Do Not Redirect CGI Questions To CIWAC
Godzilla!
I will state again what I have recently stated.
Do not redirect people with cgi questions to
the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi group.
Reasons for this are very apparent.
Anyone care to present an argument, a rational
argument having an auto-bot moderated newsgroup
is both a logical idea and a good idea?
I certainly have acted in a responsible manner
by investing a lot of time and effort into
trying to restore the cgi group. Have you?
Godzilla!
Martien Verbruggen
Godzilla! <godz...@stomp.stomp.tokyo> wrote:
>
> I will state again what I have recently stated.
> Do not redirect people with cgi questions to
> the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi group.
[Do not pay any attention to what Godzilla says. It is a troll, and has
no decent working knowledge of Perl or programming in general. Search
groups.google.com to see a history of its posts and replies to these
posts.]
Do not get drawn into discussions with the troll.
CGI questions are offtopic here. The best place to redirect them is
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi.
Martien
--
|
Martien Verbruggen | Little girls, like butterflies, need no
| excuse - Lazarus Long
|
Godzilla!
> Godzilla! wrote:
> > I will state again what I have recently stated.
> > Do not redirect people with cgi questions to
> > the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi group.
> [Do not pay any attention to what Godzilla says. It is a troll, and has
> no decent working knowledge of Perl or programming in general. Search
> groups.google.com to see a history of its posts and replies to these
> posts.]
> Do not get drawn into discussions with the troll.
> CGI questions are offtopic here. The best place to redirect them is
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi.
Which reminds me, over in CIWAC, should I continue referring
to you as Sheila King, or should I call you Martien? If you
like I will refer to you using your real name, Frank.
Godzilla!
Helgi Briem
<godz...@stomp.stomp.tokyo> wrote:
>Which reminds me, over in CIWAC, should I continue referring
>to you as Sheila King, or should I call you Martien? If you
>like I will refer to you using your real name, Frank.
>
Are you off your medication again, Kira?
Regards,
Helgi Briem
Randal L. Schwartz
Godzilla!> I will state again what I have recently stated.
Godzilla!> Do not redirect people with cgi questions to
Godzilla!> the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi group.
Ahh yes. The Consensus of One.
As a counter-suggestion, I propose that people continue the reasonably
appropriate behavior of the status quo, which is to redirect people to
a different group if the topic is appropriate.
Godzilla!> Reasons for this are very apparent.
Really? Not apparent to me. CIWAC is functioning just fine, although
the boutell-bot outage was a bit troublesome. Sheila stepping in to
provide a replacement was a very needed thing.
Godzilla!> Anyone care to present an argument, a rational
Godzilla!> argument having an auto-bot moderated newsgroup
Godzilla!> is both a logical idea and a good idea?
That topic is off-topic here. And already discussed to death
in CIWAC. Please take your discussion *back* there.
Godzilla!> I certainly have acted in a responsible manner
Godzilla!> by investing a lot of time and effort into
Godzilla!> trying to restore the cgi group. Have you?
It's not a responsible manner to have brought it into a different
arena. It's also not a responsible manner to oppose the efforts of
Sheila, who is doing a fine volunteer job of getting *some* form of
moderating-bot up and running again to revive the group.
Changing the location of a bot is easy. Changing a group from
moderated to unmoderated is Very Very Difficult because of the
lame admins out there.
But you were told this already in that group. Don't bring the
discussion here. {sigh}
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<mer...@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Godzilla!
> Godzilla! wrote:
> > I will state again what I have recently stated.
> Ahh yes. The Consensus of One.
It would appear I am the only person who cares
enough to express concerns about the defunct and
barely operative cgi group.
> As a counter-suggestion, I propose that people continue the reasonably
> appropriate behavior of the status quo, which is to redirect people to
> a different group if the topic is appropriate.
This redirection to a broken newsgroup is a poor choice.
It makes no sense to redirect people to a group to which
they cannot post or have extreme difficulties posting.
Doing this is very rude and completely thoughtless.
Until the cgi group is correctly repaired by Boutell
and again under the authority of Boutell, none should
be redirected there.
> > Reasons for this are very apparent.
> Really? Not apparent to me.
Inability to post to a group strikes me as a valid reason.
