RFD: rec.drugs.* expansion
Gnosis
moderated group rec.drugs.announce
unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
Distribution : World-wide
Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
Discussion of this proposal should take place in news.groups.
Please keep proposals concerning this RFD in news.groups, and take debates
about the merits of legalisation or the morality of drug-taking to
talk.politics.drugs.
This is *not* a call for votes. Assuming the discussion goes smoothly,
a Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted by an independent third party 21
to 30 days from the date of this posting.
Newsgroups lines:
rec.drugs.announce Announcements about drugs and drug-related issues. (Moderated)
rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.
rec.drugs.smart Smart drugs (nootropics).
RATIONALE: all groups
These new groups are intended to expand the rec.drugs hierarchy so
that the volume of discussion in the existing groups is reduced to a more
manageable level, and so that some remaining alt.drugs.* enclaves can move
over to rec.drugs.*. rec.drugs.announce will provide a way for people
to stay informed about drug issues even if they don't have to time to
browse through the rest of the hierarchy; rec.drugs.chemistry will be the
rec.* version of alt.drugs.chemistry; and rec.drugs.smart is designed to
provide a workable forum for people interested in nootropics, since no
such group (except the very obscurely named alt.psychoactives) exists at
the moment.
Expected arguments against the expansion of rec.drugs
In the hope of preventing needless arguments, we would like to take a
moment to present the case against some fallacious arguments against
the groups that are likely to arise (once again).
* "Drugs are illegal and hence cannot be discussed"
The Internet is a global community and laws vary greatly. For example, the
Netherlands have decriminalized cannabis, and the United States allows the
use of the hallucinogen mescaline in the religious ceremonies of the Native
American Church. And of course, purely theoretical discussion about any
subject is permissible.
* "Use of drugs is morally wrong"
The issue at stake here is whether there _is_ a need for these rec.drugs
groups, not whether there _should_ be one. Given the popularity of
alt.drugs and rec.drugs, we think that there is a clear need. If you must
discuss morality, please take it to talk.politics.drugs.
CHARTER: all groups
Attempts to sell or trade controlled substances in these groups are *not*
permissible. Discussion of the merits of legalization and the morality of
using drugs is off topic and should be conducted in talk.politics.drugs.
END CHARTER.
CHARTER: rec.drugs.announce
A low-volume moderated newsgroup for announcements related to drugs
and drug issues. Possible topics include new versions of drug FAQs;
information about drug legalization conferences, rallies, votes; changes
in drug laws or enforcement. Target volume is 1-2 messages daily.
[NOTE: Additional moderators for this group are needed. The job will not
be very tough, just filter through half a dozen messages daily and
pick the ones that are acceptable.]
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: rec.drugs.announce
Moderator: Dan Morris <dmo...@cloud9.net>
Moderator: Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
END MODERATOR INFO.
CHARTER: rec.drugs.chemistry
A newsgroup dedicated to the chemistry of recreational drugs. Possible
topics include the synthesis and extraction of drugs; analogs of
recreational drugs; theoretical discussions and nomenclature; etc.
END CHARTER.
CHARTER: rec.drugs.smart
A newsgroup dedicated to nootropics ("smart drugs"): cognitive enhancers
that claim to boost intelligence, memory or mental stamina. Possible
topics include descriptions of effects; availability of nootropics; etc.
Anabolic steroids are *not* considered an acceptable topic.
END CHARTER.
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:
If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.
PROCEDURE:
This RFD is being issued in accordance with the guidelines set in the
"How to create a new Usenet newsgroup" FAQ that is regularly posted to
news.announce.newgroups. Its language is based on previously submitted
RFDs.
After a discussion period of 21 to 30 days, if there are no overwhelming
objections to the proposed groups, there will be a Call For Votes (CFV)
posted to the same groups as this RFD. The voting period will be at least
21 days. If the group passes by a 2/3 majority and receives 100 more YES
votes than NO votes, it will be created.
DISTRIBUTION:
Posted to : rec.drugs.* news.announce.newgroups
alt.drugs.chemistry news.groups
alt.psychoactives talk.politics.drugs
-- __
Jani "Gnosis" Poijärvi On the neverending quest /(o\ BRAHMAN
gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi for knowledge by identity. \o)/ +358-0-498797
Russ Allbery
> gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) writes:
>> CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:
>>
>> If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
>> rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
>> be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
>> newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.
