Cutting to the Chase
Viveshwar
Pres. Bush just (12-16-03) signed into law a Spam bill. ISPs can
filter spam, but they don't. Why? Obviously some of them are owned
by spammers.
Exactly the same situation now exists with respect to the
troll-traffic that rountinely floods Usenet in general, and the admin
groups in particular, and makes it more unusable every month.
While Usenet dithers, life goes on, and administrative choices are
taken out of its hands by human beings in the real world who can get
stuff done.
The current blatant example of Usenet dithering is a thread called
RFD: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.moderated.
Even the name is convoluted. What might work is a group called:
FTC.nails.abusive.NSPs.to.the.wall.with.rocket.launched.grenades.
Viveshwar
ba...@dmcom.net
What might work is a group called:
> FTC.nails.abusive.NSPs.to.the.wall.with.rocket.launched.grenades.
>
FTC.* is not part of the big-8 please propose your group in the proper
place.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
Russ Allbery
> Pres. Bush just (12-16-03) signed into law a Spam bill. ISPs can filter
> spam, but they don't. Why? Obviously some of them are owned by
> spammers.
Actually, nearly all of them these days filter spam to one extent or
another in e-mail (AOL and Earthlink actively advertise that), and a fair
number filter spam on Usenet. Supernews does, for instance, as does
Newsguy, and I think quite a few other ISPs run Cleanfeed for their Usenet
feeds.
> Exactly the same situation now exists with respect to the troll-traffic
> that rountinely floods Usenet in general, and the admin groups in
> particular, and makes it more unusable every month.
The problem here is that this isn't as clear-cut to judge as actual spam.
But this is a great topic for a net-abuse newsgroup, since that's where it
tends to get discussed at great length.
> The current blatant example of Usenet dithering is a thread called RFD:
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.moderated.
You could post an RFD any time you felt like it, you know.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Terry Hatchett
> http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/3289551
>
> Pres. Bush just (12-16-03) signed into law a Spam bill. ISPs can
> filter spam, but they don't. Why? Obviously some of them are owned
> by spammers.
>
> Exactly the same situation now exists with respect to the
> troll-traffic that rountinely floods Usenet in general,
Oh, yeah, the situation is exactly the same. Trolls own the ISPs, and
they fill Usenet with their trolling. Riiiiiiiight.
> and the admin
> groups in particular, and makes it more unusable every month.
That is, if you're too fucking stupid to use a killfile.
>
> While Usenet dithers, life goes on,
Yet *you* can't seem to.
> and administrative choices are
> taken out of its hands by human beings in the real world who can get
> stuff done.
Those would be the administrators, you dumb fuck.
>
> The current blatant example of Usenet dithering is a thread called
> RFD: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.moderated.
So filter it, dumbshit.
>
> Even the name is convoluted. What might work is a group called:
> FTC.nails.abusive.NSPs.to.the.wall.with.rocket.launched.grenades.
Oh, how clever. I have a better one:
laugh.at.a.kook.named.fucknozzle.jr.
>
> Viveshwar
Terry Hatchett
> Viveshwar <res6...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
>>Pres. Bush just (12-16-03) signed into law a Spam bill. ISPs can filter
>>spam, but they don't. Why? Obviously some of them are owned by
>>spammers.
>
>
> Actually, nearly all of them these days filter spam to one extent or
> another in e-mail (AOL and Earthlink actively advertise that), and a fair
> number filter spam on Usenet. Supernews does, for instance, as does
> Newsguy, and I think quite a few other ISPs run Cleanfeed for their Usenet
> feeds.
In other words, Nozzy has his head up his ass and doesn't know what the
fuck he's talking about, as usual.
>
>
>>Exactly the same situation now exists with respect to the troll-traffic
>>that rountinely floods Usenet in general, and the admin groups in
>>particular, and makes it more unusable every month.
>
>
> The problem here is that this isn't as clear-cut to judge as actual spam.
> But this is a great topic for a net-abuse newsgroup, since that's where it
> tends to get discussed at great length.
>
>
>>The current blatant example of Usenet dithering is a thread called RFD:
>>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.moderated.
>
>
> You could post an RFD any time you felt like it, you know.
He'd rather whine.
>
Cujo
news:r3hutvctbv3ebpaju...@4ax.com:
> http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/3289551
>
> Pres. Bush just (12-16-03) signed into law a Spam bill. ISPs can
> filter spam, but they don't. Why? Obviously some of them are owned
> by spammers.
Delusion noted, dumbfuck.
> Exactly the same situation now exists with respect to the
> troll-traffic that rountinely floods Usenet in general, and the admin
> groups in particular, and makes it more unusable every month.
You mean that spammers own the groups?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!1!!!
> While Usenet dithers, life goes on, and administrative choices are
> taken out of its hands by human beings in the real world who can get
> stuff done.
Unlike you, Fucknozzle.
> The current blatant example of Usenet dithering is a thread called
> RFD: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.moderated.
>
> Even the name is convoluted. What might work is a group called:
> FTC.nails.abusive.NSPs.to.the.wall.with.rocket.launched.grenades.
Howz about alt.fucknozzles?
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann. Meow.
