motamuti kojon regularly lekhe bole apnar
> dharona? JNara SCB-tei lekhen na tNara regularly cross-poster
> taDate e-mail korben, eta apni bishwash koren? JNara SCB-te
> lekhen tNarao je korben e'rom to kono kotha nei. Ei dhorun, ami
> to konodin korbona.
Eta thik-ee je onek-e miley cheshta na korle kichui hobe na, tai to
aami shobar kaachei onurodh raakhchi. Aamar bishwash aamra jara
regularly/not-so-regularly likhi, tara jodi shobai mile e-mail pathai,
tobey nishchoi kaaj hobe.
>
> Ar, alternative khNojar proshno to nishchoi ei karon-e je a-m-er
> idea-ta apnar bhalo laage ni. Kano bhalo laage ni?
Tar karon aami mone kori na je cross-post-er aykebaarei kono
proyojonita nei. Auto-moderation holey to shob rokom cross-posting-ee
bondho hoye jaabe, kintu aymon onek post aache, jeguli cross holeo
scb-te relevant. Tobey shei shob poster-der aalada aalada korey
du-tin-te ng-te post korte hobe. E bhaabe shobaike inconvenience korar
aami to kono karon dekhi na, tar thekey kill-file ba post skip korata
onek beshi meaningful boley aamar mone hoi.
>
> Auto-moderation manet close-mindedness kano?
A-m mane close-mindedness noi, onyo kono upai-er chinta na korata.
Arnab Gupta
Santanu Bhattacharya wrote:
>>I do not understand how a-m will reduce readership. Do you think the
>>people who regularly cross-post articles to SCB go through it?
> Some do, I believe. Mr Bhatia's contributions to this thread
>appear to indicate that, he at least, does take an interest in the future
>of this forum. If memory serves me right, he used to be one of the most
>prolific cross posters here.
I think, I have not been quite clear in putting forward my question.
What I meant was many of the most prominent crossposters (like Baburam
et al) do not appear to go through SCB. Now you found a particular
exception to this case in Mr. Kulbir Singh Bhatia. Good, so it appears
that Mr. Bhatia is interested in this group. In that case, why will
he give up reading this newsgroup in case of auto-moderation?
Regards,
Arnab.
Kulbir Singh Bhatia
S Bhattacharyya (san...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: >S Bhattacharyya (san...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Regards,
: Santanu
I must admit that my interest in Bengal isn't deep enough to motivate me
to spare time to participate actively in discussions on this forum.
My intention was not to get involved in the discussion on a-m. I
just raised a philosophical question about people's right to be separate
if they so wished.
Inspite of the fact that I love Bengalis and would like to learn more
about them, my interactions with SCB has been rather limited. I like
reading the contributions of people like Soumitra Bose, Debashis
Bhattacharya and Sayan (his last name escapes me) on SCB because I think
these people have an exceptionally good insight of the political
process and machinations of South Asia and they favour fundamental
changes in the South Asian system. Yesterday I cross-posted
Mr. Bose's latest article to SCIT without his permission. That
is my primary interest in SCB right now and I
don't foresee any change of taste in future.
I have explained the reasons of my cross-postings
in exhaustive discussions on the subject many times. I don't want to
repeat them here. Cross-postings are necessary to me as a matter of
principle and I would try to stick to this principle as long as I can.
regards,
kulbir singh
S Bhattacharyya
GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Arnab Gupta) writes:
>Santanu Bhattacharya wrote:
I suspect his interest in this forum is via the responses he
receives to his crossposts from people who only read scb. If it becomes too
much of a hassle for him to post here, he'll stop. After all, that is
the intention of a-m, is it not ? Once that happens, will he continue
to read scb ? I am afraid the answer might very well be in the
negative. It also means other, future, cross posters who might develop
interests in things bengali through responses to their cross posts
here might be deprived of that vital bit of cultural stimulation if we
prevent their posts to this forum, and that would be a loss to all
concerned. A bit of a stretch ? Perhaps :-)
Regards,
Santanu
>Regards,
>Arnab.
S Bhattacharyya
BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Srabani Banerjee) writes:
>Santanu Bhattacharya writes:
[[[[[[[[......]]]]]]
>> 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.
> May I suggest that you are making the mistake of taking his
>words literally?
I have been reading Mr Sarkar since before the formation of
this forum and in my personal view he has always had a WYSIWYG form of
authorship. If you will pardon a personal observation, sarcasm and
double entendre seems more your forte.
>[...]
>>>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.
>Really? That is possible?
So I am told.
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[....................]]]]]]]]
>On the basis of what has been written till date in this thread, I
>don't think your fear is justified. And, in case, moderation is
>ever suggested, I'm counting on you to oppose it. There will be
>others to follow, believe me.
We do not all have the same faith in humanity, Ms Banerjee. I am
cursed with cynicism of a high degree and am loth to see moderation of
any form at all, even if that means having to tolerate this blight of
gibberish spouting baboons despoiling the cybescape of this forum.
Regards,
Santanu
>regards,
>Srabani
Sharmila Mukherjee
Automoderation niye ayto torkatorki, hoi espaar noi ospaar; kintu ta
shotti ektu obaak laagche. Aamra ki shotti-ee ayto close-minded hoye
jNara aykhono obdhi kichu bolen ni, ektu bhebe dekhte aei byapare.
Aykhono kintu haate shomoi aache.
Regards,
Srabani Banerjee
Santanu Bhattacharya writes:
>>>>: 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.
May I suggest that you are making the mistake of taking his
words literally?
[...]
>>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.
Really? That is possible?
>That however, IMHO, does not justify opposition to a well intentioned
>move to switch over to an a-m forum.
You are right, it doesn't.
>A-M would however considerably cut down overall volume, and
>hence readership.
How does cutting down volume imply cutting down readership?
Do you mean that there are readers who read only the cross-
posted articles? I am yet to read one posting in favour of
cross-posting. Prantik-babu had once written that he had no
problems with cross-posting - which, of course, does not imply
that he would stop reading SCB if there was no cross-posting.
But just in case there are people who actually support cross-
posting, they need to come out and voice their opinions.
>That would make it very easy for a determinded
>individual, or group of individuals, to vote for, and pass, full
>context based moderation.
I don't think that would be the case. A lot of people have clearly
stated their objection to context based moderation.
[...]
> 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.
On the basis of what has been written till date in this thread, I
don't think your fear is justified. And, in case, moderation is
ever suggested, I'm counting on you to oppose it. There will be
others to follow, believe me.
regards,
Srabani
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:
: >: >: >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
: Although the days of Da Vinci are long gone, the most successful
: engineering professionals often have multidisciplinary grasp.
: Hence, cross posting between different engineering groups should
: be valid.
: rgds
: ARC
S Bhattacharyya
asa...@us.oracle.com (Apratim Sarkar) writes:
>san...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu (S Bhattacharyya) writes:
>> I have been reading Mr Sarkar since before the formation of
>>this forum and in my personal view he has always had a WYSIWYG form of
>>authorship.
> Duniya'i apni chhaRa amake ar keu chinlo na Santanubabu!
Apni je baRa complex manush Mashai! :-) Sarcasm er chhuri hate
tule nile sheta chalanor technique ta o je rapta korte hoye ?
>> Regards,
>> Santanu
Apratim Sarkar
san...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu (S Bhattacharyya) writes:
> I have been reading Mr Sarkar since before the formation of
>this forum and in my personal view he has always had a WYSIWYG form of
>authorship.
Duniya'i apni chhaRa amake ar keu chinlo na Santanubabu!
Arya Raychaudhuri
asa...@us.oracle.com (Apratim Sarkar) writes:
>Aryababu bolechhen:
>>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.
> 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.
Ei kheyechhe re! Founder-babur leje pa poDechhe! :-)
By the way, one does not apply the democratic process to every possible
idea, I guess. That was the essence of my suggestion as quoted above.
I did not welcome the idea of highhandedness in making such decisions
that are more appropriate for voting.
>>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?:-)
> ^^^^^^
> Is this an argument for or against moderation?
Against. I meant to say that many nettors represent interest groups.
Such as IIT KGP, SPS, religious groups etc. Hence it is not difficult
to mobilize a large section of the members of their respective groups
to gather votes. That is, the voters no longer remain free thinking
individuals. Their group affinity will dominate the democratic process.
This amounts to booth capture and rigging. And the few individuals
who just don't represent anyone else would be crushed.
I term these invisible group activities over private e_mail/mailing
lists etc. as "subway" activities. They can potentially sabotage
the "highway" voting process.
rgds
ARC
rajib doogar
Arnab Gupta (GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
<snip>
why I a(rajib doogar) am complaining about Apratimbabu's suggestions that:
: >: 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.
he asks:
: 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.
why should i do that? that is *not* my point.
my point of objection to Apratimbabus's statement is:
: >: 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
Apratimbabu's statement is that:
I think that A has made a very convincing case above for {x} and
replacing it with {y}. It is also very encouraging to see C chiming
at the same note.
Rajib urges that Apratimbabu is being ironic here. He is meaning the
opposite of what he is formally stating. In effect he is saying:
I think that A has *not* made a very convincing case above for {x} and
replacing it with {y}. It is also *not* very encouraging to see C chiming
at the same note.
footnote: here {x} = democratic etc... {y} = fiat etc.
The implication is that (bhalo kore poDben)
A suggested replacing {x} with {y} with unconvincing arguments. C
supports the same poor arguments that A makes.
The fact being of course that B and C merely reject applying procedure
{x} to proposal {P}. Nowhere have *B or C* proposed {y}. Apratimbabu
is implying that A and C are saying {y}. That is what is
objectionable. I cannot let this false statement pass unchallenged.
It is poor logic. It is objectionable mischaracterization of A and
C's position. It paints A and C as claiming {y} when they do not. It
is poor taste. It is poor morality. It is a {that whose name if
taken invokes Goodwin's law}-style distortion. The poor gentleman
Aryababu who appears to me from reading his posts to be a democratic
soul is being called a fiatist by implication. Then by association I
am being smeared.
And then *I* am the one accused of oposhonghskriti by j random poster.
wow! scb-moderation jindabad!
: 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....'?
as you realize, that is not my complain. you have every right to say
"Rajib you have no right to say this should not be put to a vote." I
have no right to stop you from saying "Rajib you have no right to say
that this should not be put to a vote." Everybody has the right to
say all they like. But the truth. Not lies. Not implications that
are plainly smear campaigns.
: 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*.
for the third time I submit to you, this is not my point. my point is
mischaracterization. that is disturbing. disturbing because a less
charitable soul might suspect Apratimbabu of ulterior motives. But I
do not accuse him of that I say he has misunderstood my position. I
explain my position. I find he describes me as chiming in with
Aryababu, which is factually correct on his part. Ergo, in defending
myself, I *have* to defend Aryababu. I am not Aryababus chamcha,
belcha, khunti, jhorna, grad student, childhood buddy, college mitro,
paid agent, shadow or alter ego. I am not his ghost account. I am
me. Others on the net will vouch for my real existence as a seperate
entity from Aryababu. I am defending him to defend myself. Because
Apratimbabu has first implicated him in {y} and then by extension, me.
Aryababu may be too gentlemanly to participate here. I will not take
this lying down. Hence my protest.
: 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'?
First question: no answer. second question: absolutely. third
question: no. I do not.
: 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
100%
: 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,
by making the proposal. actions louder than words.
: I think I understand the meaning of the word `claimed'. Do
: correct me if I am wrong and I will take back the question.
please think of what I have said above.
:
: Regards,
: Arnab.
:
regards,
rajib
Arya Raychaudhuri
asa...@us.oracle.com (Apratim Sarkar) writes:
>rayc...@sfu.ca (Arya Raychaudhuri) writes:
>>asa...@us.oracle.com (Apratim Sarkar) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Aryababu bolechhen:
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Ei kheyechhe re! Founder-babur leje pa poDechhe! :-)
> Mon keRe niyechhen Aryababu, mon keRe niyechhen!
Byaparta ektu jotil hoye jachche na? :-)
>>By the way, one does not apply the democratic process to every possible
>>idea, I guess. That was the essence of my suggestion as quoted above.
> One does not, but in any _public_ fora one _may_. And, that option
> _may not_ be taken away from them.
Yes, if the issue is worth the trouble.
> Unless we abolish democracy. And you have made a very convincing
> case for doing so, I must note.
>>I did not welcome the idea of highhandedness in making such decisions
>>that are more appropriate for voting.
From your other posts, it is increasingly apparent to *me* that you have a
strong disregard for the democratic process. You have already finalized your
agenda, and want to go ahead with it irrespective of reasoned objections
from a number of nettors, including me. This is fanatic, disturbing.
> Guru, eta ki holo? Apni gomvirbhabe bole dilen some idea's do not
> even merit a vote. Ami chyala habar taal khNujchhi, omni bhokki?
Ami chyala fyala rakhi na. Tar opor tomar moto g(n)eDe o kupomanduk
chyala!? :-)
>>>>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?:-)
>>> ^^^^^^
>>> Is this an argument for or against moderation?
>>
>>Against. I meant to say that many nettors represent interest groups.
>>Such as IIT KGP, SPS, religious groups etc. Hence it is not difficult
>>to mobilize a large section of the members of their respective groups
>>to gather votes. That is, the voters no longer remain free thinking
>>individuals. Their group affinity will dominate the democratic process.
> Eta ekdam thik bolechhen. Lok'e vote deba'r age Aryababu'r kachh
> theke "free-thinking" e'i certificate'ti nite bhulben na. Noile kintu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> apnar vote disqualify kore deowa habe. IITKGP ebang SPS'r SCB a-m
> kore deowa'r chakranta nipat jaak!
Ei fundata besh chapa! free thinking er certificate lekhar ekta chakri
pele, malta puro jome jai. duto grade deoa hobe, free thinker ar
slave thinker. Tobe du doler-i dorkar achhe!
> Achchha Aryababu, IITKGP ar SPS e byapar'ta elo ki kore? Ami SPS ar
> IITKGP'r chhatro bole? Dekhun ekhon obdhi e'i thread'e IITKGP ar SPS'r
> ami chhaRa ar keu to bishesh vocal hoini, IITK ebang SPS'r Shububabu
> a-m'r badole kill-file use korte bolechhen.
Shubu IITK giye ektu manush hoyechhe.:-)
> Ta, Brown University baad gelo keno? Computer Science. e'i discipline
> in general?
Ei re! e to puro bio-data dite shuru korle he.
>>This amounts to booth capture and rigging.
> Absolutely. Booth capture ar rigging'r moto vote'r byapare kono
> special interest group'e inclusion (jemon dhorun political parties,
> ki organized labor) be-aini kore deowa uchit.
Eta ekta bhalo point. Tobe asha ei je, kromosho political partygulo
pathore lekha group ideology theke shore giye individual aspirations ke
appreciate korbe.
>>And the few individuals
>>who just don't represent anyone else would be crushed.
>
> I.e., jader mat'r shange majority'r maat millo na, tara jhule gelo.
> Which is precisely why we need to abolish the democratic process and
> introduce minority decision-making by fiat.
> Down with the proponents of resolving the a-m proposal by vote!
Thatta korchho?
>
>>I term these invisible group activities over private e_mail/mailing
>>lists etc. as "subway" activities. They can potentially sabotage
>>the "highway" voting process.
> In fact USENET RFD/CFV process'e je newsgroup'e post kara hoi appeal'
> guli, mailing list'eo post kara hoi, that should be banned as well.
> For, it is quite clear that any newsgroup or mailing list represents
> a special interest group and hence are not worthy of a "free-thinker"
> certificate from Aryababu.