> Do us all a real favor: work this out now.
> Let me rephrase:
> TO THOSE IN THE ALT.* GROUPS--GNOSIS JUST SAID HE IS GOING TO RMGROUP THE
> ALT.* GROUPS IF THE REC.* GROUPS PASS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Let's be clear on this from the start this time.
GNOSIS'S STATEMENT IN THE RFD MEANS ABSOLUTELY *NOTHING*.
At best it is a declaration of intent on his part to remove the alt.*
groups. He can issue the rmgroups without such a declaration. It's totally
meaningless.
As far as I'm concerned, this section should be removed from the RFD and CFV
on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of a Big Eight vote. Gnosis can,
of course, issue any rmgroups he feels like whenever he feels like for any
reasons he feels like. Putting a notice to that effect in the RFD changes
absolutely nothing one way or the other.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
gabrielle barkany
%!PS-Adobe-3.0
%%BoundingBox: (atend)
%%Pages: (atend)
%%PageOrder:
(atend)
%%DocumentFonts: (atend)
%%Creator: Frame 4.0
%%DocumentData:
Clean7Bit
%%EndComments
%%BeginProlog
%
% Frame ps_prolog 4.0, for use
with Frame 4.0 products
% This ps_prolog file is Copyright (c) 1986-1993
Frame Technology
% Corporation. All rights reserved. This ps_prolog
file may be
% freely copied and distributed in conjunction with
documents created
% using FrameMaker, FrameBuilder and FrameViewer as
long as this
% copyright notice is preserved.
%
% Frame products
normally print colors as their true color on a color printer
% or as
shades of gray, based on luminance, on a black-and white printer. The
%
following flag, if set to True, forces all non-white colors to print as
pure
% black. This has no effect on bitmap images.
/FMPrintAllColorsAsBlack false def
%
% Frame products can
either set their own line screens or use a printer's
% default
settings. Three flags below control this separately for no
% separation
Jason Kennerly
> rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.
> CHARTER: rec.drugs.chemistry
> A newsgroup dedicated to the chemistry of recreational drugs. Possible
> topics include the synthesis and extraction of drugs; analogs of
> recreational drugs; theoretical discussions and nomenclature; etc.
> END CHARTER.
The creation of rec.drugs.chemistry is inappropriate because:
1. A number of topics COMPLETELY unrelated to recreational drugs are
discussed in a.d.c.
For example: SSRI chemistry and other antidepressant related subjects,
"smart" drugs (usually against, sometimes for)
a number of things you wouldn't expect (shampoo chemistry?
that would be missed in a "rec" group)
2. SNL would actually be worse in a rec group
3. Despite what you might believe about propagation, _none_ of the rec.drugs
groups appear at my site, while all of the alt.drugs sites except
alt.drugs.hard are here...
--
____ ______ ________ _____
/ \ | \| /\ | \ jke...@cello.gina.calstate.edu
/ \| _ \ \/ | _ \
/___/\ \___|> > |__|> > BORN TO BE WIRED...
/ | / /\ | / All the sugar and twice the
\_________|______/|___\/__|______/ caffeine of regular netusers!
finger me and make a pgp key come.
Peter da Silva
Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>Isn't it funny how these Usenet RFDs containing Alt.* rmgroup
>statements keep getting officially approved and issued when
>_everyone_ knows that Usenet RFD/CFV documents have no jurisdiction
>or influence on newsgroups in the Alt.* hierarchy ?
"officially"?
Nothing's official here.
Colin Douthwaite
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
:
: In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>, gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) writes:
: > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
: > moderated group rec.drugs.announce
: > unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
: > unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
: [snip]
:
: >CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:
: >
: >If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
: >rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
: >be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
: >newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.
: Do us all a real favor: work this out now.
:
: Let me rephrase:
:
: TO THOSE IN THE ALT.* GROUPS--GNOSIS JUST SAID HE IS GOING TO RMGROUP THE
: ALT.* GROUPS IF THE REC.* GROUPS PASS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
: If you all recall, the same type of plan, which Gnosis tried to implement on
: on the first alt to rec.drugs.* migration was bitterly fought when the actual
: rmgroups went out. In fact, the flamewar still inhabits news.groups today (in
: several threads--notably anything with John Grubor involoved).
:
: Also, it might be a Good Idea [tm] to include mention of the rmgroups in the
: CFV.