"Few things suppress female sexuality more than a flaccid dick and a guy
talking like Mickey Mouse while wearing panties on his head." - Phoenix
describing
Ed "Pantyhead" Wollmann in one sentence.
Bob Officer
<r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Viveshwar <res6...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> Pres. Bush just (12-16-03) signed into law a Spam bill. ISPs can filter
>> spam, but they don't. Why? Obviously some of them are owned by
>> spammers.
1. The internet is not under US control. How can a law signed by Bush or
passed By US Congress stop a Korean or any other foreign spamhaus?
>Actually, nearly all of them these days filter spam to one extent or
>another in e-mail (AOL and Earthlink actively advertise that), and a fair
>number filter spam on Usenet. Supernews does, for instance, as does
>Newsguy, and I think quite a few other ISPs run Cleanfeed for their Usenet
>feeds.
and IT works well. once in a while SN kills non-spam article, but that is a
rare occurrence.
>> Exactly the same situation now exists with respect to the troll-traffic
>> that rountinely floods Usenet in general, and the admin groups in
>> particular, and makes it more unusable every month.
>
>The problem here is that this isn't as clear-cut to judge as actual spam.
Viv is upset things don't work as he thinks they should. He wants everyone
to live to his narrow standards. Trolling is anything Viv doesn't want to
see, or thinks is "off topic".
>But this is a great topic for a net-abuse newsgroup, since that's where it
>tends to get discussed at great length.
And I have no problems with using delete key or kill filters. Viv thinks we
need net nannies and baby sitters and "Forum Hosts".
>> The current blatant example of Usenet dithering is a thread called RFD:
>> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.moderated.
>
>You could post an RFD any time you felt like it, you know.
He could be is too happy whining and bitching.
--
Aktohdi
Viveshwar
>Viveshwar wrote:
> What might work is a group called:
>> FTC.nails.abusive.NSPs.to.the.wall.with.rocket.launched.grenades.
>>
>
>FTC.* is not part of the big-8 please propose your group in the proper
>place.
Is makink Viveshwar stupid jyok, Bardashya.
HA!
HA!
HA!
Viveshwar
Viveshwar
wrote:
>Viveshwar <res6...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> Pres. Bush just (12-16-03) signed into law a Spam bill. ISPs can filter
>> spam, but they don't. Why? Obviously some of them are owned by
>> spammers.
>
>Actually, nearly all of them these days filter spam to one extent or
>another in e-mail (AOL and Earthlink actively advertise that), and a fair
>number filter spam on Usenet. Supernews does, for instance, as does
>Newsguy, and I think quite a few other ISPs run Cleanfeed for their Usenet
>feeds.
Agreed. But if one ISP decides not to filter, and the others peer
with it, it doesn't make any difference, with respect to Usenet as a
whole. The spam still goes everywhere, and to groups like NANAU in
particular.
>
>> Exactly the same situation now exists with respect to the troll-traffic
>> that rountinely floods Usenet in general, and the admin groups in
>> particular, and makes it more unusable every month.
>
>The problem here is that this isn't as clear-cut to judge as actual spam.
>But this is a great topic for a net-abuse newsgroup, since that's where it
>tends to get discussed at great length.
Agreed, but such discussions are typically attcked by the trolls
themsleves, and nobody wants the hassle of dealing with a
robo-moderated group. The human obstructions are bad enough; machine
obstructions simply make effective interaction impossible
>
>> The current blatant example of Usenet dithering is a thread called RFD:
>> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.moderated.
>
>You could post an RFD any time you felt like it, you know.
You know, I'm just a newbie, and like I've written repeatedly, there
is no point in anyone, particularly myself, I feel, trying to do this
solo.
*IT*TAKES*A*VILLAGE*
Om Tryambkama Yajamahe
]Viveshwar
Viveshwar
<bobofficers...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:57:05 -0800, in news.groups, Russ Allbery
><r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>Viveshwar <res6...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> Pres. Bush just (12-16-03) signed into law a Spam bill. ISPs can filter
>>> spam, but they don't. Why? Obviously some of them are owned by
>>> spammers.
>
>1. The internet is not under US control. How can a law signed by Bush or
>passed By US Congress stop a Korean or any other foreign spamhaus?
It can't. Like virtually everything on Usenet, this is a matter of
influence. The rest of the world looks up, quite appropriately, to
the US as the progenitor and prime user in Usenet. This law will have
a world-wide effect. Will it cause all abuse to cease? Absolutely
not. The law itself is imperfect. But it points to the fact that the
Internet, including Usent, is not a law unto itself. Those who use
it, if abusive, can be prosecuted under national and other laws.
>
>>Actually, nearly all of them these days filter spam to one extent or
>>another in e-mail (AOL and Earthlink actively advertise that), and a fair
>>number filter spam on Usenet. Supernews does, for instance, as does
>>Newsguy, and I think quite a few other ISPs run Cleanfeed for their Usenet
>>feeds.
>
>and IT works well. once in a while SN kills non-spam article, but that is a
>rare occurrence.
>
>>> Exactly the same situation now exists with respect to the troll-traffic
>>> that rountinely floods Usenet in general, and the admin groups in
>>> particular, and makes it more unusable every month.