> I urge Aryababu to take this to news.groups.
Internet je democratic process-er poriponthi, eta abishkar kore besh
bhalo lagchhe. patent-ta ar keu korleo cholbe. :-)
rgds
ARC
Anindya Ghoshal
/nick Nandan
/join #SCBengali
Nandan(ad...@hmc.edu) joins @#SCBengali
Nandan> let us not get too excited about the automoderation proposal. Use a good
Phoenix> Excitement is a state of mind. Automoderation is the effect of overdoses
from Rambandar..
> newsreader, which threads articles, use a kill file and IGNORE posts you
/ignore rambandar
**** Rambandar added to /ignore list*************************
/kick rambandar
>***ramb...@ix.netcom.com kicked from #SCBengali **********
/ban rambandar
>***ramb...@ix.netcom.com banned from #SCBengali***********************
Phoenix>netsplit!!!
>***ramb...@ix.netcom.com killed at irc.netcom.com*********************
Nandan> don't want to read about. It takes only a week or two at the max before you
IRC neta hoyecho naki hey?? Only one -two weeks..??
Nandan> have a good understanding about which messages are junk and which are not.
Nandan> That way you should be able to get rid of all the trauma of reading junk
nandan> posts.
Phoenix>Rambandar-er bh(n)adhrami-r chote SCB netri borgo RBIDS (RamBandar Immune
Phoenix>Deficiency Syndrome-e) bhugchen!!!!
Nandan> Nandan
Nandan> if even this is too traumatic, then come and join us on the irc on #bengali :)
Phoenix> RBIDS -er post-traumatic effect treat korar jonye Dr. Nandan prescribed #bengali
Phoenix> thank U Saar, ThankU !!!!!!
******Phoenix joins #bengali and found none :-( ***********************************
>
> *******************************************************************************
> 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
> *******************************************************************************
Phoenix> ei je Nandan-baboo !! IRC-te beshi somoi nosto korley massive dy(n)adtani
Phoenix> kaabey!!
********Phoenix makes a face :-P) and submerges*****************************
*********Nandan peeks thru his camera at life**************************************
regards,
Anindya
--
email address: agho...@eng2.uconn.edu
Philosophy:
Life is a serious joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)
Arya Raychaudhuri
GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Arnab Gupta) writes:
>Arya Raychowdhury wrote:
>>Although the days of Da Vinci are long gone, the most successful
>>engineering professionals often have multidisciplinary grasp.
>>Hence, cross posting between different engineering groups should
>>be valid.
>So, first we admit the necessity for the `multidisciplinary'
>part, right? Now, nobody is denying the necessity for cross-cultural
^^^^^^
Right.
>discussion. Also, cross-posting is the best tool for that no doubt (though
>definitely not the only tool). But when this tool is used freely to
>spread all sorts of views which are not even remotely connected
>to the purpose of a particular group, we ought to think about it, right?
Right. But in a different direction. Try to generate better articles
that are more "purposeful" so that the irrelevant articles look dumb
in comparison. I think that should be the approach. I must say that
most of the "relevant" scb stuff is no better than the crossposted stuff.
Do you agree?
>Now there can be three responses to this. First, the articles that
>I am talking about may in fact be connected to the purpose of this
>newsgroup. I do not know your view, but even the other oppsers of a-m
>think they are not.
What is the purpose of writing in english in scb? Does it enhance the purpose
of the ng? I do not really understand this purpose thing.
True, most of the postings are pretty orthogonal to my taste and liking.
But I just ignore them.
> Second, to modify the charter so that it can accomodate
>the views in those articles (after all, why not, if the majority wants).
I am not a charter-accountant.:-)
>Third, if you do not agree to both of the above, devise a method to counter
>those articles. Some of the nettors have decided for auto-moderation.
>Please note it does not seek to eliminate any point of view, but only
>seeks a change in the format of posting. If you think this is `Ethnic
>Cleansing', as you mentioned in an earlier article, do put forward
>your views. I think questioning why some other nettors are going for
>a constitutional way to solve the problem, is not the way to go.
>Regards,
>Arnab.
Auto-moderation will discourage non-bengali nettors to crosspost
to scb. In effect it will tend to eliminate their presence in scb.
I do not see that as a good idea.
Regards
ARC
Anindya Ghoshal
I've been following this thread after an initial posting of being supportive
of auto-moderation. However based on my past experiences on USENET, I've found
that discussions regarding moderation and auto-moderation of newsgroups generally
degenerate into mudslinging match of allegations and counter allegations
ultimately between pro and anti groups..this had happened in
soc.culture.russian.moderated, soc.culture.punjab.moderated,
soc.culture.pakistan.*.moderated ngs, and more recently SCIT et al.
Those who read SCI must have noted that SRH reorganizations
had been highly acrimonious. And unfortunately, I'm afraid to note that
this present thread at SCB is slowly slipping to those levels.
There were nettors who initially thought that auto-moderation is a very good
idea to keep out habitual cross-posters to flood SCB with totally irrelevant
topics and, that it would pass with all hands down. However, it must be reminded
to those that there are several USENET nettors who regularly reads CFV's at
newgroups.announce groups and makes it a point to vote against any sort of
moderation at any NGs. although these USENET readers hardly ever read those
NGs. Infact SCRussian.moderated failed solely because of such votes, if I can
remember correctly. Freedom of Speech on USENET to these nettors is very dear
and hance they are opposed to any sort of censorship in any form of moderation..some of
the SCB nettors (infact I know atleast one of them) subscribe to this viewpoint
and personally when it comes to total moderation of the NG, I strongly oppose
total moderation on principle as I feel it is censorship. (Readers may recall
however, SCPunjab was different matter as it was proposed to divided into SCP.
moderated and SCP.unmoderated NGS which failed due to reasons which left a
bitter experience amongst lot of people). However, I differ on this auto-
moderation of SCB issue as from my understanding till now,
what it may entail ultimately, is that cross-postings from certain NGs
will not be allowed, which I'm fully supportive of. However I'll await the final
RFD before harping on this issue further. Nitty gritty details about whether
anon-postings solely meant for SCBengali would be allowed or not can be discussed
then. For me anon postings solely meant for SCBengali should be allowed as otherwise
it becomes a partly censored automoderated-NG which I'm personally opposed
to, on principle. Here, I express my full support for an uncensored auto-moderated
NG which only disallows crosspostings from particular NGs. However I'll refrain from
making any further comments till the RFD is posted.
Now to address some of the points raised by the nettors on which I would like to
note down my opinions:
(i) Firstly I would like to thank Arnab for proposing my name in the list of
moderators. While I'm willing to help out and do my bit in SCB, my present
preoccupations in trying to complete my dissertation in next couple of months
and a personal life which is totally in disarray currently prevents me from
making any further commitments just right now. I need to sort out
not only my thesis and job but also sort out my relationships with close friends
with whom my personal life revolves which are kind of messed up mostly due to
my own faults and failings on my own commitments. However after September
I should be able to volunteer my full help and time to the moderator in any way.
(ii) Secondly to note certain comments of ARC, Mr.Rajib Doogar and Mr. Santanu
Bhattacharyya about SPHS, IITKGP and Apratim. Well personally, I felt the comments
are unfair towards Apratim and other nettors who happen to belong to one of those
institutes. Again ARC had missed Brown University and RPians too from his listings ;-)
Although I've been supportive of the auto-moderation issue, I didn't study at SPHS
and neither am I aware of any initiative of any SPHS to hijack SCBengali. Those
who are more interested in SPHS on net may check Shubu's homepage. He maintains
a marvellous homepage dedicated to it. SPHS is a school with lots of alumni and hence
it should not be surprising that some of the SCB nettors had studied there. I, for
example, had stayed in more than 6 hostels/halls/dorms in my life and have across countless
South Pointers, some of whom had been very close and dear friends. Regarding IITKGP/RPians,
well Santanu Babu, in last two decades four of us from our family had spend fifteen
years being RPians..and hence we cannot help that we happened to hear about Apratim
there. Whatever it is, I found the allegation/suspicion of a hijack of the NG by a select
band of nettors to be very unfair.
(iii) However in the midst of all concerns that had been raised, the concern that
minority voice maybe over-ruled in a land of majority is very significant
matter of importance and surely a matter of concern. It is an inherent tendency of
a majority to brush aside a minority opinion by bullying their support. And hence
Amitabha and others concerns about censorship on auto-moderation should be addressed
as a real matter of concern for SCB. The alternatives as suggested by Sharmila
might be worth an effort..I personally did follow-up with such a posting. I'm sure
nettors like Srabani/Arnab and others would be able to alleviate the concerns
the anti-a.m. group might have on this important matter.
(iv) Ladies and Gentlemen, whatever maybe the result of the a-m maybe, my earnest request
to all would be refrain from making the discussions reduce to a personal mudslinging
match which had afflicted other such discussions in other newsgroups which I'm sure
would be much to the delights of Rambandars/Finlands!!!!
regards,
Anindya.
--
email address: agho...@eng2.uconn.edu
Philosophy:
Resigned from Life...
Death Rules in all of its Abstractions.
Arya Raychaudhuri
>: >: >in these words:
>: Although the days of Da Vinci are long gone, the most successful
>: engineering professionals often have multidisciplinary grasp.
>: Hence, cross posting between different engineering groups should
>: be valid.
>
>: rgds
>: ARC
>I am sorry. I didn't realize that Mr. Raychoudhuri was objecting
>only to auto-moderation. I got off track by one of his postings in which
>he wrote:
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>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.
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>I thought he was opposed to the creation of special interest groups.
>
>I apologize.
>
>regards,
>
>kulbir singh
I do not get your point here. My support (vote) for the creation of scb
was not based on my love for the creation of a special interest group.
Isn't that clear? In fact, for your information, I had opposed a move
to create scb earlier on (probably in 93).
hope this helps
ARC
Arya Raychaudhuri
GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Arnab Gupta) writes:
>Arya Raychaudhury wrote:
>>asa...@us.oracle.com (Apratim Sarkar) writes:
>>>Aryababu bolechhen:
>>>>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.
>>> 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.
>>Ei kheyechhe re! Founder-babur leje pa poDechhe! :-)
>>By the way, one does not apply the democratic process to every possible
>>idea, I guess. That was the essence of my suggestion as quoted above.
>>I did not welcome the idea of highhandedness in making such decisions
>>that are more appropriate for voting.
>Well, Aryababu name an alternative method to voting in solving a
>debate in a public forum like SCB. From your posts it seems you are
>all for free speech. What I cannot understand is how you can you take
>selective positions with respect to a democratic system.
I have already said that. Respond vigorously and viciously against the
crossposts that offend you. And, more importantly, write better stuff,
yourself.
>>>>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?:-)
>>> ^^^^^^
>>> Is this an argument for or against moderation?
>>Against. I meant to say that many nettors represent interest groups.
>>Such as IIT KGP, SPS, religious groups etc. Hence it is not difficult
>>to mobilize a large section of the members of their respective groups
>>to gather votes. That is, the voters no longer remain free thinking
>>individuals. Their group affinity will dominate the democratic process.
>>This amounts to booth capture and rigging. And the few individuals
>>who just don't represent anyone else would be crushed.
>>I term these invisible group activities over private e_mail/mailing
>>lists etc. as "subway" activities. They can potentially sabotage
>>the "highway" voting process.
>So that is your ground for opposition - you think there are groups
>that would `rig' elections.
>For your kind information, I am neither from SPS, nor from IITKGP.
>And rest assured, I do not belong to any religious group. About
>the others who have supported a-m, tell me how many of them do you
>know who belongs to those mystical SPS or IITKGP groups ?
I mentioned IITKGP and SPS as examples of closed groups that could potentially
impact the results of a voting process on scb. I do not know who is/is not
from where, nor do I want to know.
rgds
ARC
>Regards,
>Arnab.
rajib doogar
Anindya Ghoshal (agho...@eng2.uconn.edu) wrote:
<good stuff>
: (ii) Secondly to note certain comments of ARC, Mr.Rajib Doogar and Mr.
: Santanu Bhattacharyya about SPHS, IITKGP and Apratim. Well personally,
: I felt the comments are unfair towards Apratim and other nettors who
: happen to belong to one of those institutes.
<more good stuff>
I object to this part. Note that:
step 1: You note certain comments by {a,b,c} about {X,Y,z}.
step 2: You think the comments are unfair towards {z,x,y}, x in X, y in Y.
Here, a=rajib, {b,c}={Aryababu, Santanubabu}, X=IITKGP, Y=SPHS,
z=Apratimbabu, {x in X} = {x} went to X, {y in Y} = {y} went to Y.
I assert that it is false that {rajib made comments about IITKGP,
SPHS}, so may I, in the spirit of peace, suggest you amend your
comment above to something along the following lines:
step 1: I note that {a commented about z} and also that {l,m,n}
commented about {U,V,W}}.
step 2: I find both sets of comments to be unfair.
where {l},{m},{n} and U,V,W are free variables for you to quantify as
you find accurate in your readings of the thread and {a} and {z}
retain their meanings as defined above.
This eliminates any possible reference to the nonexistent object {a
commented about {X,Y}}.
Otherwise, I invite you to document the assertion {rajib commented on
IIT, SPHS}. To the best of my knowledge, I have never shared those
feelings with you or on scb.
I do *not* want to be involved in the personal mud-bath that is being
stirred up here. I do not know any of the people, I do not belong to
any of these institutions. The internal politics and bickering of
the elements of the power set of their alumni are of compleat
disinterest to me. Leave me out of this please.
I would immensely prefer a *public* response to this, since e-mail
explanation and private communication cannot undo the possible
side-effects of public misattribution. I have to deal with students
from both these institutions in my professional capacity and I would
like to leave no impression that I feel one way or the other about
them since such an impression could and would interfere with my proper
performance of my professional activites.
Thanks,
rajib
S Bhattacharyya
Anindya Ghoshal <agho...@eng2.uconn.edu> writes:
[[[[[[[[[[..............]]]]]
>example, had stayed in more than 6 hostels/halls/dorms in my life and have across countless
>South Pointers, some of whom had been very close and dear friends. Regarding IITKGP/RPians,
>well Santanu Babu, in last two decades four of us from our family had spend fifteen
>years being RPians..and hence we cannot help that we happened to hear about Apratim
>there. Whatever it is, I found the allegation/suspicion of a hijack of the NG by a select
>band of nettors to be very unfair.
I did not say a damn thing about IIT-Kgp or RP hall, as a matter
of fact I do not have the faintest idea about those places, nor could
I care less, Sir. Please get your facts right. As to whether or not the
group can be hijacked, I personally have seen posts here bemoaning the
exclusionary nature of this ng. To make it even more so is not in
anybody's best interest, diversity is the lifeblood of a thriving ng.
Santanu
>(iii) However in the midst of all concerns that had been raised, the concern that
>minority voice maybe over-ruled in a land of majority is very significant
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[................]]]]]]]]]]]]
Srabani Banerjee
Sharmila Mukherjee writes:
[...]
> Eta aapnar onyay julum kyano mone hochche bolunto? Kauke jodi politely
>request kora hoi(and I am not yet convinced je bolle kaaj hobe na, sheta
>aamar naivete-ee bolun aar jai bolun) je aamra mone kori je aei
>post-guli thik scb-r upojukto noi, ebong aapni post na korle baadhito
>hobo, etey to aami julumer kichu dekhi na.