:
Isn't it funny how these Usenet RFDs containing Alt.* rmgroup
statements keep getting officially approved and issued when
_everyone_ knows that Usenet RFD/CFV documents have no jurisdiction
or influence on newsgroups in the Alt.* hierarchy ?
As for warning the Alt.* readers...they will probably not have seen
the alt.* rmgroup proposals because the RFD was only posted to just
two Alt.* newsgroups of moderate to low traffic:
Articles posted in
RFD posted to: September 1995
rec.drugs.cannabis 2097
rec.drugs.misc 1467
rec.drugs.psychedelic 1188
talk.politics.drugs 2780
alt.drugs.chemistry 1102
alt.psychoactives 285
The RFD was _NOT_ posted to the following newsgroups although the
RFD contains proposals to rmgroup alt.drugs.* newsgroups:
Articles posted in
September 1995
alt.config 2647
alt.drugs 3091
alt.drugs.pot 2702
alt.drugs.psychedelics 1063
alt.drugs.culture 1098
alt.drugs.hard 887
alt.drugs.caffeine 400
alt.drugs.pot.cultivation 269
alt.drugs.leri 260
alt.drugs.usenet 54
[ Statistics from NZ summary of newsgroup traffic for Sep 1995 ]
The omission of these newsgroups was possibly due to the fact that
the "Newsgroups:" line in the RFD would have exceeded 200 characters
if all these groups, plus news.announce.newgroups and news.groups,
had been put in the RFD circulation list.
The RFD also states that:
> After a discussion period of 21 to 30 days, if there are no
> overwhelming objections to the proposed groups, there will be a
> Call For Votes (CFV) posted to the same groups as this RFD.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So...provided the discussion is confined to "news.groups" only there
is a good chance the the Alt.* readerships will not know about the
alt.* rmgroups till they actually occur, and they can then make all
protests to "alt.config" because the alt.* rmgroups have nothing
whatever to do with Usenet RFD/CFV procedures, as everyone who knows
already knows that.
Please note: follow-ups should be strictly and exclusively confined
to "news.groups" only because this Usenet RFD and
subsequent CFV have nothing whatsoever to do with
alt.config or other alt.* newsgroups.
Bye,
DrG
>
> Gnosis (gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi) wrote:
> : REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> : moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> : unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> : unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>
> : Distribution : World-wide
>
> : Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
>
> : Discussion of this proposal should take place in news.groups.
> : Please keep proposals concerning this RFD in news.groups, and take debates
> : about the merits of legalisation or the morality of drug-taking to
> : talk.politics.drugs.
>
> The PROMOTION of IMMORAL and ILLEGAL activities shall NOT be permitted
> on the HEADER of any NewsGroup, because it is an "attractive nuisance"
> to which children will be exposed, ond for which Tale and UUnet will be
> liable.
>
> This proposal seeks to promote the use of "recreational drugs" which is
> wrong, immoral and indecent, and it cannot be allowed to exist on UUnet.
> If these recreational Drugs Groups are allowed to expand, Both UUnet and
> Tale will be sued fro "promoting the use" of HARD DRUGS!
>
> The Gnosis character proposing this idea is a homosexual HARD DRUG
> Promoter from Finland who is trying to push the Idea of "recreational
> drugs" in the USA as a "european political statement."
>
> All Rec.drugs.* groups must be KILLED, for the good of mankind, and I
> suggest we have a CFV on KILLING the entire rec.drugs.* hierarchy because
> of the TERRIBLE IDEA that UUnet and Tale are promoting if they allow the
> rec.drugs.* hierarchy to continue.
>
> Recreational Drugs KILL people, because crack, smack and cocaine are all
> included in the category of "recreational drugs."
>
> We as respectable netizens can NOT ALLOW the concept of "recreational
> drug usage" to invade and corrupt the minds of our children.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> DrG
>
>
>
> --
> John M. Grubor, J.D. INTERNET LAW SYSTEMS
> Lawyer Systems Analyst P.O. BOX 114
> Law Office Operation, Management E. McKEESPORT, PA. 15035
> And Trial Preparation Systems (412) 829-7853
The Idea of Promoting the "recreational drug" concept came from
The Bob(c) and the Gnosis and Hoss Drugheads. But Who else in this
USA voted for this concept?!
Does Tale want "recreational drugs?"