>>
>>The problem here is that this isn't as clear-cut to judge as actual spam.
>
>Viv is upset things don't work as he thinks they should. He wants everyone
>to live to his narrow standards. Trolling is anything Viv doesn't want to
>see, or thinks is "off topic".
You exaggerate, bobo. Constantly. I'm not upset. I'm simply saying
that the status quo is unacceptable by normal human cultural
standards. Almost everyone agrees with that, except some ancient
Usent nerds, who have acclimated themselves to a filthy communication
environment.
>
>>But this is a great topic for a net-abuse newsgroup, since that's where it
>>tends to get discussed at great length.
>
>And I have no problems with using delete key or kill filters. Viv thinks we
>need net nannies and baby sitters and "Forum Hosts".
Wrong. I would like to see a moderated abuse group, moderated by a
*group* of broad-minded but realistc individuals. This has never
happened, and I think it would promote realistic laws on the one hand,
and responsible use of the English-speaking Net on the other.
>
>>> The current blatant example of Usenet dithering is a thread called RFD:
>>> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.moderated.
>>
>>You could post an RFD any time you felt like it, you know.
>
>He could be is too happy whining and bitching.
No, bobo, just stop blatting out your pre-concieved prejudices, and
listen, for one single *sentence*, will you? I see no point in being
harassed into the same kind of mistake that has already been made, and
that has already failed functionally, with
news.admin.net-abuse.policy.
This is a profound issue, and I would be QUITE happy to discuss it for
six months before writing an RFD, because I think that something
effective in this needs that kind of attention and broad
consideration.
What I'm really looking at here, bobo, my friend, is a sea-change.
It's not about you, and it's not about me, and it's not about Russ.
And it's not a gotcha game. It's a lot of hard work, and fools rush
in.
As above, so below
Viveshwar
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Actually, nearly all of them these days filter spam to one extent or
>> another in e-mail (AOL and Earthlink actively advertise that), and a
>> fair number filter spam on Usenet. Supernews does, for instance, as
>> does Newsguy, and I think quite a few other ISPs run Cleanfeed for
>> their Usenet feeds.
> Agreed. But if one ISP decides not to filter, and the others peer
> with it, it doesn't make any difference, with respect to Usenet as a
> whole. The spam still goes everywhere, and to groups like NANAU in
> particular.
I don't see why that would be. For example, I filter all incoming
traffic, no matter what the source, whether it's posted locally or not.
All other ISPs that filter Usenet that I'm aware of do the same thing.
>> The problem here is that this isn't as clear-cut to judge as actual
>> spam. But this is a great topic for a net-abuse newsgroup, since
>> that's where it tends to get discussed at great length.
> Agreed, but such discussions are typically attcked by the trolls
> themsleves, and nobody wants the hassle of dealing with a robo-moderated
> group. The human obstructions are bad enough; machine obstructions
> simply make effective interaction impossible
I don't see how the sort of aggressive filtering you seem to be describing
here is functionally different than a robomoderated group, except
distributed to every ISP.
> You know, I'm just a newbie, and like I've written repeatedly, there is
> no point in anyone, particularly myself, I feel, trying to do this solo.
Well, this may be that no one else is particularly excited by your
proposal. I don't know. I know that I'm not excited enough about it to
volunteer to help, since I doubt I'd read the new group (and I certainly
don't want to moderate it, and moderators seem to be the main thing that a
proposal would need).
Terry Hatchett
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:09:49 -0500, ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
>
>
>>Viveshwar wrote:
>> What might work is a group called:
>>
>>>FTC.nails.abusive.NSPs.to.the.wall.with.rocket.launched.grenades.
>>>
>>
>>FTC.* is not part of the big-8 please propose your group in the proper
>>place.
>
>
> Is makink Viveshwar stupid jyok,
Too late; you already are one.
Terry Hatchett
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:57:05 -0800, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Viveshwar <res6...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Pres. Bush just (12-16-03) signed into law a Spam bill. ISPs can filter
>>>spam, but they don't. Why? Obviously some of them are owned by
>>>spammers.
>>
>>Actually, nearly all of them these days filter spam to one extent or
>>another in e-mail (AOL and Earthlink actively advertise that), and a fair
>>number filter spam on Usenet. Supernews does, for instance, as does
>>Newsguy, and I think quite a few other ISPs run Cleanfeed for their Usenet
>>feeds.
>
>
> Agreed. But if one ISP decides not to filter, and the others peer
> with it, it doesn't make any difference, with respect to Usenet as a
> whole. The spam still goes everywhere, and to groups like NANAU in
> particular.
Jesus. Thank God you came along to alert us to this Insidious Activity.
>
>>>Exactly the same situation now exists with respect to the troll-traffic
>>>that rountinely floods Usenet in general, and the admin groups in
>>>particular, and makes it more unusable every month.
>>
>>The problem here is that this isn't as clear-cut to judge as actual spam.
>>But this is a great topic for a net-abuse newsgroup, since that's where it
>>tends to get discussed at great length.
>
>
> Agreed, but such discussions are typically attcked by the trolls
> themsleves, and nobody wants the hassle of dealing with a
> robo-moderated group.