`Aamra' manet kotojon? Er pore apni likhechhen `onek-e miley'. Proshnota
ekhane bodhoy politeness ba impoliteness-er noy - proshno-ta bodhoy
quantity-r. Amra dhore nichchhi je onek-e mile e-mail korle sheta cross-
poster-er pokkhe inconvenient hobe - Rajib-babu ebong bodhoy Amitabhabbabu-o
ei dhoroner-i kichhu ekta bolechhilen. Shobai mile plan kore eibhaabe
e-mail korata amar monet hoy onyay julum - bishesh kore amra jodi menei ni
je internet-ta ekta free medium.
[...]
> Eta thik-ee je onek-e miley cheshta na korle kichui hobe na, tai to
>aami shobar kaachei onurodh raakhchi. Aamar bishwash aamra jara
>regularly/not-so-regularly likhi, tara jodi shobai mile e-mail pathai,
>tobey nishchoi kaaj hobe.
>>
>> Ar, alternative khNojar proshno to nishchoi ei karon-e je a-m-er
>> idea-ta apnar bhalo laage ni. Kano bhalo laage ni?
> Tar karon aami mone kori na je cross-post-er aykebaarei kono
>proyojonita nei. Auto-moderation holey to shob rokom cross-posting-ee
>bondho hoye jaabe, kintu aymon onek post aache, jeguli cross holeo
>scb-te relevant.
Shey to nishchoi internet-er protyek-ta ng-tei ontoto ekta-duto
posting thake jegulo SCB-r ontoto kichhu lok-er kachhe relevant.
A-m hobe ki hobe na sheta ki nirbhor korbe shei shob posting-er
opor?
>Tobey shei shob poster-der aalada aalada korey
>du-tin-te ng-te post korte hobe. E bhaabe shobaike inconvenience korar
>aami to kono karon dekhi na,
Ei inconvenience-er byaparta aageo onek-e bolechhen - eta bhalo bujhini.
Amra jodi SCB-r a-m niye kotha boli, tahole we need to determine what
effects it would have on people writing to SCB. A-m hoye geleo, ekjon
poster thik tototai inconvenience face korben jotota ami ba apni ekhon kori.
Tar chaite beshi ba kom noy - pretty democratic.
[...]
regards,
Srabani
Indrani DasGupta
Shudhu akta kotha:
Ato gola-baaji, chokh raNgani, chul chhNeDa ityaadi...mot-er upor besh
akta tikto-tar srishti hochchhe. E kkhetre ei byapaar-ta ki akebaare na
korle-i noy?
Ami to boleichhi je I wouldn't mind a-m, as long as it is not in the
interests of one group of posters against another. Sambit-babu-r alaada
shuto-y posting-ta is right on the dot. Kintu amaar bhoy hochchhe je ei
a-m jinish-ta akta amon obosthya-r srishti korbe (hoyto already korechhe)
jeta-r effect will not be very salubrious on the future of scb/a-m, leave
alone the current scb. Por-er bochhor duto puje-y jete amaar shotyyi-i
aadou ichchhe nei.
Apnara ki bolen? Srabani? Apratim-babu? Sharmila-di? Amitabha-babu? Baaje
bokchhi?
Indrani.
ps. IDG...I need your honest opinion. No sarcasm, please.
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:
: >: >: >Arya Raychaudhuri (rayc...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: >: >: >: kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
: >: >: >in these words:
: hope this helps
Actually it does not and bring us back to square one. But it doesn't matter.
It seems the way we are trying to communicate is seriously flawed otherwise
we would have made some progress in understanding each other's position a
little bit better after an exchange of several postings. Afterall this
isn't a very complex subject. But what the heck, understanding each other
isn't mandatory for either of us. So why bother ?
regards,
kulbir singh
: ARC
BABU RAMABADRAN
In <4soov8$3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> san...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu (S
Bhattacharyya) writes:
>
>kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
>>
>>: Although the days of Da Vinci are long gone, the most successful
>>: engineering professionals often have multidisciplinary grasp.
>>: Hence, cross posting between different engineering groups should
>>: be valid.
>>
>>: rgds
>>: ARC
>
>Mr Singh. He is one of the most prolific cross posters here, yet he
>obviously has taken the time to read SCB for and of itself, as evident
>from his contribution here. Since this thread is confined to scb, his
>interest reflects his interest in the future of this ng per se,
>one wishes others would take a similar, (desirable ? :-) interest.
>
> Regards,
> Santanu
Auto-
I do not know why this issue of stopping cross posting is becoming
a bone of contention in this newsgroup. I have been following this
thread for very long. Some are suggesting who should be the moderator
and some are discussing why this ng should be auto-moderated.
I am not the only reason but I read my name at some place therfore I
assumed that my postings are ( along with many other crossposters) not
liked by some of the subscribers of this net. The whole excercise seems
to be aimed at to stop cross posting.
I being cross-poster have a vested interest in it(of course). The
interest is that I need more readers. I also assume that in our times(
ie not in the times of SACORATES), freedom of speech is a norm of
society.In our times, different thoughts/opinions, even though
unpleasent (which is an subjective assesment), are respected and heard.
It is not that my crossposting are not read or they are skipped. It is
also not true that my cross-posting are not responeded by subscribers
of SCB. Truth is that many people who like certian ideas connot
compromise with some content of my post. The problem with such people
is that they feel that what I post should not be read by other
subscribers. This is what I am opposed to. One is in full control of
what topic he is to read and what to skip.
Let's say a thread about Mother Teresa is on. Many ( not all) may not
like it. Not liking by someone is not problem. The probled is that this
"some" do not like the other subscribers to read the thread. Why is
this intellectual hypocrisy Many in SCB may be interested in my view
about Mother TERESA.
The solution is that those who do not like content of some post,
may skip it and read what they are looking for. Now a days machines are
so advanced that it will give you all the topics in sorted form. You do
not even need to know what all has been posted.
I want to say, to all those who think that the SCB and BEngali
psyche is there monoply and that they are the sole arbitrator of what
should be served for bengali subscribers in SCB, that they are trying
to restrict the freeflow of thought on SCB.
It is the responsibility of this "self appointed gaurdians of SCB"
to questoin that is it good for SCB what they are thinking ??? Does
personal disliking of this 'self appointed gaurdians" should be reason
for auto/full moderation???
With passage of time, opinons, norms, understanding of the
world,etc changes. It is the time that "gaurdians" of SCB understand
the pulse of time. As I understand, cross postings are not at all a
problem . The problem is cross-posting of certain type of
ideas/thoughts. The whole issue, therfore, boils down to the questions
that should some kind of ideas/thoughts/posts should be stopped from
being posted in SCB.
Now what is gurantee that liking and disliking of subscribers is
always consistent. Even with in these 'gaurdians", there will be many
inconsistencies. How will they deal with it??
This proposal for auto-moderation is not to stop cross-posting, but
to stop certian kind of posts to be cross posted.
Now who among these "gaurdians" think that he/she is the right
person( having all the virtues )to to be ideas.
The cross-postings are not problem, in fact no cross-posting is
itlself a problem. A thread in SCIT is running to discuss aftermath of
SCIT auto-moderation. You might be interested in follwing that thread
as it will be good to know what might happen with SCB after auto/manual
moderation.
One subscribner has commented that after auto-moderation, SCIT has
lost flavour of active newsgroup. It serves more or less similar stale
topics.
Therefore I will appeal, to those who are determined to make SCB,
auto-moderated, to rethink what needs to be changed??? Is it character
of the SCB that needs to be changed, or, it is the perception of the
subscribers that needs change???
I think that if the so called "gaurdians" of SCB can change there
attitude and be tolerant to different opinions, there will be no
problem and no need for any moderation.
But will this happen.
Any way, if voting comes up for auto-moderation and I see any genuine
reason in its refrendum, I will vote YES for it. But the way the things
are going, I do not see any genuine reasons.
ragards,
babu ramabadran
S Bhattacharyya
bab...@ix.netcom.com(BABU RAMABADRAN) writes:
>In <4soov8$3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> san...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu (S
>Bhattacharyya) writes:
>>
>>kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
>>>
>>>: Although the days of Da Vinci are long gone, the most successful
>>>: engineering professionals often have multidisciplinary grasp.
>>>: Hence, cross posting between different engineering groups should
>>>: be valid.
>>>
>>>: rgds
>>>: ARC
>>
>> To those who think a-m will not change readership, I present
>>Mr Singh. He is one of the most prolific cross posters here, yet he
>>obviously has taken the time to read SCB for and of itself, as evident
>>from his contribution here. Since this thread is confined to scb, his
>>interest reflects his interest in the future of this ng per se,
>>one wishes others would take a similar, (desirable ? :-) interest.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Santanu
>Auto-
> I do not know why this issue of stopping cross posting is becoming
>a bone of contention in this newsgroup. I have been following this
>thread for very long. Some are suggesting who should be the moderator
>and some are discussing why this ng should be auto-moderated.
Thank you Mr Ramabadran for voicing your opposition to
this moderation proposal. I am gratified to note that you've taken
the time to read and respond to this proposal. I am sure those who
have repeatedly claimed that cross-posters have no interest in the
groups they post to will reconsider their stand ?
Regards,
Santanu
Indrani DasGupta
Arnab Gupta wrote:
>>>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|
Bah! ShMoron koriye diye-i 'pakhi phurut'? :)
>
>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|
>
Bujhlaam. Manlaam je tumi-aami near-sighted. Kintu jNara ato far-sighted
tNaader to eta-o bojha uchit je gelo bolle-i gelano jaayna?
>> 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|
DC-te chole esho. Karon-ta shudhu bujhiye noy, dekhiye debo. Ekhane shob
public school-gulo-te metal detector-er chhoDachhoDi. Mairi bolchhi ami
jokhon scb poDi paashe Uzi niye boshi na. Babu-Ram-ShNapure-r lekha
poDa-r shomoy ektu-adhtu haat nishpish korle ghaaD-ta aalto kore chulke
niy..oi tukui, byas.
>
>> Kintu scb charter-e eta je kano royechhe eta kintu shottyi
>>bujhte paarchhina.
>
>Thhakar kotha noi, amio mani (theoretically)|
Theoretically?? Theoretically to BJP-r manifesto khulle-o mon-e hoy shob
jonjaal saaf kore bharatborsho dudin-ei abaar shreshthho ashon lobe.
>
>
>> 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!
BNeche thaak Coffeehouse!! :)
>
>> Eta-o ki akta adda noy?
>
>Onekta aykmot tobe purota noi| Ja shunechhi tatey bodhoi IRC shommondhe
>oi mot-ta aro projojyo|
Ami IRC payi na. Otoyeb amaar kaachhe eta-i adda-khana. Dudh-er shaadh
ghol-e besh anonde-i metachchhi to. No problem.
>
>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?
Hochchhe to! Finland-er posting-gulo poDoni? Akbaar pore-i shaaDa
jibon-er khisti-shebon-er shaadh mitiye phelechhi. Onar kaachhe B-R to
mosha!
>> 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?:)
Thhik. Pulish-er-o dorkar aachhe boiki. Temni abaar byajaar mukhe
"Pundorikakkho Purokayosthho" bolar moto lok-o jute jaay.
Ota-i ki roshogolla-r rosh noy? Tumi-i bolo?
>Regards,
>Arnab.
>
Indrani.
Indrani DasGupta
dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta) wrote:
>
>Indrani DasGupta (ID2...@american.edu) wrote:
>
>Apnake kichhu bolle R babu kintu shanghatik chNechamechi korchhen
>ajkaal. Onake ektu shanto hote bolte paren na? Nicely?
Abaar amake dhapachchhen? Taay abaar onyo lok-er kaachhe? Beltola-r
hujug ki akhon-o gyalo na? TachhaDa ei ottyodhik Rabindrik-dhong-er
"R babu" ti je ke akhon-o kintu bujhte-i parlaam na!
>
>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.
Aapni thakte aami? Hashalen. Arnab nahoy bhule "l"-ta baad diye
diyechhilo. Ta bole ato-ta obhimaan apnake ontoto shaaje na.
Indrani.
Arnab Gupta
Indrani Dasgupta wrote:
>dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta) wrote:
>
>>
> ...[deleted]...
>
>>
>>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.
>
>Aapni thakte aami? Hashalen. Arnab nahoy bhule "l"-ta baad diye
>diyechhilo. Ta bole ato-ta obhimaan apnake ontoto shaaje na.
>
Indrani kintu bhul korchho| Ami aykdom seriously tomar naam
propose korechhilam| Erokom banan-er phNak diye beriye jabar
cheshta korle kintu ebar Indrani (without an `l') shombodhon
korbo!!!
Arnab.
Sharmila Mukherjee
Indrani DasGupta wrote:
>
> Shudhu akta kotha:
>
> Ato gola-baaji, chokh raNgani, chul chhNeDa ityaadi...mot-er upor besh
> akta tikto-tar srishti hochchhe. E kkhetre ei byapaar-ta ki akebaare na
> korle-i noy?
>
> Ami to boleichhi je I wouldn't mind a-m, as long as it is not in the
> interests of one group of posters against another. Sambit-babu-r alaada
> shuto-y posting-ta is right on the dot. Kintu amaar bhoy hochchhe je ei
> a-m jinish-ta akta amon obosthya-r srishti korbe (hoyto already korechhe)
> jeta-r effect will not be very salubrious on the future of scb/a-m, leave
> alone the current scb. Por-er bochhor duto puje-y jete amaar shotyyi-i
> aadou ichchhe nei.
Hmm..kothata je aamar-o mone aasheni aykbaar-o ta noi, tobe e chaDa
upai-o to dekhina. Maane torko-bitorko to hobei, aar raag hoye gyale
lok-e personal attack-o korben (sheta ki khub porinoto-mostishker
porichoi IDG-babu?). Tobey aamar bishwash, at least I hope je aykta
mimangsha hoye gyale lok-e e dingulir kotha bhule giye aabar purono
din-e fire jaaben.
Indrani DasGupta
pra...@iastate.edu (Prantik Mazumder) wrote:
> PS: Sharmila, Bongo-Sommelon-o ki Auto-Moderated?
Sharmila-di,
Ei shujog-e tomar virus-gulo-r-o akta hesto hoye jaak na. Bechari-ra
onekdin dhore tomar dapadapi shojhyo korechhe. :)
Indrani.
Indranil DasGupta
Sharmila Mukherjee (s...@shiva.3dem.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:
: Hmm..kothata je aamar-o mone aasheni aykbaar-o ta noi, tobe e chaDa
: upai-o to dekhina. Maane torko-bitorko to hobei, aar raag hoye gyale
: lok-e personal attack-o korben (sheta ki khub porinoto-mostishker
: porichoi IDG-babu?). Tobey aamar bishwash, at least I hope je aykta
: mimangsha hoye gyale lok-e e dingulir kotha bhule giye aabar purono
: din-e fire jaaben.
Dekhun "personal attack" mane ki eti jodi apni thikthak bojhen tahole
dekhben ami konodin-o shotohpronodito hoye kauke "personal attack"
korini. Dhorun apni Apratim-ke ekti byektigoto khNocha marlen, ami
apnake bollam "ota kora chhelemanushi". Tahole dwiti-o-ti ar "attack"
noy, "defense". Odhikangsho khetre-i amar "defense"-guli nijer jonyo
noy. TNader jonyo, jNara onyoder "personal attack" koren na.
Moderator-er integrity niye jokhon kotha hochhilo, tokhon, conspiracy
theory-r poriprekhkhite apnar thatta-ti ekebarei bhalo ruchi ba bhalo
judgement-er porichoy day na. No joke is funny, when there is a
victim. Ekhetre conspiracy theory jake kendro kore, she dosh-bish
hajar mile dure, ebong atmopokhkho shomorthone tar kichhu bolar
upay nei. Tai ami bollam.