When I posted this article, the cgi group was down for
nearly a day. Very recently, the cgi group was down for
a month or more, two months for sure before people could
begin posting again, although with great difficulty.
Those are apparent reasons to those of moderate intelligence.
> CIWAC is functioning just fine, although the boutell-bot outage
> was a bit troublesome.
The cgi group does not work fine. During the past few months
its uptime is less than seventy percent. When posting is a
rare possibility, posting is difficult and plagued with problems.
My experience is an unacceptable amount of my articles never
make it to the cgi group. I suspect others experience this.
Evidencing this are a large number of posts made by people
trying to post to the cgi group, without true success.
> Sheila stepping in to provide a replacement was a very needed thing.
Sheila King is a poser. King took over the cgi group behind
the scenes, in secrecy. Boutell is fully responsible for
maintaining the cgi group. King is not authorized to operate
nor hold control of the cgi group.
Boutell has abandoned ship, shirked his responsibilities.
This poser, Sheila King, has effected a takeover of the
cgi group with blatant disregard for USENET traditions.
> > Anyone care to present an argument, a rational
> > argument having an auto-bot moderated newsgroup
> > is both a logical idea and a good idea?
> That topic is off-topic here. And already discussed to death
> in CIWAC. Please take your discussion *back* there.
This is not off-topic here. Frequent postings of cgi questions
to this group, is a dead on topic, a topic often used by regulars
here to verbally harass participants.
There has been no discussion of this problem in the cgi group.
Sheila King flatly refuses to discuss this topic and, a vast
majority of comments passed consist only of ignorant insults
and trolls posted by well known regulars from here.
> > I certainly have acted in a responsible manner
> > by investing a lot of time and effort into
> > trying to restore the cgi group. Have you?
> It's not a responsible manner to have brought it into a different
> arena. It's also not a responsible manner to oppose the efforts of
> Sheila, who is doing a fine volunteer job of getting *some* form of
> moderating-bot up and running again to revive the group.
It is responsible to try to involve all those affected, in
discussions on what to do about the problem plagued cgi group.
Posting of cgi question here is a historical problem. However,
the real problem here is regulars using supposed cgi related
questions as a lame excuse to verbally harass others.
This is an issue which directly effects this group, quite clearly.
Sheila King did not volunteer. King has deliberately taken
advantage of irresponsible Boutell and now, quite literally,
rules the cgi group in a dictatorial manner.
> Changing the location of a bot is easy. Changing a group from
> moderated to unmoderated is Very Very Difficult because of the
> lame admins out there.
I was recently suckered into posting an article to a USENET
administrator's newsgroup. My article content indicates the
best benefit USENET could enjoy would be immediate removal
of all USENET administrators and their network. USENET
administrators are a serious detriment to USENET.
> But you were told this already in that group.
No. Sheila King refuses to discuss these problems with the cgi
group and regulars from here and there, only post insulting
articles or troll articles. Only one or two people, besides me,
have actually discussed these serious problems. None, however,
have attempted to seriously discuss these problems other than
myself, solely; a concensus of one.
> Don't bring the discussion here. {sigh}
There is no discussion. There are none responsible
enough to discuss these problems, other than myself.
You personally have not bothered to engage in discussion
of these problems other than to post this troll article,
your only article related to the cgi group problems
which directly and significantly effect this group.
My presumption is you believe yourself to be in charge
of this group just as this poser Sheila King believes
himself to be in charge of the cgi group.
Godzilla!
--
"Do not pay any attention to what Godzilla says. It is a troll,
and has no decent working knowledge of Perl or programming in
general. Search groups.google.com to see a history of its posts
and replies to these posts."
- The Poser
Martien Verbruggen
Godzilla! <godz...@stomp.stomp.tokyo> wrote:
> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>
>> Godzilla! wrote:
>
>> > I will state again what I have recently stated.
>> > Do not redirect people with cgi questions to
>> > the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi group.
>
>> Ahh yes. The Consensus of One.
>
> It would appear I am the only person who cares
> enough to express concerns about the defunct and
> barely operative cgi group.
There may be many people who care. It is of no concern to us. Neither is
the demise of any other newsgroup that has no bearing on perl.
Take your whinges to a place where they care.
Martien