Really? Then why are they so popular, dumbshit?
> The human obstructions are bad enough; machine
> obstructions simply make effective interaction impossible
Which is why Igor's STUMP program never gets used. Riiiiiiiiight.
>
>>>The current blatant example of Usenet dithering is a thread called RFD:
>>>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.moderated.
>>
>>You could post an RFD any time you felt like it, you know.
>
>
> You know, I'm just a newbie,
No!
> and like I've written repeatedly,
ITYM "Ad Nauseaum".
>there
> is no point in anyone, particularly myself, I feel, trying to do this
> solo.
You are right. Particularly, and specifically as regards yourself, there
is no point to anything you do on Usenet.
>
> *IT*TAKES*A*VILLAGE*
And you're the Official Idiot of it.
Terry Hatchett
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:06:56 -0800, Bob Officer
> <bobofficers...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:57:05 -0800, in news.groups, Russ Allbery
>><r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Viveshwar <res6...@verizon.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pres. Bush just (12-16-03) signed into law a Spam bill. ISPs can filter
>>>>spam, but they don't. Why? Obviously some of them are owned by
>>>>spammers.
>>
>>1. The internet is not under US control. How can a law signed by Bush or
>>passed By US Congress stop a Korean or any other foreign spamhaus?
>
>
> It can't. Like virtually everything on Usenet, this is a matter of
> influence. The rest of the world looks up, quite appropriately, to
> the US as the progenitor and prime user in Usenet. This law will have
> a world-wide effect. Will it cause all abuse to cease? Absolutely
> not. The law itself is imperfect. But it points to the fact that the
> Internet, including Usent, is not a law unto itself. Those who use
> it, if abusive, can be prosecuted under national and other laws.
Dream on, you control freak.
>
>>>Actually, nearly all of them these days filter spam to one extent or
>>>another in e-mail (AOL and Earthlink actively advertise that), and a fair
>>>number filter spam on Usenet. Supernews does, for instance, as does
>>>Newsguy, and I think quite a few other ISPs run Cleanfeed for their Usenet
>>>feeds.
>>
>>and IT works well. once in a while SN kills non-spam article, but that is a
>>rare occurrence.
>>
>>
>>>>Exactly the same situation now exists with respect to the troll-traffic
>>>>that rountinely floods Usenet in general, and the admin groups in
>>>>particular, and makes it more unusable every month.
>>>
>>>The problem here is that this isn't as clear-cut to judge as actual spam.
>>
>>Viv is upset things don't work as he thinks they should. He wants everyone
>>to live to his narrow standards. Trolling is anything Viv doesn't want to
>>see, or thinks is "off topic".
>
>
> You exaggerate, bobo. Constantly. I'm not upset. I'm simply saying
> that the status quo is unacceptable by normal human cultural
> standards.
Incorrectamundo, you blabbering blowhard. 99% of Usenet sails along
pretty smoothly, and then there's whinging fagtards like you trying to
change it to suit your expectations.
>Almost everyone agrees with that,
BZZZT! WRONG!
> except some ancient
> Usent nerds, who have acclimated themselves to a filthy communication
> environment.
If you can't stand the heat in Fluffy's kitchen, you best stay the fuck
OUT of Fluffy's kitchen!
Fluffy don't truck with no whiners!
>
>>>But this is a great topic for a net-abuse newsgroup, since that's where it
>>>tends to get discussed at great length.
>>
>>And I have no problems with using delete key or kill filters. Viv thinks we
>>need net nannies and baby sitters and "Forum Hosts".
>
>
> Wrong. I would like to see a moderated abuse group,
Then make one, dipshit.
>moderated by a
> *group* of broad-minded but realistc individuals.
That group is just fine with the set-up as it is.
How long have you been suffering this obsession with forcing everyone to
conform to your wishes?
>This has never
> happened, and I think it would promote realistic laws on the one hand,
HAHAHAHAHAHAH! A maderated abuse group would promote realistic laws!
We HAVE a law in the States, you fucking Nitwit; it's called the First
Amendment. It suits us REAL FINE.
> and responsible use of the English-speaking Net on the other.
THIS is responsible use of the Net, you freak: being able to speak one's
mind. Freely.
>
>>>>The current blatant example of Usenet dithering is a thread called RFD:
>>>>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.moderated.
>>>
>>>You could post an RFD any time you felt like it, you know.
>>
>>He could be is too happy whining and bitching.
>
>
> No, bobo, just stop blatting out your pre-concieved prejudices, and
> listen, for one single *sentence*, will you?
Why? They're just as naive and control seeking as the rest you've made.
Got anything new, you power-hungry fool?
> I see no point in being
> harassed into the same kind of mistake that has already been made, and
> that has already failed functionally, with
> news.admin.net-abuse.policy.
IOW YOUR suggestions failed; not the group.
>
> This is a profound issue,
to control freaks such as yourself.
> and I would be QUITE happy to discuss it for
> six months before writing an RFD, because I think that something
> effective in this needs that kind of attention and broad
> consideration.
I can easily see you deluding yourself for another six months. Let us
know when Congress grants you broad censorship powers, will you?
>
> What I'm really looking at here, bobo, my friend, is a sea-change.