Indrani-r prosn-er jobab debo. Dudin por. Indrani-ke ami personal du
ekti kotha bolechhi. Rag theke noy sheta uni janen.
Indranil.
Indranil DasGupta
BABU RAMABADRAN (bab...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
[..]
: Any way, if voting comes up for auto-moderation and I see any genuine
: reason in its refrendum, I will vote YES for it. But the way the things
: are going, I do not see any genuine reasons.
: ragards,
: babu ramabadran
I am counting on your support. I hope you'll persuade your friends in
the cause of Hinduism to support it too. After all BJP and Shiv Sena
have always promoted and championed the cause of the native people. To
the Maharashtrians of Bombay they gave "Mumbai", which appears an
exercise in futility unless you consider the "Maharashtriyan" identity
of it. Soc.culture.bengali needs to be relieved of posts that are
generated by spamming and have no relevance to the ng's charter and
identity. The auto-mod attempt is an expression of the
the desire of a bengali forum to get back its bengali
character.
I have taken sci off from the header for the same reason. Let us continue to
discuss it in scb (assuming you really read scb).
Indranil.
Indrani DasGupta
Aare choT-chho kano? Shono, aami kon du:kkhe a-m hobo? Prothhomoto, aami
Arts-er phYalna meye...akkebaare-i non-techno. Dwitioto, IDG jerokom
amaake dhapiye byaDaan amaar bhoy je onar kono article kata poDlei aamar
bNachar asha kkhin theke kkhinotoro hobe-i. Tritioto, aami tomader
shobbar por-e eshechhi. Kichhu-ti jaani na. Bishwash koro, a-m hobaar
moto elem amaar nei. Jodi thaakto, boltam. Ego-r obhaab amaar shottyi-i
nei. Ota-i jaake bol-e aykmatro shombol. :)
Indrani (w/o an 'l').
Kulbir Singh Bhatia
Indranil DasGupta (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
: S Bhattacharyya (san...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: : GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Arnab Gupta) writes:
: : appear to indicate that, he at least, does take an interest in the future
: : of this forum. If memory serves me right, he used to be one of the most
: : prolific cross posters here.
: : regards,
: : Santanu
: Mr. Bhatia was indeed a prolific cross-poster, but recently he had
: stopped starting cross-posted threads to scb almost completely. This act
: of charity more or less coincided with my request to a well known scp
: netter to make a personal appeal to him regarding this. So I like to
: think that Mr. Bhatia is a sensible person after all.
: Netters will recall that Mr. Bhatia was ideologically opposed to the
: auto-moderation of SCIT. After a-m was successfully voted in there,
: Mr. Bhatia continued to post articles in SCIT which arguably have no
: relevance to Telugus. However since nfew other interested parties follow
: up on those threads the resulting noise is not too high.
: Data from SCIT is ofcourse valuble. Anyone who wishes to ascertain the
: effectiveness or lack thereof of a-m should check SCIT for
: himself/herself.
: Indranil.
I am of the opinion that unless we address the root cause of the
problem all our efforts would be of limited success only. This was
the main argument I gave during the debate on SCIT auto-moderation.
The root cause of the problem is the organized attempt by certain groups
and political parties to control and hegemonize ngs. That is the primary
cause of most of the verbal violence and strife on the South Asian ngs.
What is the use of knee-jerk reactions if we aren't going to address
the primary cause ?
Initially I was quite reluctant to participate in the net life. I
started participating only when my Sikh national pride couldn't
tolerate fascist goonda gardi anymore and when I started participating
I was greeting with a barrage of obscenities, insults and swear words in
an organized way. There was a concerted movement to complain to my
SA. Several hundred letters were sent to my school. There were
complaints at several other places also which I don't want to disclose
on the net. These kind of things are sweet music to a person brought
up in Punjab and gradually I started enjoying all this. I don't like to
talk about personal stuff on the net but I want to give the
background information so that readers know why I started cross-posting
all of a sudden.
My stand since the beginning of cross-posting debate is:
If non-Punjabis want to share views and information on SCPb then
Punjabis should also share views and information on non-Punjabi ngs.
regards,
kulbir singh
Indranil DasGupta
Anindya Ghoshal
rajib doogar fired off with his Desert Eagle by writing:
Boom!!!!
>
> Poor innocent Anindya Ghoshal (agho...@eng2.uconn.edu) passed away after
> writing:
>
> <good stuff>
> : (ii) Secondly to note certain comments of ARC, Mr.Rajib Doogar and Mr.
> : Santanu Bhattacharyya about SPHS, IITKGP and Apratim. Well personally,
> : I felt the comments are unfair towards Apratim and other nettors who
> : happen to belong to one of those institutes.
> <more good stuff>
>
> I object to this part. Note that:
Objection noted:
>
> step 1: You note certain comments by {a,b,c} about {X,Y,z}.
I note that you've noted {a,b,c} as the domain set.
> step 2: You think the comments are unfair towards {z,x,y}, x in X, y in Y.
{z,x,y} is the range..
>
> Here, a=rajib, {b,c}={Aryababu, Santanubabu}, X=IITKGP, Y=SPHS,
> z=Apratimbabu, {x in X} = {x} went to X, {y in Y} = {y} went to Y.
notation understood!!
>
> I assert that it is false that {rajib made comments about IITKGP,
> SPHS}, so may I, in the spirit of peace, suggest you amend your
> comment above to something along the following lines:
(i) your assertion is wrong. Step I and Step II doesn't imply your
assertion. Let me prove why it doesn't to you, Sir. The col. vector {a,b,c} was mapped
onto column vector {z,x,y}. An one-to-one corespondence between the
elements of the sets is a fully valid mapping. Although in this case a can be
mapped onto z, b->X,Y, c->Y. As you can see, since I haven't attributed
that the converse is true i.e., the range set can be mapped onto the original
domain set, hence your assertion that I've asserted {rajib made comments
about IITKGP, SPHS} is mathematically wrong. {a,b,c} when mapped onto
{z,x,y} does not necessary mean that a has to be related to b and c.
I hope you can understand why I stand mathematically vindicated and
your implications & assertions are mathematically and otherwise wrong!!!
(ii) However in the spirit of peace I've no problems with your notations
on Step 1 and Step 2.
>
> step 1: I note that {a commented about z} and also that {l,m,n}
> commented about {U,V,W}}.
> step 2: I find both sets of comments to be unfair.
>
> where {l},{m},{n} and U,V,W are free variables for you to quantify as
> you find accurate in your readings of the thread and {a} and {z}
> retain their meanings as defined above.
>
> This eliminates any possible reference to the nonexistent object {a
> commented about {X,Y}}.
>
> Otherwise, I invite you to document the assertion {rajib commented on
> IIT, SPHS}.
see above!!
(III) I would to like to invite you to prove that I, Anindya Ghoshal have anywhere
asserted that " {rajib commented on IIT, SPHS}" !!!!!!
> To the best of my knowledge, I have never shared those
> feelings with you or on scb.
(IV) On the contrary, please prove that I, AG, have asserted that you, RD, had
shared "these feelings" {please explicitly quantify what these feelings are}
with me or on SCB !!!!!!!
>
> I do *not* want to be involved in the personal mud-bath that is being
> stirred up here. I do not know any of the people, I do not belong to
> any of these institutions. The internal politics and bickering of
> the elements of the power set of their alumni are of compleat
> disinterest to me. Leave me out of this please.
(V) Au contraire, Mr Doogar, please prove that I, Anindya Ghoshal, by my
last posting "under quotation" had by any stretch of imagination had
(i) commented on the "The internal politics and bickering of
the elements of the power set of their alumni" (their referring to SPHS and
IITKGP) , (ii) asked you to become of it and (iii) asked you to become part
of personal mud-bath on SCB!!!!!
> I would immensely prefer a *public* response to this, since e-mail
> explanation and private communication cannot undo the possible
> side-effects of public misattribution. I have to deal with students
(VI) (i) Please prove that I, Anindya Ghoshal, had suggested that I would/have sent
you an email explanation or any sort of private communication!!!
> from both these institutions in my professional capacity and I would
> like to leave no impression that I feel one way or the other about
> them since such an impression could and would interfere with my proper
> performance of my professional activites.
(VII) This one is incredible and highly offensive. Please prove your
assertion that my comments on last posting has impaired your professional
career and hampered your working relationships with your colleagues!!!
I'm dumbfounded by your ability to twist and turn a single sentence
into the above. I would like to extend my exclusive applause for your ability to read
in between the lines and conjecture up thoughts and assertions which
were never implied at all in the first place !!! WOW!! It is very interesting
to see who is itching for this so called "personal mud-batch"!!!!!
>
> Thanks,
I'm totally offended by such an posting by Mr. Dooger full of false assertions
and insinuations including suggesting that my comments hampered his professional
activities. If Mr. Doogar is unable to prove the above and is unable to show that
his assertions are correct, I would like to request him to publicly withdraw
his offensive comments & insinuations !!!! I suggest to Mr. Doogar that the above
goes much beyond character assasination on the NET!!!!
I stand by what I've written and I'm within my rights to consider what is unfair
and fair according to my power of understanding..
>
> rajib
Santanu Baboo, I stand corrected, Thanks..however it is your inference
about SPHS was something, I found, according to my power of understanding, unfair.
Anyway this SCB thing has gone anything beyond I could imagine in my wildest
dreams. I'm out of SCB as it is beyond my imaginations of how my statements
can be twisted and turned by highly educated people. I don't care anymore whether
SCB is unmoderated or auto-moderated as I'm unsubscribing to it. Infact out
this Usenet World itself... Folks, my infinite apologies to all of the nettors if anytime
any of my posting had been rude and offensive (including to the DC lover of
Iswar Chandra Gupta's poetry, I understand my sarcasm was subtly in bad taste).
Take care and my best wishes to folks on SCB.
auf wiedersehen,
regards,
Anindya
sayan bhattacharyya
Indranil DasGupta <dgu...@buphy.bu.edu> wrote:
>: lok-e personal attack-o korben (sheta ki khub porinoto-mostishker
Dekhun "personal attack" mane ki eti jodi apni thikthak bojhen tahole
From my experience of s.c.b., most of the personal attacks in this
forum have usually originated from some cliquish posters in Boston.
They have a long history of casting aspersions on the personal life
and personal lifestyle of their debating opponents, and of making
comments on their marital status, including passing gratuitous, insulting
and unsolicited advice on how to alter the same. On at least one
occasion, one of these cliquish posters has publicly posted
offensive and libelous verses about the fictionalized personal life of
a debating opponent.
Personal attack, thy name is "The Bostonians"!
-Sayan.
Sharmila Mukherjee
Indranil DasGupta wrote:
>
> Sharmila Mukherjee (s...@shiva.3dem.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:
>
> : Hmm..kothata je aamar-o mone aasheni aykbaar-o ta noi, tobe e chaDa
> : upai-o to dekhina. Maane torko-bitorko to hobei, aar raag hoye gyale
> : mimangsha hoye gyale lok-e e dingulir kotha bhule giye aabar purono
> : din-e fire jaaben.
>
> korini. Dhorun apni Apratim-ke ekti byektigoto khNocha marlen, ami
> apnake bollam "ota kora chhelemanushi". Tahole dwiti-o-ti ar "attack"
> noy, "defense". Odhikangsho khetre-i amar "defense"-guli nijer jonyo
> noy. TNader jonyo, jNara onyoder "personal attack" koren na.
Indranilbabu, aapni ki korey dhore nilen bolun to je aami bolechi je
`aapni' personal attack koren? Aamar lekhai kothau ki aapnar ullekh
aache? Eta onek ta shei `thakur ghore ke? aami to kola khaini'-r moto
hoye gyalo naki?
>
> Moderator-er integrity niye jokhon kotha hochhilo, tokhon, conspiracy
> theory-r poriprekhkhite apnar thatta-ti ekebarei bhalo ruchi ba bhalo
> judgement-er porichoy day na. No joke is funny, when there is a
> victim. Ekhetre conspiracy theory jake kendro kore, she dosh-bish
> hajar mile dure, ebong atmopokhkho shomorthone tar kichhu bolar
> upay nei. Tai ami bollam.
Ayk second, ayk second; aapni to aymon bhaabe bolchen je aeite already
decide hoye gyache je Apratimbabu-ee moderator. Aykhono sherokom kichui
hoi ni, tai ekhane kono victim nei, specific karur integrity niye kichu
bolar kono proshnoi uthche na. Kotha hochchilo je _jini_ automoderator
hoben, _tNar_ raag hoye geley uni ki korte aabar nao korte paren, tai
niye. As far as I understood, it was written in a light vein and was
supposed to be taken as such, as was taken by a lot of nettors.
Sambitbabu-o aei proshonge sheirokom-ee kichu bolechilen, aapni hoito
poDe thaakben. Oporke defend korte jhNapiye poDa admirable hoito(whether
he/she needs it is another matter altogether), kintu aamar money hoi
aapni badanubaad-er thylai ektu beshi-ee excited hoye poDechen, you need
to loosen up a bit.
Regards,
Sharmila Mukherjee
heh...heh....ja bolecho! Kintu ekhane to aar a-m-e kaaj hobe na,
aykebaare censorship laagbe, :-)
Indranil DasGupta
Sharmila Mukherjee (s...@shiva.3dem.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:
: > : upai-o to dekhina. Maane torko-bitorko to hobei, aar raag hoye gyale
: > : lok-e personal attack-o korben (sheta ki khub porinoto-mostishker
: > : porichoi IDG-babu?). Tobey aamar bishwash, at least I hope je aykta
: Indranilbabu, aapni ki korey dhore nilen bolun to je aami bolechi je
: `aapni' personal attack koren? Aamar lekhai kothau ki aapnar ullekh
: aache? Eta onek ta shei `thakur ghore ke? aami to kola khaini'-r moto
: hoye gyalo naki?
Tahole nicher kothagulo ki yyyemni yyyemni bollen?
: > Moderator-er integrity niye jokhon kotha hochhilo, tokhon, conspiracy
: > theory-r poriprekhkhite apnar thatta-ti ekebarei bhalo ruchi ba bhalo
: > judgement-er porichoy day na. No joke is funny, when there is a
: > victim. Ekhetre conspiracy theory jake kendro kore, she dosh-bish
: > hajar mile dure, ebong atmopokhkho shomorthone tar kichhu bolar
: > upay nei. Tai ami bollam.
: Ayk second, ayk second; aapni to aymon bhaabe bolchen je aeite already
: decide hoye gyache je Apratimbabu-ee moderator. Aykhono sherokom kichui
Na, kintu *default* moderator. Ebong conspiracy-r ingeet or
dike-i chhilo. Sheta ki apni bojhen ni?
: hoi ni, tai ekhane kono victim nei, specific karur integrity niye kichu
: bolar kono proshnoi uthche na. Kotha hochchilo je _jini_ automoderator
: hoben, _tNar_ raag hoye geley uni ki korte aabar nao korte paren, tai
: niye. As far as I understood, it was written in a light vein and was
: supposed to be taken as such, as was taken by a lot of nettors.
`Lot' kina janina, tobe it was immediately used by at least one netter
in the wrong way. Did you want to give him that opportunity? Besides I
did not see you register a protest when your post was
being mis-interpreted and mis-used by that netter. Perhaps you lacked
the "enthusiasm". Eishob bole apnar temper niye khela korchhi. kano?
Apni-i bolun.
: Sambitbabu-o aei proshonge sheirokom-ee kichu bolechilen, aapni hoito
: poDe thaakben. Oporke defend korte jhNapiye poDa admirable hoito(whether
: he/she needs it is another matter altogether), kintu aamar money hoi
: aapni badanubaad-er thylai ektu beshi-ee excited hoye poDechen, you need
: to loosen up a bit.