Does UUnet want "recreational drugs?"
I hope not.
What about you Furr?
boursey?
delaney?
why the fuck did you guys let this "recreational drug"
concept happen in the first place?!
don't you guys give a fuck about the world?
DrG
> : moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> : unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> : unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>
> : Distribution : World-wide
>
> : Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
>
> : Discussion of this proposal should take place in news.groups.
> : Please keep proposals concerning this RFD in news.groups, and take debates
> : about the merits of legalisation or the morality of drug-taking to
> : talk.politics.drugs.
>
I hope not.
the hierarchy of RECREATIONAL.drugs must NEVER be
allowed on this UseNet, because it KILLS our kids
to have that hierarchy in EXISTANCE!
KILL rec.drugs.* -- and get some fucking RESPECT
for this UseNet!
DrG
>
> In article <DHIM0...@pgh.nauticom.net>,
> Law Doctor <d...@pgh.nauticom.net> wrote:
> > All Rec.drugs.* groups must be KILLED, for the good of mankind, and I
> > suggest we have a CFV on KILLING the entire rec.drugs.* hierarchy because
> > of the TERRIBLE IDEA that UUnet and Tale are promoting if they allow the
> > rec.drugs.* hierarchy to continue.
>
> --
> Shields.
You know, I am a dummy about how to do these things,
but I know a real genius called Matt, and he goes to
school here in Pennsylvania, and he seems like a good
dude, and he is against hard drugs, and he seems to know
his way around this net, because he is a professional
spammer-hunter and spammer killer, but I don't remember
his whole last name. I go through over 200 emails and postings
a day here, and it is hard for me to remember right off
hand, but I will look it up. It was a Matt Schind* or
something. I mean I even read the kids web page, but I
can NOT remember names here. Maybe he flamed me in the
past and my brain just did an auto reject on his whole
name. Fuck! I am really getting fast at this keyboard any
more -- I am bullshitting too much here.
KILL HARD DRUGS by Killing rec,drugs.* hierarchy on UseNET!
If you know who you are here Matt Sch* - well, follow up if you can.
Seek Tao,
Shalom,
DrG
Peter da Silva
>You know, I am a dummy about how to do these things,
We know. Give my warm regards to Liz.
Peter Seebach
Christopher B. Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>I did indeed send the above message to "DrG," but I also told him that his
>use of profanity was inappropriate in news.groups, and that a less
>strident approach would be more effective. The goal of keeping groups
>devoted to substance abuse out of the Big 8 is admirable, but his methods
>leave much to be desired.
I think the first thing you'd have to do is find a way to distinguish,
say, social drinking, or the use of Advil for headaches, from "substance
abuse". If you can't come up with a reliable way of making it clear that the
only legitimate traffic in such a group would be about abuse of substances,
you'd be forced to take a giant step back. I am all for this; I don't see
anything wrong with a rec.drugs, any more than I see something wrong with
comp.os.msdos.programmer. Is it bad? Possibly. Is it stupid? Quite often.
Is it our job to prevent it? Hell no.
(This applies about equally well to both.)
>I also note that the proponents of the first RFD insisted, over and over
>again, that a group for marijuana would in no way encourage people to
>experiment with more serious drugs. Obviously their call for an expanded
>hierarchy gives lie to that supposition.
I think you fail to distinguish between "encourage to expiriment with",
"encourage to abuse", "cause to abuse", and "give a forum for learning
about before trying anything". And a few others.
>I hope to avoid getting embroiled in a huge flamewar over this RFD, so I
>am going to minimize any followups to this post. I do call upon the
>proponents of this group to post their CFV to the parenting groups, as
>such a move is the responsible thing to do.
This, I'd actually advocate.
Just for the record, I'm a hacker; I don't touch anything stronger than
Advil regularly. I consider alcohol a Bad Thing, and cigarettes a
vile nuisance.
But I'm all for people discussing drugs openly, publically, and frankly.
It's better than the lies spread by the Partnership For A Drug Free America
and co.
-s
--
Peter Seebach - se...@solon.com || se...@intran.xerox.com --
C/Unix proto-wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help. No, really!
Copyright 1995 Peter Seebach. -- High energy particle theology
The *other* C FAQ - ftp taniemarie.solon.com /pub/c/afq
Lintilla the Warlock
> HEY you Fucking European BASTARDS! You are NOT going to promote
> your crazy fucking Idea to the USA that "recreational drugs"
> is an acceptable concept. NO WAY!