What you're looking at here is a pipe dream.
> It's not about you, and it's not about me, and it's not about Russ.
Translation: It's about Vivvy's control issues.
> And it's not a gotcha game. It's a lot of hard work, and fools rush
> in.
As you already have.
Terry Hatchett
> Viveshwar <res6...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>>Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually, nearly all of them these days filter spam to one extent or
>>>another in e-mail (AOL and Earthlink actively advertise that), and a
>>>fair number filter spam on Usenet. Supernews does, for instance, as
>>>does Newsguy, and I think quite a few other ISPs run Cleanfeed for
>>>their Usenet feeds.
>
>
>>Agreed. But if one ISP decides not to filter, and the others peer
>>with it, it doesn't make any difference, with respect to Usenet as a
>>whole. The spam still goes everywhere, and to groups like NANAU in
>>particular.
>
>
> I don't see why that would be. For example, I filter all incoming
> traffic, no matter what the source, whether it's posted locally or not.
> All other ISPs that filter Usenet that I'm aware of do the same thing.
IOW Nozzy know not what the fuck he's talking about. It's like Deja Vu
all over again.
>
>
>>>The problem here is that this isn't as clear-cut to judge as actual
>>>spam. But this is a great topic for a net-abuse newsgroup, since
>>>that's where it tends to get discussed at great length.
>
>
>>Agreed, but such discussions are typically attcked by the trolls
>>themsleves, and nobody wants the hassle of dealing with a robo-moderated
>>group. The human obstructions are bad enough; machine obstructions
>>simply make effective interaction impossible
>
>
> I don't see how the sort of aggressive filtering you seem to be describing
> here is functionally different than a robomoderated group, except
> distributed to every ISP.
Fucknozzle Jr. doesn't see it either.
>
>
>>You know, I'm just a newbie, and like I've written repeatedly, there is
>>no point in anyone, particularly myself, I feel, trying to do this solo.
>
>
> Well, this may be that no one else is particularly excited by your
> proposal.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Gee, and Vivvy thought everyone agreed with him!
Dan Baldwin
>
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:57:05 -0800, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Viveshwar <res6...@verizon.net> writes:
> >
> >> Pres. Bush just (12-16-03) signed into law a Spam bill. ISPs can filter
> >> spam, but they don't. Why? Obviously some of them are owned by
> >> spammers.
> >
> >Actually, nearly all of them these days filter spam to one extent or
> >another in e-mail (AOL and Earthlink actively advertise that), and a fair
> >number filter spam on Usenet. Supernews does, for instance, as does
> >Newsguy, and I think quite a few other ISPs run Cleanfeed for their Usenet
> >feeds.
>
> Agreed. But if one ISP decides not to filter, and the others peer
> with it, it doesn't make any difference, with respect to Usenet as a
> whole. The spam still goes everywhere, and to groups like NANAU in
> particular.
Continued lack of understanding of how Usenet works noted. About the
only time I see *any* UCE/spam/whatever on Supernews is when some wanker
with another NSP replies to the post and quotes the whole damned thing.
Other than that all I see is people saying what they want to say, where
they want to say it.
Which is of course the part that pisses you off so much, right?
> >> Exactly the same situation now exists with respect to the troll-traffic
> >> that rountinely floods Usenet in general, and the admin groups in
> >> particular, and makes it more unusable every month.
> >
> >The problem here is that this isn't as clear-cut to judge as actual spam.
> >But this is a great topic for a net-abuse newsgroup, since that's where it
> >tends to get discussed at great length.
>
> Agreed, but such discussions are typically attcked by the trolls
> themsleves,
Reminder : troll!=anyone who doesn't agree with you, Fucknozzle Junior.
And how does one 'attack' a discussion, anyway? I mean other than
massive flooding (which is against any reputable NSPs AUP), how does one
interrupt a discussion you're trying to have?
'fess up, Nozzy, its the notion that other people of differing opinions
are allowed to express them that really puts the sand up your vagina.
Nothing anyone else posts in NGs you're in gets in the way of you
discussing what you want to (again, other than flooding). You just can't
abide the fact that people who disagree with you or think you're an
idiot are allowed to speak.
> and nobody wants the hassle of dealing with a
> robo-moderated group.
> The human obstructions are bad enough; machine
> obstructions simply make effective interaction impossible
Several other groups apparently disagree with you.
> >
> >> The current blatant example of Usenet dithering is a thread called RFD:
> >> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.moderated.
> >
> >You could post an RFD any time you felt like it, you know.
>
> You know, I'm just a newbie,
Weren't you recently boasting of your five whole months on Usenet, and
how that made you well and truly an expert on how things should be run?
I seem to recall lengthy diatribes from you directed at the NANAU regs
on what they were doing wrong and how they needed to change. I also seem
to recall you speaking with some certainty.
Yet another example of you learning a sliver of a culture, deciding
you're an expert on it, then presuming to lecture those actually
immersed in that culture (i.e. Ms. Ore and others) as to How Things
Really Are.
> and like I've written repeatedly, there
> is no point in anyone, particularly myself, I feel, trying to do this
> solo.