Apnar eta kano mone hochhe janen? Karon apnar kajer
shomalochona kore ekti kotha bole phelechhi. Amake to er cheye dher
beshi porush kotha roj net-e shunte hoy. Kono oshubidhe hoy na. Jar
kachhe dhap khelaam tar uporeo onek shomoy raagi na. Puro-tai practice-er
byepaar.
Loose hoben na. Tate bhul hoy. Objective hobar cheshta korun.
Indranil.
rajib doogar
Anindya Ghoshal (agho...@eng2.uconn.edu) wrote:
: about IITKGP, SPHS} is mathematically wrong. {a,b,c} when mapped onto
: {z,x,y} does not necessary mean that a has to be related to b and c.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I understand, understood, etc. this to always be true. that is why
you will note that I asked you nicely -- in the interest of peace,
etc., to refine your assertion to be more precise. as you must have
realized from a few minutes of careful thinking, your original
statement does not exclude from its possible domain, false assertions.
it was precisely to remove the *possible* inclusion of such false
statements from the domain of your speech/writing that I asked you to
clarify what you were asserting. you now say:
: (ii) However in the spirit of peace I've no problems with your notations
: on Step 1 and Step 2.
thank you. You also comment, among many other things which I have no
time to deal with, that:
: Please prove your
: assertion that my comments on last posting has impaired your professional
: career and hampered your working relationships with your colleagues!!!
Let me try to calm you down one last time. I did not make this
assertion, contrary to what you understand. if you read my paragraph
again calmly, I have used "could and would", not "can and has" to
indicate prospective and not actually ocurrred harm. ergo your
assertion about what I have asserted is, in itself, false.
All in all, thanks for your clarification.
rajib
BABU RAMABADRAN
In <4t1073$h...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta)
writes:
>: Any way, if voting comes up for auto-moderation and I see any
genuine
>: reason in its refrendum, I will vote YES for it. But the way the
things
>: are going, I do not see any genuine reasons.
>
>: ragards,
>
>: babu ramabadran
>
>the cause of Hinduism to support it too. After all BJP and Shiv Sena
>have always promoted and championed the cause of the native people. To
>the Maharashtrians of Bombay they gave "Mumbai", which appears an
>exercise in futility unless you consider the "Maharashtriyan" identity
>of it. Soc.culture.bengali needs to be relieved of posts that are
>generated by spamming and have no relevance to the ng's charter and
>identity. The auto-mod attempt is an expression of the
>the desire of a bengali forum to get back its bengali
>character.
>
>I have taken sci off from the header for the same reason. Let us
continue to
>discuss it in scb (assuming you really read scb).
>
>Indranil.
>
>
related to bengali society as any other indian society. The problem is
where do you draw the boundry.
I think if any one is determined to post, no one can stop it. Also
as Kulbir bhatia say that cross postings are done by organized group of
people is also not a valid reason, because nothing is difficult for
organized group of pople but it will definetly discuorage individual
cross poster like me. A-M will not be able to frustrate the efforts of
organised people but will harass individual contributors.
regards,
babu ramabadran
Arya Raychaudhuri
kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
>Arya Raychaudhuri (rayc...@sfu.ca) wrote:
>: kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
>: >: >: >in these words:
>: >: Although the days of Da Vinci are long gone, the most successful
>: >: engineering professionals often have multidisciplinary grasp.
>: >: Hence, cross posting between different engineering groups should
>: >: be valid.
>: >
>: >: rgds
>: >: ARC
>: >I am sorry. I didn't realize that Mr. Raychoudhuri was objecting
>: >only to auto-moderation. I got off track by one of his postings in which
>: >he wrote:
>: >
>: >----------------------------------------------------
>: >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.
>: >---------------------------------------------------
>: >
>: >I thought he was opposed to the creation of special interest groups.
>: >
>: >I apologize.
>: >
>: >regards,
>: >
>: >kulbir singh
>: I do not get your point here. My support (vote) for the creation of scb
>: was not based on my love for the creation of a special interest group.
>: Isn't that clear? In fact, for your information, I had opposed a move
>: to create scb earlier on (probably in 93).
>: hope this helps
>Actually it does not and bring us back to square one. But it doesn't matter.
>It seems the way we are trying to communicate is seriously flawed otherwise
>we would have made some progress in understanding each other's position a
>little bit better after an exchange of several postings. Afterall this
>isn't a very complex subject. But what the heck, understanding each other
>isn't mandatory for either of us. So why bother ?
>regards,
>kulbir singh
I am very surprised that you are back to the square one!
I thought I had made my position clear, on the issue of auto moderation.
If you did not feel convinced, here it is again.
1. Auto moderation is a bad idea that does not even merit the VOTE.
Because, it leads to increased censorship, and reduced level of choice
on the part of readers.
2. scb or similar ngs provide poor voting ground for the possibility of
"subway" special interest groups influencing the result.
3. I am not in favor of *irrelevant* crossposting. I hope that crossposters
will use their judgement before crossposting to an apparently
unrelated ng. It will be nice to see positive crossposts taht
talk about achievements, rather than negative ones filled with hate.
This is my last response to this thread. Hope this clears the confusion.
rgds
ARC
W
>: ARC
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:
: >: >: >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:
Kulbir Singh Bhatia
: >: >: >: >in these words:
: >: hope this helps
: >regards,
: >kulbir singh
: rgds
: ARC
:
: W
: >: ARC
Mr. Raychoudhuri has once again expressed his views about
a-m in response to my posting. I made a request in an earlier
posting that I wanted to confine myself to the original issue which I
phrased as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is exactly the point from where we started our exchange.
It was precisely for this reason (that our discussion seems to be cyclic)
that I mentioned that we were back to square one.
regards,
kulbir singh
Sharmila Mukherjee
Indranil DasGupta wrote:
> Tahole nicher kothagulo ki yyyemni yyyemni bollen?
Kon kothagulo-r kotha bolchen bolunto? Aami shudhu niche kyano, daine,
bNaye, kothau aamar kotha khNuje pelaam na, jedikei takai aapnar-ee
kotha dekhte pai!
> Na, kintu *default* moderator. Ebong conspiracy-r ingeet or
> dike-i chhilo. Sheta ki apni bojhen ni?
Nah, aapnar imagination-er `daag' na diye parchi na!
> `Lot' kina janina, tobe it was immediately used by at least one netter
> in the wrong way. Did you want to give him that opportunity? Besides I
> did not see you register a protest when your post was
> being mis-interpreted and mis-used by that netter. Perhaps you lacked
> the "enthusiasm". Eishob bole apnar temper niye khela korchhi. kano?
> Apni-i bolun.
Aamar jodi aapnar moto temper thaakto, to kobey bortey jetaam! Aar
aamar kon post `mis-interpreted/mis-used' hoyeche, aapni jodi boley
dyan, aami boroi baadhito hobo. Kichu kichu post aamar matha ghuDiye
dai, tai sheguli aami eDiye choli.
> Apnar eta kano mone hochhe janen? Karon apnar kajer
> shomalochona kore ekti kotha bole phelechhi.
Hashalen moshai! SCb-te lekha shuru korar por gayer chaamDa besh mota
hoye gyache, oneker-i hoito. Aar aapnar shomalochona na pele to aamar
money hoi je aamar posting bujhi brithai gyalo!
Amake to er cheye dher
> beshi porush kotha roj net-e shunte hoy. Kono oshubidhe hoy na. Jar
> kachhe dhap khelaam tar uporeo onek shomoy raagi na. Puro-tai practice-er
> byepaar.
Hote pare; aapni obhiggyo nettor, bohudin-er practice. Aapnar
dhoirjyo-ke khuDe khuDe dondobot!
>
> Loose hoben na. Tate bhul hoy. Objective hobar cheshta korun.
Aapnar upodesh mone thaakbe.
>
> Indranil.
Kulbir Singh Bhatia
Kulbir Singh Bhatia (kbh...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: : >Arya Raychaudhuri (rayc...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: : >: kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
: : >: I am very surprised that you are back to the square one!
: : >: rgds
: : >: ARC
: : >:
: : >: W
: : >: >: ARC
: : >----------------------------------------------------------------------
: : >----------------------------------------------------------------------
: : >regards,
: : >kulbir singh
: : Let us say some people are sitting at a table.
: : A section of them find the discussions uninteresting/boring/offensive.
: : Others don't. The question of voting to change the course of discussion
: : arises only when other tables are not available. If that is not the
: : case (as with apparently unlimited cyberspace), the group that
: : did not find the table attractive normally finds another. That
: : is, they should start another group with a preferred moderation status.
: : I think that is the most natural thing. There should be no objections
: : if a group of any readership wants to have a separate open/closed
: : forum for discussion of their preferred topics.
: : In the light of the above, I must say that I was in error when I had
: : opposed an earlier move (probably by Rajiv Shukla) to create scb.
: : Thanks for your question.
: : ARC
: In my view this analogy isn't too accurate.
: A more accurate analogy is that a group of people set up a table
: with lots of care and sentiments to eat Japanese food and a
: group of loosers insist that they cann't have Japanese food on
: that table and instead would have to eat garbage served by them (loosers).
: regards,
: kulbir singh
The correct spellings are "losers" and not "loosers".
Sorry for any inconvenience.
regards,
kulbir singh
Kulbir Singh Bhatia
: >Arya Raychaudhuri (rayc...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: >: kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
: >: I am very surprised that you are back to the square one!
: >: rgds
: >: ARC
: >:
: >: W
: >: >: ARC
: >----------------------------------------------------------------------
: >----------------------------------------------------------------------
: >regards,
: >kulbir singh
: Let us say some people are sitting at a table.
Arya Raychaudhuri
>: >: >: >: >in these words:
>: >: hope this helps
>: >regards,
>: >kulbir singh
>: rgds
>: ARC
>:
>: W
>: >: ARC
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>regards,
>kulbir singh
Let us say some people are sitting at a table.
Sharmila Mukherjee
POST FROM AMITABHA LAHIRI
-------------------------
Indranil DasGupta wrote:
> 15 or 20 people can get together and mail-bomb some others for a while.
Mail-bombing is an act of violence against an individual, with the
specific
intent of making life (or at least the use of computers) difficult for
that
individual.
> 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.
Because we who read scb are not (hopefully) violent people. When people
wish to employ violence without feeling guilty about it, they use
systems
that have passed into the acceptance of society, such as police, army,
government and such. Not surprisingly, you are building upon the same
assumptions.
> 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.
You will find yourself in court faster. Mail-bombing is an actionable
offence under U.S. Federal law. However, _requesting_ people to leave
s.c.bengali out of their cross-posts is _not_ the same as mail-bombing,
especially if your requests are polite, do not contain irrelevant junk,
and
are not repetitive. If you reply to the poster once for each post that
you
consider irrelevant that is _not_ mail-bombing. If only one or two
people
express their displeasure to the poster, they can be justifiably written
off as trying to suppress specific people or specific political
thoughts.
If many do, the poster may realise the original post _was_
inappropriate.
> Even granting that a dedicated army of cleaners can be formed, and they
I note the use of the word `army'.
> What else is mail bombing other than fighting crap with crap? Basically
Mail bombing is illegal, no matter what you are fighting. Replying to
the
poster, once for each post, is not. You have, either through ignorance,
or
through devious cleverness, decided to refer to one as the other. Don't.
Amitabha
--
Amitabha Lahiri MAPS University of Sussex A.La...@central.susx.ac.uk
Sharmila Mukherjee
POST FROM AMITABHA LAHIRI
-------------------------
Indranil DasGupta wrote:
> I also had Amitabha's clearly spelled
> strategy for mail-bombing in mind.
As I pointed out in a separate post, mail bombing is an offence. You are
accusing me of being a criminal, or at least of inciting people to
commit a
crime, whereas in reality I have repeatedly, and expressly, asked people
_not_ to mail-bomb anyone.
I suspect most readers would not have thought about the full impact of
what
you just said about me. People can be fired, suspended, or at least have
their email privileges suspended (and you know _exactly_ how dependent
on
email our field is) pending investigation of such an accusation.
How would you feel if I were to accuse you falsely of a crime? Or even a
non-actionable misdeed such as plagiarism in your work?
What do you think a `personal attack' means? Indranil, if you wish to
play
ugly, I _can_ play along with you. But the cost will be tremendously
high,
to both of us. I politely request you to desist.
Indranil Dasgupta
Sharmila Mukherjee posts for Amitabha:
> Indranil DasGupta wrote:
> In other words, one poster makes sure that all the irrelevant articles
> that
> caused all the brouhaha in SCIT are still there. Let's wait a bit
> longer.
There is no need to rephrase what I said. This poster keeps posting
copies of his articles to sci separately to scit. The result is a few
extra posts in scit every other day. I am not sure where you got the
idea about _all_ irrelevant articles in your head. Please read my post
carefully. Even the threads started by these few irrelevant posts do not
lead to spamming because they are not cross-posts, they are separate
posts to scit.
> > the early days of scb, I protested, tried to raise public concern and
> > sent personal mails to offending cross-posters.
>
> As did I, and it worked. Which is why I made that proposal.
It worked? For which ng? Actually, ever since Sharmila has been trying
to get me to e-mail "offenders" I have been asking her to ask you to
give us a few demos of your method/proposal. She may have ignored my
request though.
> > 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.
> In other words, it worked when you tried talking to the posters on a
> personal basis.
And because these were exceptionally nice people.
> are human too, there is a finite chance that we will end up making a
> mistake (by our own rules) in identifying the inappropriate post and its
> poster. Which is why I suggested that we make a public notification of
> our
> choice of `irrelevant posting of the day'.
I understand your position perfectly. Indeed I agree with you that if
mail-requests are to work we must act together, overtly and follow a
method. However I think that your `proposal' for discussing the offender
on the net will lead only to further pollution. Also, the strategy may
fizzle out in the long run as the our enthusiasm ebbs.
> > 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.
> I also mentioned Sayan's name, Nachiketa Tiwari's name, Apratim's name,
> and
> my own name in that same post, but not all in the same place. Indranil,
> if
> _you_ had the inclination and energy to read what I wrote, you would
> know
> exactly in what context I `mentioned Rohan's name'. Here is the context:
> *I* certainly do not name any of these as `persistent offenders' -- I
> was
> pointing out that _some_ people _may_ allow their personal political
> views
> to interfere in _their_ identification of an irrelevant post.
> Unfortunately
> some netters have allowed exactly that to happen.
There was really no need to drop names here. The other names belong to
people who at least do make regular contribution. Still I would rather
keep names out; there is always the possiblity of a misunderstanding. I
apologize if the misunderstanding was on my part. Please note that such
misunderstandings would be regular fare if your proposal is adopted.
> > Talking of inclination and energy, I personally have lost them with
> > regards to persuading cross-posters.
> Perhaps because you don't care strongly enough any more?
I have no kill files. Never had any. So, you could indeed say that
personally I am not affected by spamming. On the other hand I have
strong parental feelings for the group. If there is any democratic way
of improving the signal to noise for newcomers I'd like to try it.
But my energy is limited. I'd like to use it for useful things.
This doesn't mean I will never follow the method in your proposal. I
have done it before and would continue to make requests wherever I think
it may work.
> As I have said before, the method I propose has _not_ been tried before.
> Only one or two people making their voices heard is _not_ what I have
> proposed. However, even that has worked in the past, according to your
> testimony and my experience. So not only is my proposal not
> `unworkable',
> its workability is expected to be high.
Give us a demo, Amitabha. Put all doubts to rest.