At least you finally recognize what a powerless little fucktard you are,
Nozzy. Too bad you've already systematically and deliberately alienated
just about every single person who might have helped you. You didn't
just bite the hand which could have fed you, you took a shit in it.
>
> *IT*TAKES*A*VILLAGE*
Too bad that the village doesn't want you or your uninformed, draconian
would-be dictatorship. You may flounce off to your rogue sci.astrology
groups on Verizon, where you're safe from the meanyheads now.
At least now we know AUK is safe ... but for how long? <bum bum
bummmmmmm>
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
"I have always thought that the reason Dinosaurs were so big is because
of the dramatic difference in gravitational strength between that time
period and now" -Edmo the paleontologist
"Christ was just an enlightened person, not unlike me." -Edmo the humble
Hail the un-alive
Viveshwar
wrote:
>I don't see how the sort of aggressive filtering you seem to be describing
>here is functionally different than a robomoderated group, except
>distributed to every ISP.
Read my lips. I don't think this is a machine problem, and I don't
think filtering is the answer. People abuse, and abusers will abuse
any machine set-up that's there.
What's effective about the LAW that Bush signed is that it provides a
mechanism to prosecute abusers, i.e., those particular people who
abuse. It provides working definitions of abuse, and it provides
remedies.
No, this won't be an end to abuse, but it will have an effect, because
it holds PEOPLE accountable for their behavior online.
>
>> You know, I'm just a newbie, and like I've written repeatedly, there is
>> no point in anyone, particularly myself, I feel, trying to do this solo.
>
>Well, this may be that no one else is particularly excited by your
>proposal. I don't know. I know that I'm not excited enough about it to
>volunteer to help, since I doubt I'd read the new group (and I certainly
>don't want to moderate it, and moderators seem to be the main thing that a
>proposal would need).
I'll tell you what, Russ. I'm going to ignore this thread and this
group entirely until the new year. On 1-1-04, I will check back, and
if I find any discussion of an abuse group happening, I will join it.
But in that case, in my very first post, I will refer to this thread,
and I will tell you, again, in full view of the gaping masses, to
GET A LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Viveshwar
Terry Hatchett
The Washington Poast's Usenet Critic praises Dan Baldwin's most recent
triumph: "If you only subscribe to one poast this year, let Message-ID:
<3FE09B33...@invalid.com> be that poast".
Terry Hatchett
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:55:06 -0800, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I don't see how the sort of aggressive filtering you seem to be describing
>>here is functionally different than a robomoderated group, except
>>distributed to every ISP.
>
>
> Read my lips.
That's hard to do what with the foam covering them.
> I don't think this is a machine problem, and I don't
> think filtering is the answer. People abuse, and abusers will abuse
> any machine set-up that's there.
People calling you a kook is not abuse of the Net, Fucknozzle.
>
> What's effective about the LAW that Bush signed is that it provides a
> mechanism to prosecute abusers, i.e., those particular people who
> abuse. It provides working definitions of abuse, and it provides
> remedies.
Yes, as it pertains to invasions of your *private* email boxes, dipshit.
Not Usenet.
>
> No, this won't be an end to abuse, but it will have an effect, because
> it holds PEOPLE accountable for their behavior online.
You really do need to learn a lot more abou usenet vs email vs the Web
before you shoot your stupid fucking mouth off.
>
>>>You know, I'm just a newbie, and like I've written repeatedly, there is
>>>no point in anyone, particularly myself, I feel, trying to do this solo.
>>
>>Well, this may be that no one else is particularly excited by your
>>proposal. I don't know. I know that I'm not excited enough about it to
>>volunteer to help, since I doubt I'd read the new group (and I certainly
>>don't want to moderate it, and moderators seem to be the main thing that a
>>proposal would need).
>
>
> I'll tell you what, Russ. I'm going to ignore this thread and this
> group entirely until the new year.
Riiiiiiight. You kooks and your pronouncements are so *dependable*!
> On 1-1-04, I will check back, and
> if I find any discussion of an abuse group happening, I will join it.
Everybody, let's rearrange the furniture while he's gone!
> But in that case, in my very first post, I will refer to this thread,
> and I will tell you, again, in full view of the gaping masses, to
>
> GET A LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's one of the most pathetic catchphrases there is, you idiot.
THAT'S your response? The equivalent of "neeener neener neener"?
>
Rebecca Ore
>
> No, this won't be an end to abuse, but it will have an effect, because
> it holds PEOPLE accountable for their behavior online.
I unplonk you to tell you that basically, one of the things that has
been massively discussed in various groups is what can or can't be
done about people making derogatory comments to people on line.
Basically, the answer is that if anything could be done, the people
who would stop if asked politely to knock it off would have knocked it
off without any penalties. And the people who would see insulting
others as a game would find ways to play the game in different ways.
People who think they can insist that people must be reasonable and
must not bait other people may or may not be right in principle, but
they've consistantly failed to consider how their dream of Usenet
politeness would be implimented and how it could resist being gamed by
the one in ten who turns into Supertroll.
We've had several years worth of discussions on this in the past, of
what could or couldn't be done about crossposted harrassment, baiting
of various people regardless of labels. The answer is not much
globally. People find open proxies; they get throwaway accounts; they
morph to evade killfiles.