> They already have. My proposal was no more than what was suggested in
> the
> original RFD/CFV proposals for s.c.bengali for taking care of irrelevant
> posts. I made that suggestion during the first RFD, and Apratim included
> it with his support. No more support is needed for my proposal, which is
> no
> more than a reminder to readers about how we had originally agreed to
> deal
> with irrelevant posts when we voted for the group overwhelmingly.
I don't recall what went into that RFD. Many things were on our minds at
that time. Foremost, the successful passage of the proposal through the
voting. Your proposal doesn't sound good to me NOW.
I certainly could not have foreseen the noise that has become a part of
my daily calorie intake.
Plus, the people who voted `overwhelmingly' for the ng have not been
overwhelmingly practising what you say was a part of the original RFD
anyway.
> > 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.
> No you don't. You only need to have a little belief in your own ability
> to
> persuade people in a friendly manner.
Look Amitabha, these things won't remain very friendly for very long.
You started this friendly discussion by saying that such and such people
have responded with knee jerk reactions e.t.c. Called me `callous' when
I appealed that we look for common grounds rather than conflicts.
Anyhow, a few demos would have helped.
> > Moreover, you'd need to agree on who to
> > `prosecute' in a reasonable amount of time (pipe dream, IMO).
>
> No you don't. There is no prosecution, nor persecution. I find it
> extremely
> interesting that you are invoking the language of force in describing my
> proposal, which involves no more than polite requests. Nor have I
> suggested
> a precondition of agreement. I have suggested a waiting period of one
> week
> between publicly identifying a poster who is consistently making
> irrelevant
> posts and writing to that person. This was mainly to prevent mistakes,
> to
> give the named poster a chance, to explain his/her actions or, if s/he
> had
> been mistaken in understanding the irrelevance of his her articles to
> s.c.b., to apologise for that mistake. All to make sure that things are
> done at a personal level in a friendly manner and that nothing is done
> in a
> fit of blind rage simply because someone said something that annoys a
> few.
>
> Amitabha
Okay, so I didn't read you correctly. Frankly the tone of your posts may
have thrown me off the scent on this politeness thing. I am all for
polite discussions followed by polite letters. But I don't think it will
work. Right now, I'm all for a-m. If that doesn't get through the voting
I promise to try your proposal.
Indranil.
Sharmila Mukherjee
POST FROM AMITABHA LAHIRI
-------------------------
Indranil DasGupta wrote:
>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.
In other words, one poster makes sure that all the irrelevant articles
that
caused all the brouhaha in SCIT are still there. Let's wait a bit
longer.
>> I have an alternative proposal (below).
[..]
> I may be one of those stupid few who has actually tried your method. In
Not `my method' Indranil, my proposal, which I see you have omitted. It
requires action from everyone who is interested in seeing the articles
posted in the appropriate fora. If only a few are willing to say
anything
at all, nobody will ever be convinced that these posts are inappropriate
for s.c.b. On the other hand, if a large number of readers write to the
poster to tell him/her that the post would be more appropriate in x.y.z.
than s.c.b. the poster may actually realise that they are not acting
purely
from political or egoistic motives.
> the early days of scb, I protested, tried to raise public concern and
> sent personal mails to offending cross-posters.
As did I, and it worked. Which is why I made that proposal.
> 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.
In other words, it worked when you tried talking to the posters on a
personal basis. However, if only you and I and a few others keep writing
to
the posters on a regular basis, the posters will justifiably (but
incorrectly) imagine that we have some hidden political agenda about
shutting up certain viewpoints or some egoistic belief that we can
decide
what can be posted on s.c.b. Which is why it is necessary to get an
opinion
out of as many readers as possible. Now it is certainly not worth
anyone's
time to write off an email for every odd post that shows up, since
posters,
who are human, can make mistakes. Which is why I mentioned `persistent
offenders' (the reason the words are in quotes is that cross-posting is
not
an offence -- but I could not think of a better word). However, since
you
and I (or anyone else who tried to identify these `persistent
offenders')
are human too, there is a finite chance that we will end up making a
mistake (by our own rules) in identifying the inappropriate post and its
poster. Which is why I suggested that we make a public notification of
our
choice of `irrelevant posting of the day'.
> 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.
I also mentioned Sayan's name, Nachiketa Tiwari's name, Apratim's name,
and
my own name in that same post, but not all in the same place. Indranil,
if
_you_ had the inclination and energy to read what I wrote, you would
know
exactly in what context I `mentioned Rohan's name'. Here is the context:
===
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.
===
*I* certainly do not name any of these as `persistent offenders' -- I
was
pointing out that _some_ people _may_ allow their personal political
views
to interfere in _their_ identification of an irrelevant post.
Unfortunately
some netters have allowed exactly that to happen.
> Talking of inclination and energy, I personally have lost them with
> regards to persuading cross-posters.
Perhaps because you don't care strongly enough any more?
> 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.
As I have said before, the method I propose has _not_ been tried before.
Only one or two people making their voices heard is _not_ what I have
proposed. However, even that has worked in the past, according to your
testimony and my experience. So not only is my proposal not
`unworkable',
its workability is expected to be high.
> 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.
They already have. My proposal was no more than what was suggested in
the
original RFD/CFV proposals for s.c.bengali for taking care of irrelevant
posts. I made that suggestion during the first RFD, and Apratim included
it with his support. No more support is needed for my proposal, which is
no
more than a reminder to readers about how we had originally agreed to
deal
with irrelevant posts when we voted for the group overwhelmingly.
> 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.
No you don't. You only need to have a little belief in your own ability
to
persuade people in a friendly manner.
> Moreover, you'd need to agree on who to
> `prosecute' in a reasonable amount of time (pipe dream, IMO).
No you don't. There is no prosecution, nor persecution. I find it
extremely
interesting that you are invoking the language of force in describing my
proposal, which involves no more than polite requests. Nor have I
suggested
a precondition of agreement. I have suggested a waiting period of one
week
between publicly identifying a poster who is consistently making
irrelevant
posts and writing to that person. This was mainly to prevent mistakes,
to
give the named poster a chance, to explain his/her actions or, if s/he
had
been mistaken in understanding the irrelevance of his her articles to
s.c.b., to apologise for that mistake. All to make sure that things are
done at a personal level in a friendly manner and that nothing is done
in a
fit of blind rage simply because someone said something that annoys a
few.
Amitabha
Debashis Bhattacharya
rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu (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*?
.. deleted ...
I am seriously concerned, baffled, and truly flabbergasted at the way the
debate on auto-moderation of SCB has been held, to date.
IMHO, Apratim made an honest expression of frustration, when he suggested
auto-moderation of SCB. IMHO, some other netters in SCB made honest expressions
of their opposition to the idea -- a perfectly legimitate thing to do.
Initially, I myself felt inclined favorably towards the idea of
auto-moderation, since I'm just as frustrated as anybody else, with meaningless
cross-posts. However, after having seen some very good arguments against
auto-moderation, I'm not so sure.
As I see it, this is a legitimate topic, that should be debated properly, and
cleanly, since its in the interest of all participants of SCB to develop some
clear guidelines about the "dos" and "don'ts" in SCB (and methods to implement
such dos and don'ts). Unfortunately, this debate has not stayed proper, nor
clean, and has turned into a virtual grudge match between two warring camps!
Please, folks, calm down, and revert to a rational debate format. There are
always many possible interpretations for any statement: let's not get carried
away while making these interpretation.
Debashis Bhattacharya.
Indranil DasGupta
Sharmila Mukherjee (s...@shiva.3dem.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:
: Indranil Dasgupta wrote:
: > It worked? For which ng?
: Dekhun, aamar opor to bhorsha chilo na aapnar, jNar shoronaponno hotey
: bolchilen, khod tNar mukh thekei ebaar shunlen to?
Ki shunlaam bolun to?
: > > In other words, it worked when you tried talking to the posters on a
: > > personal basis.
: >
: > And because these were exceptionally nice people.
: Bakira je nice non, tai ba janlen ki korey?
Janina bolei to "exceptionally" kothata byabohar korlaam. Shobai ki
"exceptional"?
: > But my energy is limited. I'd like to use it for useful things.
: > This doesn't mean I will never follow the method in your proposal. I
: > have done it before and would continue to make requests wherever I think
: > it may work.
: Wherever `you' think it may work? What about what `we' think?
Yes, what about it?
Indranil.
Sharmila Mukherjee
Indranil DasGupta wrote:
> : Dekhun, aamar opor to bhorsha chilo na aapnar, jNar shoronaponno hotey
> : bolchilen, khod tNar mukh thekei ebaar shunlen to?
>
> Ki shunlaam bolun to?
Oi je, personally e-mail korar byapaare...
> : Bakira je nice non, tai ba janlen ki korey?
>
> Janina bolei to "exceptionally" kothata byabohar korlaam. Shobai ki
> "exceptional"?
Shudhu nice holei cholbey aamar money hoi.
> : Wherever `you' think it may work? What about what `we' think?
>
> Yes, what about it?
Maane aamra bolle aapni kono action neben na?
Indranil DasGupta
sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@heron.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: Indranil DasGupta <dgu...@buphy.bu.edu> wrote:
: >: lok-e personal attack-o korben (sheta ki khub porinoto-mostishker
: Dekhun "personal attack" mane ki eti jodi apni thikthak bojhen tahole
: From my experience of s.c.b., most of the personal attacks in this
: forum have usually originated from some cliquish posters in Boston.
: They have a long history of casting aspersions on the personal life
: and personal lifestyle of their debating opponents, and of making
: comments on their marital status, including passing gratuitous, insulting
: and unsolicited advice on how to alter the same. On at least one
: occasion, one of these cliquish posters has publicly posted
: offensive and libelous verses about the fictionalized personal life of
: a debating opponent.
That verse was not libelous. The writer had a long exchange of e-mail
with someone you know about what constitutes rudeness. At the end of it
the "someone you know" had declined an unconditional public apology if
his feelings were hurt on the grounds that discussing such matters in
public would only add to the injury. Bostonians are wondering if people
have changed their take on the matter since then.
Also, Bostonians have long endured the emotional need of a certain
Michiganian to keep sending them e-mails (in abusive language) with
a paternal smile on their faces. Their advice on marital status e.t.c
may be taken in the same filial spirit with which affectionate words of
abuse are hurled regularly at them privately. I personally have always
discouraged other Bostonians from giving advice on marital status to
Michiganians because of my prinicipled objection to ruining a poor
girl's life.
Indranil.
Sharmila Mukherjee
Indranil Dasgupta wrote:
> It worked? For which ng?
Dekhun, aamar opor to bhorsha chilo na aapnar, jNar shoronaponno hotey
bolchilen, khod tNar mukh thekei ebaar shunlen to?
> Actually, ever since Sharmila has been trying
> to get me to e-mail "offenders" I have been asking her to ask you to
> give us a few demos of your method/proposal. She may have ignored my
> request though.
Aapnar request `ignore' korbo? Aamar ghaDe ayktai matha aache.
Amitabhababu out of town chilen, tai.....
>
> > > 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.
>
> > In other words, it worked when you tried talking to the posters on a
> > personal basis.
>
> And because these were exceptionally nice people.
Bakira je nice non, tai ba janlen ki korey?
[...]
> But my energy is limited. I'd like to use it for useful things.
> This doesn't mean I will never follow the method in your proposal. I
> have done it before and would continue to make requests wherever I think
> it may work.
Wherever `you' think it may work? What about what `we' think?
[...]
Indranil DasGupta
Sharmila Mukherjee (s...@shiva.3dem.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:
: POST FROM AMITABHA LAHIRI
: -------------------------
: > 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.
: Because we who read scb are not (hopefully) violent people. When people
: wish to employ violence without feeling guilty about it, they use
: systems
: that have passed into the acceptance of society, such as police, army,
: government and such. Not surprisingly, you are building upon the same
: assumptions.
Ki bolte chaichhen bujhlaam na.
: > Even granting that a dedicated army of cleaners can be formed, and they
: I note the use of the word `army'.
Apni ki Gopal BhNaD-er shunyo ashon dokhol korbar phondi eNtechhen? Here
is a quote from your own post. Having talked of "flooding by e-mails"
(cholbe to?) you refer to it as a "loaded gun" yourself. Hah, hah, hah....
" You don't point a loaded gun at someone as a joke, nor for the heck
of it. "
Ekhane "loaded gun" kothata note korte bholen ni to? :-) A 1000 people
with "loaded guns", heh heh, army na-bole battalion bola uchit chhilo?
Na ki brigade?
: > What else is mail bombing other than fighting crap with crap? Basically
: Mail bombing is illegal, no matter what you are fighting. Replying to
: the
: poster, once for each post, is not. You have, either through ignorance,
: or
: through devious cleverness, decided to refer to one as the other. Don't.
: Amitabha
:-) :-) Nijer post-ta dwitiobar poDe khub ghabDe gachhen mone hochchhe.
I thought *you* expected that 1000 people would send
e-mails to the "persistent offenders". I thought *you* wanted "persistent
offenders" to feel they will be harshly treated by scb-iites.
Makes one wonder if you found out that mail-bombing is illegal in UK
*after* you had typed out your valiant proposal. Ar tarpor shala shob
dosh IDG-r! :-)
Shukno pantalun pathabo ekta?
Indranil.
Indranil DasGupta
: Indranil DasGupta wrote:
: > I also had Amitabha's clearly spelled
: > strategy for mail-bombing in mind.
: As I pointed out in a separate post, mail bombing is an offence. You are
: accusing me of being a criminal, or at least of inciting people to
: commit a
: crime, whereas in reality I have repeatedly, and expressly, asked people
: _not_ to mail-bomb anyone.
Quote from jargon file 3.2.0:
" mailbomb (also mail bomb) [Usenet] 1. v. To send, or urge others to
send, massive amounts of
email to a single system or person, esp. with intent to crash or spam
the recipient's system.
Sometimes done in retaliation for a perceived serious
offense. Mailbombing is itself widely
regarded as a serious offense -- it can disrupt email traffic or other
facilities for innocent users on
the victim's system, and in extreme cases, even at upstream
sites. 2. n. An automatic procedure with
a similar effect. 3. n. The mail sent. Compare letterbomb, nastygram,
BLOB (sense 2). "
Apni ki unabomber-er moto mail-bomb-er kotha bhabchhilen? I am not aware
if mail-bombing in the sense described above is _always_ a criminal
offense (in the US). If it is so then you had better watch out. Let's
recapitulate what you said in your post. You said:
"
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. "
Then you said:
"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. "
From the above paras I understood that:
1. You were urging people to send large amounts of e-mails to certain
individuals.
2. You were aware that the success of your method depended on its
"harsh"-ness on the receiver.
3. You were aware that the harshness was linked to the number of the
e-mails.
Reading the definition of "mail bombing" from the jargon file I am
convinced more than ever that you indeed were proposing nothing but
"mail-bombing". I am however accusing you of no criminal act. Indeed, I
am still not sure if _all_ mail bombings are unlawful in US. For
instance the definition talks of "massive" amounts of e-mails. I would
consider 1000 (the number you had in mind, it seems) to be
massive. Someone had once sent me 25 copies of the same mail. That had
seemed like enough bombing to me. But "massive" is subject to differing
interpretations. Also, if mail-bombings happened to save the life of the
reciever, then surely it won't count as an offense!
The bottomline is: I was not aware that mail bombing is a criminal
offense. But if it is then you should be careful about what you say in
public. The rest of your post (and most of another one) seems paranoid
to me. I wouldn't refer to your proposal as one about mail bombing
anymore. Let me know if "flooding with e-mails" is acceptable to you and
the law. In all earnestness I hope that no one can accuse you of any
criminal acts.
: What do you think a `personal attack' means? Indranil, if you wish to
: play
: ugly, I _can_ play along with you. But the cost will be tremendously
: high,
: to both of us. I politely request you to desist.
: Amitabha
Thank you for a polite request. I haven't got one from you in a long
time.
Only one thing left to say. *I* don't have to be personal to make it
`ugly' for you. I never had. Your penchant for one-upmanship has
always more or less done you in. I am counting on you to shed all your
politeness and make some indefensible remark. You have always been very
obliging. Thank you. Again and again.
Indranil.
Indranil DasGupta
Sharmila Mukherjee (s...@shiva.3dem.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:
: Indranil DasGupta wrote:
: > : Bakira je nice non, tai ba janlen ki korey?
: >
: > Janina bolei to "exceptionally" kothata byabohar korlaam. Shobai ki
: > "exceptional"?
: Shudhu nice holei cholbey aamar money hoi.
Abar she ashichhe phiriya! Dekhlen to? Are, Arektu mishti kore bolun!
Mone mone bhabun Jamai-ke biday korchhen. Kopale ekta chumo din. "Nice"
bole kotha!
: > : Wherever `you' think it may work? What about what `we' think?
: >
: > Yes, what about it?
: Maane aamra bolle aapni kono action neben na?
Chhelemanush-der onurodh thelte oshubidhe hotei pare. Ki korbo age
thakte bolte parchhi na.
Indranil.
Debasish Dhar
dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta) writes:
>: From my experience of s.c.b., most of the personal attacks in this
>: forum have usually originated from some cliquish posters in Boston.
>
>That verse was not libelous. The writer had a long exchange of e-mail
>with someone you know about what constitutes rudeness. At the end of >
As a casual reader of this ng for the last couple of years, it appears
that some of the netters love to wash their dirty laundry in public :)
I wonder if all the ruckus about auto-moderation is about retaining our
own turf? Surely, we do not need the loads of crap generated by Mr
Rambadran and his ilk to flood our ng! We can generate enough of that
on our own.
BTW, a couple of netters in the past had requested the address of
Ananda publishers in the US, so here it goes:
House of Ananda
P.O.Box 1833
Madison Square Station
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (212) 481-9424 Fax: (212) 481-9611
They carry Desh, Sananda, Anandalok, Anandamela and Probashi
Anandabazar for US subscribers, and also have a bunch of bengali films.
Debasish
Arya Raychaudhuri
kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
>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 am very surprised that you are back to the square one!
>: >: rgds
>: >: ARC
>: >:
>: >: W
>: >: >: ARC
>: >----------------------------------------------------------------------
>: >----------------------------------------------------------------------
>: >regards,
>: >kulbir singh
>: ARC
>In my view this analogy isn't too accurate.
>A more accurate analogy is that a group of people set up a table
>with lots of care and sentiments to eat Japanese food and a
>group of loosers insist that they cann't have Japanese food on
>that table and instead would have to eat garbage served by them (loosers).
>regards,
>kulbir singh
I did not understand how the accuracy improved, even after trying
for a few days.
What is "Japanese food" analogous to? And garbage?
Who are the winners?
regards
ARC
Sharmila Mukherjee
Indranil DasGupta wrote:
> Abar she ashichhe phiriya! Dekhlen to?
Dekhun, aami to aagei bolechi je e kaaj karur aykaar noi, shokoler
shohojogita dorkaar, ta aapnara keu she kotha kanei tullen na; aami aar
ki korte pari bolun?
[..]
> Indranil.
Sharmila
PS Aapni bolechilen chup kore thaakle naki aykta boro rokom message
deowa hoi. She kotha mone korei aapnar baki post-er kono uttor dilaam
na.
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 am very surprised that you are back to the square one!
: >: >: rgds
: >: >: ARC
: >: >:
: >: >: W
: >: >: >: ARC
: >: >----------------------------------------------------------------------
: >: >----------------------------------------------------------------------
: >: >regards,
: >: >kulbir singh
: >: ARC
: >In my view this analogy isn't too accurate.
: >A more accurate analogy is that a group of people set up a table
: >with lots of care and sentiments to eat Japanese food and a
: >group of loosers insist that they cann't have Japanese food on
: >that table and instead would have to eat garbage served by them (loosers).
: >regards,
: >kulbir singh
: I did not understand how the accuracy improved, even after trying
: for a few days.
: What is "Japanese food" analogous to? And garbage?
: Who are the winners?
: regards
: ARC
The "Japanese food" is analogous to the special interest for which the
ng has been created. The word loser is a slang which is generally used
in a contemptuos way for a person one may not particularly
like and its opposite may not necessarily be a winner. This word
was used for those who represent organized groups and try to
control and hegemonize ngs.
regards,
kulbir singh
Indranil Dasgupta
Amitabha Lahiri wrote:
> Indranil DasGupta wrote:
> > Sharmila Mukherjee posts for Amitabha:
> > It worked? For which ng? Actually, ever since Sharmila has been trying
> > to get me to e-mail "offenders" I have been asking her to ask you to
> > give us a few demos of your method/proposal. She may have ignored my
> > request though.
>
> That's pretty easy, Indranil.
The demo, you mean? The one that Sharmila (and perhaps you) just
concluded regarding JHC?
[..]
>
> However, if only one or two people keep complaining they can be justifiably
> dismissed as having a political (or other, not related to the stated ideal
> of keeping scb a forum for free and friendly discussions) agenda. So I
> suggested that all of us who feel that scb is being overwhelmed by
> irrelevant discussions write to the initiators of such threads, instead of
> waiting for `someone else' to do it.
> I additionally named three people, two of whom are popularly identified
> with opposing political camps and one whom I know (as well as one can know
When did you name these people? Are you talking about the post in which
you severely pulled up Shoumyo for taking up your first post at good
faith and face value and naming 3 people? I really don't recall a post
in which you actually expressed a desire to discuss the relevance of a
particular netter's posts.
> So ... coming back to how you can check if polite requests are enough ...
>
> Do you have some specific threads in mind? If you can identify some threads
> that are long, interminable, and have nothing (in your opinion) to do with
> Bengali culture, please make a post pointing them out, giving reasons > why
I could make a strong case against the present thread. Especially the
exchanges we two have had. Then we could start another equally inane and
irrelevant thread to dissect my case point by point.
I am still not in favour of fighting crap with crap.
[..]
> mind. Take a few days discussing it. Others who agree with you after a few
> days will write to all the posters in the thread that you name, those who
> do not, will not. If enough people write back, the posters may realise
> their mistake, and stop posting irrelevant stuff. Try it.
You mean the posters will realize that scb-iites are going to treat them
harshly?
> > And because these were exceptionally nice people.
>
> Most people turn out to be quite nice when you actually make the
> effort to talk to them. :-)
Yeah! Isn't that remarkable! Equally remarkable: most people are not
exceptional!
> > I understand your position perfectly.
> You do? Really? :-)
Yes. Really.
> > on the net will lead only to further pollution. Also, the strategy may
> > fizzle out in the long run as the our enthusiasm ebbs.
> If we only have enough enthusiasm to pass the buck, we deserve what we get.
If you can't scratch your left ear with your right foot you deserve the
itch!
> > apologize if the misunderstanding was on my part. Please note that such
> > misunderstandings would be regular fare if your proposal is adopted.
> Of course! Which is why you need to talk it out. Talking to people often
> helps get rid of misunderstandings, and what is this newsgroup for if not
> talking? (Btw, have you figured out if the misunderstanding was on your
> part?)
I am so weary of this useless point that I'd take your word for it.
> I see we are very similar. :-) I read scb through gopher (so kill files are
> useless) and I have a special fondness for the group as well. And I would
> like see the signal to noise ratio remain high. Let's not forget that it's
> still higher than a lot of other soc.culture groups.
> Btw, I didn't see many newcomers speaking up. Did you?
Many, no. Few, yes.
> > Give us a demo, Amitabha. Put all doubts to rest.
> Doesn't depend on _me_ Indranil. Depends on all of us.
I know. I told you I don't have the energy. I also told you that few
other netters will have the energy. Why don't you set the ball rolling
so we can see what comes of it? Or, have you given the push and it
refused to budge a bit?
> > I certainly could not have foreseen the noise that has become a part of
> > my daily calorie intake.
> You didn't? Just when I thought the world ran out of surprises ...
Heh, heh. Always suspected you knew. Tarrot cards, eh?
> > Look Amitabha, these things won't remain very friendly for very long.
> > You started this friendly discussion by saying that such and such people
> > have responded with knee jerk reactions e.t.c.
> Didn't they? If I remember correctly some names (and adjectives/invectives)
> were mentioned without any reason being given. I would call that a knee
> jerk reaction. Wouldn't you? Of course, if the reasons were spelled out
> clearly and I am wrong, I apologise.
Well you were pathetic when you started taking everything I wrote on the
net (including public jokes) as being motivated by a desire to ask
letters to *not* discuss a-m. Did anyone *tell* you that? Friendli-ness
comes from being polite. Politeness comes from not saying some things.
> > Called me `callous' when
> > I appealed that we look for common grounds rather than conflicts.
>
> Ahh ... yes. I wondered if that was why you have been so touchy lately. :-)
Actually I didn't object to your itchy reaction to me. I understood
that, and had let it go. Apratim screwed me up by making a protest which
simply gave you another opportunity to make more noise.
> Ok, I apologise deeply. You are an exceptionally nice, very sensitive human
> being. Not callous about anything at all. I promise to eat a humble pie for
> dinner tonight. Happy? ;-)
I will be happy if you promise not to worry that anyone is going to turn
you in for urging people to mail bomb. I will be happy when you shed
your paranoid fears and relax.
> There is something that still bugs me though. :-( Here's what you said:
>
> " There are long days of the RFD ahead. Let's not run head on into conflict
> right away. "
>
> As I read it, the phrase `right away' was crucial. It suggested that you
> have nothing against running head on into conflict, but would do so only
> _after_ the RFD. It didn't look (to me at least) like an appeal to look for
> common grounds. However, if you say so I'll accept that your appeal was
> hidden in there somewhere. Still ... did you not imply that the RFD would
> take place irrespective of what anyone else says?
No. Although the RFD *can* take place irrespective of what anyone else
says. I implied that I expected the RFD to take place. I implied (and
explicitly stated) that we look for common grounds before we rush into
conflict. I suggested that what we do `right away' is find common
ground.
> > Okay, so I didn't read you correctly. Frankly the tone of your posts may
> > have thrown me off the scent on this politeness thing.
>
> I would have thought that by now you would have known how to read my posts,
> especially since you don't use smileys very much yourself ...
But I still wasn't used to reading "politely" for "harshly".
> > work. Right now, I'm all for a-m. If that doesn't get through the voting
> > I promise to try your proposal.
>
> Why not try it now? And keep trying it? Is ghettoisation so necessary to
> you that you _must_ have a go at it? ;-)
I heard the same argument from several Hindi speaking guys when we were
discussing the creation of scb. Always sounds funny to me.
Indranil.
Amitabha Lahiri
Indranil DasGupta wrote:
> Sharmila Mukherjee posts for Amitabha:
> Indranil DasGupta wrote:
>> > the early days of scb, I protested, tried to raise public concern and
>> > sent personal mails to offending cross-posters.
>>
>> As did I, and it worked. Which is why I made that proposal.
> It worked? For which ng? Actually, ever since Sharmila has been trying
> to get me to e-mail "offenders" I have been asking her to ask you to
> give us a few demos of your method/proposal. She may have ignored my
> request though.
That's pretty easy, Indranil.
But first I should admit that my original proposal was flawed. I should
have proposed `threads' rather than `people'. The reason I did propose the
latter was that it seemed to me that readers were complaining about
specific individuals who keep making posts about Pakistani cricket or Sri
Lankan guerrilas, issues that can be (and most definitely should be, IMO)
discussed in various other newsgroups. The theme of `they who crosspost'
and `those who follow up' vs `we who do not like it' has been playing in
the posts of various people, including those in support of automoderation.
Even crossposters who are `exceptionally nice' people and stop crossposting
after being requested to do so were supposedly initiating crossposts on
their own. (Another very pertinent issue is that of this `them' versus
`us', but let us not get into that here.) Given this, I suggested that we
act on a cooperative, but individual basis -- identifying the individuals
who are initiating crossposts and then individually requesting them to post
their articles to the appropriate group.
However, if only one or two people keep complaining they can be justifiably
dismissed as having a political (or other, not related to the stated ideal
of keeping scb a forum for free and friendly discussions) agenda. So I
suggested that all of us who feel that scb is being overwhelmed by
irrelevant discussions write to the initiators of such threads, instead of
waiting for `someone else' to do it.
I additionally named three people, two of whom are popularly identified
with opposing political camps and one whom I know (as well as one can know
anyone on usenet) to be a non-believer in binary social logic and whose
discourse are thus necessarily not on `either' side. The relevant
commonality of all three was that at some point or other various people on
scb have asked each of them to post their articles elsewhere.
My point was that we shouldn't make calls to silence opinions whenever we
don't like them, but instead agree on a principle and follow it. (You
completely misunderstood what I was saying, but I'll let that pass.)
However, when actual names started showing up, various people, including
many who had earlier publicly asked individual posters to post elsewhere,
spoke up against the process.
In retrospect, I should have foreseen the extent of opposition, but never
mind: they are in fact right. Rather than name specific posts or posters as
initiators of irrelevant topics, we ought to identify the irrelevant topics
themselves. [This is getting long, so I'll stop. But you get the gist of
why I said what I said and why I should have said what I should have said.]
So ... coming back to how you can check if polite requests are enough ...
Do you have some specific threads in mind? If you can identify some threads
that are long, interminable, and have nothing (in your opinion) to do with
Bengali culture, please make a post pointing them out, giving reasons why
you think those threads are inappropriate. Make an appeal to netters,
asking them to write to the posters who are making these posts. Do not
forget to point out that it that the respondents ought to be polite.
There may be some others who do not agree with your judgement on what is
appropriate, you may choose to defend your call or you may even change your
mind. Take a few days discussing it. Others who agree with you after a few
days will write to all the posters in the thread that you name, those who
do not, will not. If enough people write back, the posters may realise
their mistake, and stop posting irrelevant stuff. Try it.
>> > 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.
>> In other words, it worked when you tried talking to the posters on a
>> personal basis.
> And because these were exceptionally nice people.
Most people turn out to be quite nice when you actually make the
effort to talk to them. :-)
>> are human too, there is a finite chance that we will end up making a
>> mistake (by our own rules) in identifying the inappropriate post and its
>> poster. Which is why I suggested that we make a public notification of
>> our
>> choice of `irrelevant posting of the day'.
> I understand your position perfectly.
You do? Really? :-)
> Indeed I agree with you that if
> mail-requests are to work we must act together, overtly and follow a
> method. However I think that your `proposal' for discussing the offender
> on the net will lead only to further pollution. Also, the strategy may
> fizzle out in the long run as the our enthusiasm ebbs.
If we only have enough enthusiasm to pass the buck, we deserve what we get.
>> > 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.
>> I also mentioned Sayan's name, Nachiketa Tiwari's name, Apratim's name,
>> and
>> my own name in that same post, but not all in the same place. Indranil,
>> if
>> _you_ had the inclination and energy to read what I wrote, you would
>> know
>> exactly in what context I `mentioned Rohan's name'. Here is the context:
>> *I* certainly do not name any of these as `persistent offenders' -- I
>> was
>> pointing out that _some_ people _may_ allow their personal political
>> views
>> to interfere in _their_ identification of an irrelevant post.
>> Unfortunately
>> some netters have allowed exactly that to happen.