I made the suggestion earlier that you get an account on a server that
does filter more (note to Russ if he hasn't killfiled me, Verizon
doesn't filter or accept cancels). I suggested NewsGuy since it
filters out crossposting more aggressively than others. Or learn how
to run a server of yours own for people you like. There's a lot of
that going around these days.
What happened to Ed Wollmann is nasty, but Ed was advised early to
simply ignore it, and refused, for what look now like the wrong
reasons. People have thrown their reputations away harrassing Ed,
too, though (the ISP I worked for said that the people chasing after
him were almost as bad as he was).
You can't help Ed; nobody has been able to talk sense into the people
who've made him a project either. You can chose not to be like Ed,
and you can killfile them.
Or you can continue the wrangle you appear to be in. If you like the
high adrenaline games, welcome to them.
--
Rebecca Ore
http://mysite.verizon.net/rebecca.ore
Terry Hatchett
> Viveshwar <res6...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
>>No, this won't be an end to abuse, but it will have an effect, because
>>it holds PEOPLE accountable for their behavior online.
>
>
> I unplonk you to tell you that basically,
Becca's willpower is not one of her strong points.
> one of the things that has
> been massively discussed in various groups is what can or can't be
> done about people making derogatory comments to people on line.
What seems most effective is to encourage the victims of these
derogatory comments to froth more; they usually oblige.
>
> Basically, the answer is that if anything could be done, the people
> who would stop if asked politely to knock it off would have knocked it
> off without any penalties. And the people who would see insulting
> others as a game would find ways to play the game in different ways.
You're not listening to Viveshar, hon. Why won't you help him create a
Politeness Gestapo? Pretty please?
>
> People who think they can insist that people must be reasonable and
> must not bait other people may or may not be right in principle,
They aren't. They are control freaks and kooks.
>but
> they've consistantly failed to consider how their dream of Usenet
> politeness would be implimented and how it could resist being gamed by
> the one in ten who turns into Supertroll.
They fail at a lot of things.
>
> We've had several years worth of discussions on this in the past, of
> what could or couldn't be done about crossposted harrassment, baiting
> of various people regardless of labels. The answer is not much
> globally. People find open proxies; they get throwaway accounts; they
> morph to evade killfiles.
And then some don't even need to do that because some people don't have
the self-control to ignore what they're trying to killfile! (giggle!)
>
> I made the suggestion earlier that you get an account on a server that
> does filter more (note to Russ if he hasn't killfiled me, Verizon
> doesn't filter or accept cancels). I suggested NewsGuy since it
> filters out crossposting more aggressively than others. Or learn how
> to run a server of yours own for people you like. There's a lot of
> that going around these days.
But Vivvy doesn't like anybody, and nobody likes him. Awwwwww.
>
> What happened to Ed Wollmann is nasty, but Ed was advised early to
> simply ignore it, and refused, for what look now like the wrong
> reasons. People have thrown their reputations away harrassing Ed,
> too, though
Like who?
> (the ISP I worked for said that the people chasing after
> him were almost as bad as he was).
Were they directly involved, or was their opinion on it as worthwile as
the Vatican complaining that Saddam, poor baby who killed hundred of
thousands, was treated like an animal once captured?
> You can't help Ed; nobody has been able to talk sense into the people
> who've made him a project either. You can chose not to be like Ed,
> and you can killfile them.
But what if his lack of self-control sucks as bad as yours? What's the
point in advising a kook to killfile someone if the sheer fact that
their detractors are still "allowed to post" gnaws every moment at their
kooky brain?
>
> Or you can continue the wrangle you appear to be in. If you like the
> high adrenaline games, welcome to them.
I dunno. Viv is pretty much a coward. Wollmann fought for years before
he finally tired. Hardly see him at all anymore, and even then, he's
weakened and defeated.
Viv just keeps retreating and getting smaller in the distance. Kettler
has disappeared, as has Flaggy and Peat Stapletoon. They just don't make
kooks they way they used to!
Bob Officer
<res6...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:55:06 -0800, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I don't see how the sort of aggressive filtering you seem to be describing
>>here is functionally different than a robomoderated group, except
>>distributed to every ISP.
>
>Read my lips. I don't think this is a machine problem, and I don't
>think filtering is the answer. People abuse, and abusers will abuse
>any machine set-up that's there.
And Viv says he knows what abuse is. and it is when people poke holes in
his arguments and claims.
>What's effective about the LAW that Bush signed is that it provides a
Nothing is effective. it is waste of motion. Many other states already had
more effective laws on the books.
>mechanism to prosecute abusers, i.e., those particular people who
>abuse. It provides working definitions of abuse, and it provides
>remedies.
and What exactly is that abuse that it will stop?
>No, this won't be an end to abuse, but it will have an effect, because
>it holds PEOPLE accountable for their behavior online.
In exactly what manner? It bars posting with munged return addresses? So
more Spammers can harvest e-mail addresses? Most of the "abusive e-mail in
my in-box doesn't come from the USA and the new law will absolutely stop
nothing.
Even if the law survives the court system. Remember the DMA successful
fought the DNC lists for phones. How well do you think this law will do in
a suit?