> There was really no need to drop names here. The other names belong to
> people who at least do make regular contribution. Still I would rather
> keep names out; there is always the possiblity of a misunderstanding. I
> apologize if the misunderstanding was on my part. Please note that such
> misunderstandings would be regular fare if your proposal is adopted.
Of course! Which is why you need to talk it out. Talking to people often
helps get rid of misunderstandings, and what is this newsgroup for if not
talking? (Btw, have you figured out if the misunderstanding was on your
part?)
>> > Talking of inclination and energy, I personally have lost them with
>> > regards to persuading cross-posters.
>> Perhaps because you don't care strongly enough any more?
> I have no kill files. Never had any. So, you could indeed say that
> personally I am not affected by spamming. On the other hand I have
> strong parental feelings for the group. If there is any democratic way
> of improving the signal to noise for newcomers I'd like to try it.
I see we are very similar. :-) I read scb through gopher (so kill files are
useless) and I have a special fondness for the group as well. And I would
like see the signal to noise ratio remain high. Let's not forget that it's
still higher than a lot of other soc.culture groups.
Btw, I didn't see many newcomers speaking up. Did you?
> Give us a demo, Amitabha. Put all doubts to rest.
Doesn't depend on _me_ Indranil. Depends on all of us.
> I certainly could not have foreseen the noise that has become a part of
> my daily calorie intake.
You didn't? Just when I thought the world ran out of surprises ...
> Plus, the people who voted `overwhelmingly' for the ng have not been
> overwhelmingly practising what you say was a part of the original RFD
> anyway.
Perhaps they needed a reminder?
>> > 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.
>> No you don't. You only need to have a little belief in your own ability
>> to
>> persuade people in a friendly manner.
> Look Amitabha, these things won't remain very friendly for very long.
> You started this friendly discussion by saying that such and such people
> have responded with knee jerk reactions e.t.c.
Didn't they? If I remember correctly some names (and adjectives/invectives)
were mentioned without any reason being given. I would call that a knee
jerk reaction. Wouldn't you? Of course, if the reasons were spelled out
clearly and I am wrong, I apologise.
> Called me `callous' when
> I appealed that we look for common grounds rather than conflicts.
Ahh ... yes. I wondered if that was why you have been so touchy lately. :-)
Ok, I apologise deeply. You are an exceptionally nice, very sensitive human
being. Not callous about anything at all. I promise to eat a humble pie for
dinner tonight. Happy? ;-)
There is something that still bugs me though. :-( Here's what you said:
" There are long days of the RFD ahead. Let's not run head on into conflict
right away. "
As I read it, the phrase `right away' was crucial. It suggested that you
have nothing against running head on into conflict, but would do so only
_after_ the RFD. It didn't look (to me at least) like an appeal to look for
common grounds. However, if you say so I'll accept that your appeal was
hidden in there somewhere. Still ... did you not imply that the RFD would
take place irrespective of what anyone else says?
>> > Moreover, you'd need to agree on who to
>> > `prosecute' in a reasonable amount of time (pipe dream, IMO).
>> No you don't. There is no prosecution, nor persecution. I find it
>> extremely
>> interesting that you are invoking the language of force in describing my
>> proposal, which involves no more than polite requests. Nor have I
>> suggested
>> a precondition of agreement. I have suggested a waiting period of one
>> week
>> between publicly identifying a poster who is consistently making
>> irrelevant
>> posts and writing to that person. This was mainly to prevent mistakes,
>> to
>> give the named poster a chance, to explain his/her actions or, if s/he
>> had
>> been mistaken in understanding the irrelevance of his her articles to
>> s.c.b., to apologise for that mistake. All to make sure that things are
>> done at a personal level in a friendly manner and that nothing is done
>> in a
>> fit of blind rage simply because someone said something that annoys a
>> few.
> Okay, so I didn't read you correctly. Frankly the tone of your posts may
> have thrown me off the scent on this politeness thing.
I would have thought that by now you would have known how to read my posts,
especially since you don't use smileys very much yourself ...
> I am all for
> polite discussions followed by polite letters. But I don't think it will
> work. Right now, I'm all for a-m. If that doesn't get through the voting
> I promise to try your proposal.
Why not try it now? And keep trying it? Is ghettoisation so necessary to
you that you _must_ have a go at it? ;-)
Amitabha
--
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.
Amitabha Lahiri
Indranil Dasgupta wrote:
>Sharmila Mukherjee (s...@shiva.3dem.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:
>: POST FROM AMITABHA LAHIRI
>: Indranil DasGupta wrote:
>: > I also had Amitabha's clearly spelled
>: > strategy for mail-bombing in mind.
>: As I pointed out in a separate post, mail bombing is an offence. You are
>: accusing me of being a criminal, or at least of inciting people to
>: commit a
>: crime, whereas in reality I have repeatedly, and expressly, asked people
>: _not_ to mail-bomb anyone.
>Quote from jargon file 3.2.0:
>" mailbomb (also mail bomb) [Usenet] 1. v. To send, or urge others to
>send, massive amounts of
>email to a single system or person, esp. with intent to crash or spam
^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^
>the recipient's system.
I think I have said enough about my intent, which has no relation to any of
those two, in various posts from the very first one. And even in a related
post before the first post, on the thread The Bengali Peshwas. I'll let
others judge whether you misrepresented me.
>Then you said: "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. "
>From the above paras I understood that:
>1. You were urging people to send large amounts of e-mails to certain
>individuals.
No Indranil, I was asking a large number of people to be vocal in their
protest. The difference may be subtle, but is comprehensible to most.
> 2. You were aware that the success of your method depended on its
> "harsh"-ness on the receiver.
No Indranil, the success of the method was dependent upon convincing the
current `offenders' that they were posting in the wrong group. And the
more people wrote to them, the more likely they would realise that the
protests were not part of a deeper political agenda.
The *reputation* of harshness comes into play as a deterrent for people who
are not currently posting irrelevant material, but may think of doing so in
the future. How could a current thread be affected by `reputation'?
>3. You were aware that the harshness was linked to the number of the
>e-mails.
How exactly did you deduce that Indranil? I think you had already assumed
that I was calling for email-bombing. Go back for a moment and start from
the assumption that I was specifically against email-bombing. (Surprising
as it may seem to you, I was fully aware when I made my post that email
bombing is an offence in the US. I have been aware of the law since it was
made. It is not an offence in the UK as yet.) Also remember your reaction
when you saw a certain poster's name in my post. Check out how other people
react when their intellect or emotions are discussed by people with others.
Most people can figure out that a group does not need to email bomb to gain
a reputation of being harsh. Especially given the first two steps of my
proposal. Perhaps you had already made your conclusion?
> Reading the definition of "mail bombing" from the jargon file I am
> convinced more than ever that you indeed were proposing nothing but
> "mail-bombing". I am however accusing you of no criminal act.
Ah well .. you are convinced and you are not bothered to be convinced
otherwise. Nice way of discussing things that you have. :-)
>Only one thing left to say. *I* don't have to be personal to make it
>`ugly' for you. I never had. Your penchant for one-upmanship has
>always more or less done you in. I am counting on you to shed all your
>politeness and make some indefensible remark. You have always been very
>obliging. Thank you. Again and again.
You are most welcome. :-)
Someone today asked me after reading a recent post, `Who will be the first
to give in?' I told her I would. I have other things to do, and this debate
has been eating deep into my time. Ghettoisation was an important issue. At
this moment however, a few more people have started speaking up against it,
so I'll take a back seat. Since you guys will post an RFD no matter what, I
will probably be back to discuss it. But for now the stage is all yours.
You go one up. :-)
Arya Raychaudhuri
kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
>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:
>: >: >Arya Raychaudhuri (rayc...@sfu.ca) wrote:
>: >: >: kbh...@sfu.ca (Kulbir Singh Bhatia) writes:
>: >: >: I am very surprised that you are back to the square one!
>: >: >: rgds
>: >: >: ARC
>: >: >:
>: >: >: W
>: >: >: >: ARC
>: >: >----------------------------------------------------------------------
>: >: >----------------------------------------------------------------------
>: >: >regards,
>: >: >kulbir singh
>: >: ARC
>: >In my view this analogy isn't too accurate.
>: >A more accurate analogy is that a group of people set up a table
>: >with lots of care and sentiments to eat Japanese food and a
>: >group of loosers insist that they cann't have Japanese food on
>: >that table and instead would have to eat garbage served by them (loosers).
>: >regards,
>: >kulbir singh
>: I did not understand how the accuracy improved, even after trying
>: for a few days.
>: What is "Japanese food" analogous to? And garbage?
>: Who are the winners?
>: regards
>: ARC
>The "Japanese food" is analogous to the special interest for which the
>ng has been created. The word loser is a slang which is generally used
>in a contemptuos way for a person one may not particularly
>like and its opposite may not necessarily be a winner. This word
>was used for those who represent organized groups and try to
>control and hegemonize ngs.
>regards,
>kulbir singh
My feeling is that if one group does not control or hegemonize a ng,
another group certainly will. This is because many participants cannot
think other than in terms of groups. The group affinity and support
is somewhat like the hump of a camel. Without the hump, what is left
of the camel? Just the ability to chew and eat thorny plants!
In this scenerio, contempt does not fit. Or does it?
regards
ARC
ps. Congratulations to Donovan Baily, the fastest man on earth!
Kulbir Singh Bhatia
: >: >In my view this analogy isn't too accurate.
: >: >regards,
: >: >kulbir singh
: >: regards
: >: ARC
: >regards,
: >kulbir singh
: regards
: ARC
:
The race for leadership among subscribers of a particular special interest
seems quite natural. However, organized attempts to disrupt a healthy and
stimulating environment by non-subscribers isn't that natural and might
generate resentment and strife.
regards,
kulbir singh
ps: Lest this discussion gets transformed into one on
relativistic/absolutist philosophy/ethics/judgements with questions
like why is strife unnecessary, what is a healthy environment and why
cann't non-subscribers disrupt it etc., let me
try to put my thoughts in most simple terms:
If a group of individuals (subscribers of a special interest) have
created a special interest group after assiduous efforts of following a
proper democratic procedure, in my view, they have a right to ensure that
the focus of the group remains the same for which it was created.
I don't have anything more to add to this discussion.
Indranil DasGupta
Amitabha Lahiri (mp...@central.susx.ac.uk) wrote:
: Indranil Dasgupta wrote:
: >Quote from jargon file 3.2.0:
: >" mailbomb (also mail bomb) [Usenet] 1. v. To send, or urge others to
: >send, massive amounts of
: >email to a single system or person, esp. with intent to crash or spam
: ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^
: >the recipient's system.
: I think I have said enough about my intent, which has no relation to any of
: those two, in various posts from the very first one. And even in a related
: post before the first post, on the thread The Bengali Peshwas. I'll let
: others judge whether you misrepresented me.
:-) I had actually anticipated this line and prepared my response in
advance. Firstly, as I mentioned before, I did not use the word "mail
bombing" to incriminate you. Secondly, I have already agreed not to use
that word in the context of your proposal. Thirdly, it is you who is
unable to tear himself from this topic. Fourthly, the clause underlined
by you is preceeded by the word "especially". Need I quote webster to
make its meaning clear to you?
[...]
: >From the above paras I understood that:
: >1. You were urging people to send large amounts of e-mails to certain
: >individuals.
: No Indranil, I was asking a large number of people to be vocal in their
: protest. The difference may be subtle, but is comprehensible to most.
If a large number of people send at least one e-mail to an individual,
would it make a small number of e-mails for the reciever?
: > 2. You were aware that the success of your method depended on its
: > "harsh"-ness on the receiver.
: No Indranil, the success of the method was dependent upon convincing the
: current `offenders' that they were posting in the wrong group. And the
: more people wrote to them, the more likely they would realise that the
: protests were not part of a deeper political agenda.
And why, pray did you write the lines:
"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."
Look Amitabha, I was not trying to set you up to something. But if you
want to beat a dead horse I'll have to quote that gold mine of a post
again and again, and you'll be twisting like a contortionist to make
the word "harsh" mean something else. Or to imply that no one would read
the assurance in the second of the two sentences I quoted above as
being caused by the act in the first sentence.
: The *reputation* of harshness comes into play as a deterrent for people who
: are not currently posting irrelevant material, but may think of doing so in
: the future. How could a current thread be affected by `reputation'?
Are you okay, Amitabha? I have no idea what you are talking about here!
1. Since the harshness of scb would come from the e-mails sent by its
readers, one would think that it would only deter the
recipients of the e-mails. Think and let me know, who, according to your
proposal would get these e-mails.
2. Who said anything about "current threads"? Are you carrying on
several discussions at the same time?
: >3. You were aware that the harshness was linked to the number of the
: >e-mails.
: How exactly did you deduce that Indranil? I think you had already assumed
: that I was calling for email-bombing. Go back for a moment and start from
Let's keep mail bombing out for the moment.Right now, I am interested
in a literal reading of your much dissected post. Quote again:
" 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. "
The way I read the above lines is this:
1. The crossposts decrease as scb gains a reputation for harshness.
2. The crossposts don't decrease if only few people send e-mails.
From the above one *can* deduce that if only a few people send e-mails, scb
can not attain the reputation of being harsh. Which sounds perfectly
reasonable to
me. I don't know why you are so intent on denying something that you
wrote and only you seem to be dying to discuss. Is it guilt?
: the assumption that I was specifically against email-bombing. (Surprising
: as it may seem to you, I was fully aware when I made my post that email
: bombing is an offence in the US. I have been aware of the law since it was
: made. It is not an offence in the UK as yet.) Also remember your reaction
: when you saw a certain poster's name in my post. Check out how other people
: react when their intellect or emotions are discussed by people with others.
Who are you talking to, and what about?
: Most people can figure out that a group does not need to email bomb to gain
: a reputation of being harsh. Especially given the first two steps of my
: proposal. Perhaps you had already made your conclusion?
Regarding mail bombing? Listen Amitabha. Forget about the
"harshness". Just asking a large number of people to send e-mails to
someone else is by definition mail bombing. If you do it with love
letters, it is mail bombing by love letters.
When I said mail bombing, I was technically correct. I was also
not setting you up. But that is largely irrelevant.
Since *you* started to whine, I am telling you this. Not only did
you ask a large number of people to send e-mails to some individuals,
but your post may be interpreted as urging people to send e-mails
in such numbers that the receiver may find it "harsh". Instead of
bending this way and that way to make that post sound innocuous NOW, you
had two better alternatives:
1. You may never had said those things in the first place.
2. Had shut up immediately afterwards. Told me politely by e-mail
that you'd like me to not mention the word mail bombing and I'd have obliged.
I have no interest in making you fret and I have no pleasure in
replying to page after page of garbage on the net.
: > Reading the definition of "mail bombing" from the jargon file I am
: > convinced more than ever that you indeed were proposing nothing but
: > "mail-bombing". I am however accusing you of no criminal act.
: Ah well .. you are convinced and you are not bothered to be convinced
: otherwise. Nice way of discussing things that you have. :-)
A definition is a definition. Can't be helped. Convince the people who
wrote the jargon file. Just stop picking on me.
Frankly, you bug me.
: Someone today asked me after reading a recent post, `Who will be the first
: to give in?' I told her I would. I have other things to do, and this debate
: has been eating deep into my time. Ghettoisation was an important issue. At
: this moment however, a few more people have started speaking up against it,
: so I'll take a back seat. Since you guys will post an RFD no matter what, I
: will probably be back to discuss it. But for now the stage is all yours.
: You go one up. :-)
With infinite relief. I hope this time it does not keep you out of
circulation for half a year.
IDG