Courts have always taken a dim view to "prior restraint".
>>
>>> You know, I'm just a newbie, and like I've written repeatedly, there is
>>> no point in anyone, particularly myself, I feel, trying to do this solo.
>>
>>Well, this may be that no one else is particularly excited by your
>>proposal. I don't know. I know that I'm not excited enough about it to
>>volunteer to help, since I doubt I'd read the new group (and I certainly
>>don't want to moderate it, and moderators seem to be the main thing that a
>>proposal would need).
>
>I'll tell you what, Russ. I'm going to ignore this thread and this
>group entirely until the new year. On 1-1-04, I will check back, and
>if I find any discussion of an abuse group happening, I will join it.
<sigh> Viv has to go home for "Holiday break".
>But in that case, in my very first post, I will refer to this thread,
>and I will tell you, again, in full view of the gaping masses, to
Viv thinks he is killing the thread as is he has control over an off
switch.
>GET A LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GAL Lame. on of the lamest of all lames.
--
Aktohdi
Dan Baldwin
>
> Rebecca Ore wrote:
>
> > Viveshwar <res6...@verizon.net> writes:
> >
> >
> >>No, this won't be an end to abuse, but it will have an effect, because
> >>it holds PEOPLE accountable for their behavior online.
> >
> >
> > I unplonk you to tell you that basically,
>
> Becca's willpower is not one of her strong points.
>
> > one of the things that has
> > been massively discussed in various groups is what can or can't be
> > done about people making derogatory comments to people on line.
>
> What seems most effective is to encourage the victims of these
> derogatory comments to froth more; they usually oblige.
And its a Valu Meal of entertainment all for the low low price of a
Usenet subscription.
> >
> > Basically, the answer is that if anything could be done, the people
> > who would stop if asked politely to knock it off would have knocked it
> > off without any penalties. And the people who would see insulting
> > others as a game would find ways to play the game in different ways.
>
> You're not listening to Viveshar, hon. Why won't you help him create a
> Politeness Gestapo? Pretty please?
First she needs to listen to all those things Nozzy told her she was
doing wrong, they she can help him bring about what I'm going to start
calling The Fucknozzle Will. (yes, I am a Star Fleet Battles geek)
> > People who think they can insist that people must be reasonable and
> > must not bait other people may or may not be right in principle,
>
> They aren't. They are control freaks and kooks.
And cowards, and often plagiarists, too.
> >but
> > they've consistantly failed to consider how their dream of Usenet
> > politeness would be implimented and how it could resist being gamed by
> > the one in ten who turns into Supertroll.
>
> They fail at a lot of things.
> >
> > We've had several years worth of discussions on this in the past, of
> > what could or couldn't be done about crossposted harrassment, baiting
> > of various people regardless of labels. The answer is not much
> > globally. People find open proxies; they get throwaway accounts; they
> > morph to evade killfiles.
>
> And then some don't even need to do that because some people don't have
> the self-control to ignore what they're trying to killfile! (giggle!)
I am a proud resident of v1.0 of Viv's Broken Plonker!
> > I made the suggestion earlier that you get an account on a server that
> > does filter more (note to Russ if he hasn't killfiled me, Verizon
> > doesn't filter or accept cancels). I suggested NewsGuy since it
> > filters out crossposting more aggressively than others. Or learn how
> > to run a server of yours own for people you like. There's a lot of
> > that going around these days.
>
> But Vivvy doesn't like anybody, and nobody likes him. Awwwwww.
Hard to like the guy when he went out of his way to insult (at great
length) the few people who weren't already engaged in poking him with
the kook stick.
> >
> > What happened to Ed Wollmann is nasty, but Ed was advised early to
> > simply ignore it, and refused, for what look now like the wrong
> > reasons. People have thrown their reputations away harrassing Ed,
> > too, though
>
> Like who?
<crickets>
>
> > (the ISP I worked for said that the people chasing after
> > him were almost as bad as he was).
>
> Were they directly involved, or was their opinion on it as worthwile as
> the Vatican complaining that Saddam, poor baby who killed hundred of
> thousands, was treated like an animal once captured?
>
> > You can't help Ed; nobody has been able to talk sense into the people
> > who've made him a project either. You can chose not to be like Ed,
> > and you can killfile them.
>
> But what if his lack of self-control sucks as bad as yours? What's the
> point in advising a kook to killfile someone if the sheer fact that
> their detractors are still "allowed to post" gnaws every moment at their
> kooky brain?
Nozzy is like those fundamentalist Christians who lie away at night in a
cold, angry sweat over the notion that somewhere on the planet someone
might be jerking off or dancing.
> > Or you can continue the wrangle you appear to be in. If you like the
> > high adrenaline games, welcome to them.
>
> I dunno. Viv is pretty much a coward. Wollmann fought for years before
> he finally tired. Hardly see him at all anymore, and even then, he's
> weakened and defeated.
>
> Viv just keeps retreating and getting smaller in the distance. Kettler
> has disappeared, as has Flaggy and Peat Stapletoon. They just don't make
> kooks they way they used to!
Ah the Good Ole Days, when kooks actually followed through with legal
threats and the only reason they stopped posting was they had died of
alcohol poisoning.