>
> The Recreational.drugs hierarchy must be KILLED!
> because just the Idea of promoting Hard Drud Usage
> is foreign to the USA.
I seem to remember a similar argument in Europe concerning Win95.
Michael Shields
I'm tempted to suggest sci.chem.recreational.
> rec.drugs.smart Smart drugs (nootropics).
Could we call it rec.drugs.nootropics? I don't think rec.drugs.smart
is a good name; it's quasislang, like rec.drugs.marijuana.
--
Shields.
Michael Shields
Jason Kennerly <jke...@cello.gina.calstate.edu> wrote:
> 3. Despite what you might believe about propagation, _none_ of the rec.drugs
> groups appear at my site, while all of the alt.drugs sites except
> alt.drugs.hard are here...
Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
--
Shields.
Michael Shields
DrG
> I agree with you -- recreational drug use is not an approrpiate topic for
> a mainstream hierarchy. When they first posted the RFD, I brought up
> these objections. Unfortunately, I wasn't around for the CFV, so I
> couldn't campaign against it; I had hoped someone would bring this to the
> attention of the parenting newsgroups. The group acquired a 2/3
> supermajority only barely, and had an active campaign against it been
> waged, it woul
d have failed IMHO.
>
Well thank you for your opinion, but do not be so humble.
This Hierarchy can now be KILLED by a VOTE because it has been in
existence for over Three months, and it now MUST be KILLED!
If UseNet and Tale allows this kind of Hierarchy to EXIST on this UseNet,
than he should be sued for INDECENCY!
I have eight children in this world, and I will not STAND for them
opening up a UseNet list and seeing "recreational drugs" as a
Hierarchical topic, because that has a current connotative social meaning
which includes the Use of HARD DRUGS for recreation.
This RFD can produce a CFV to KILL the hierarchy also, can it not?
John M. Grubor
Doctor Of Law
Father of 8 Kids
DrG
>
> In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>,
> Gnosis <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi> wrote:
> > moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> > unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> > unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>
> I'd still like to have a separate group for mdma and related compounds,
> for example rec.drugs.ecstasy.
> --
> Alt.atheism faqs : http://www.mantis.co.uk/atheism/
> Rec.drugs.* archives: http://hyperreal.com/drugs/
> Vegetarian pages : http://www.veg.org/veg/
HEY you Fucking European BASTARDS! You are NOT going to promote
your crazy fucking Idea to the USA that "recreational drugs"
is an acceptable concept. NO WAY!
The Recreational.drugs hierarchy must be KILLED!
because just the Idea of promoting Hard Drud Usage
is foreign to the USA.
Now we do not EXPAND rec.drugs, but we KILL IT.
You have all of the alt.drugs.* newsgroups that you
need and you are NOT going to promote this behavior
in a Hierarchy NAME!
I will sue the fuck out of Tale for this!
DrG
DrG
>
> Matthew Schnierle <py...@grove.iup.edu> writes:
> > gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) writes:
>
> >>
> >> If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
> >> rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
> >> be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
> >> newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.
>
>
> > Let me rephrase:
>
> > TO THOSE IN THE ALT.* GROUPS--GNOSIS JUST SAID HE IS GOING TO RMGROUP THE
> > ALT.* GROUPS IF THE REC.* GROUPS PASS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
>
>
> GNOSIS'S STATEMENT IN THE RFD MEANS ABSOLUTELY *NOTHING*.
>
> At best it is a declaration of intent on his part to remove the alt.*
> groups. He can issue the rmgroups without such a declaration. It's totally
> meaningless.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, this section should be removed from the RFD and CFV
> on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of a Big Eight vote. Gnosis can,
> of course, issue any rmgroups he feels like whenever he feels like for any
> reasons he feels like. Putting a notice to that effect in the RFD changes
You sound like a co-conspirator to promote hard drug usage in the USA.
> absolutely nothing one way or the other.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
Hey Russel: If you let this fucking Finn promote
hard drugs in this Country, you are despicable!
"Recreational drugs" means the recreational use of HARD DRUGS
and UseNet itself, as well as your ass, will get the shit sued
out of them if the rec.drugs hierarchy si not KILLED.
You are a fuck-up for letting this happen!
Do you have no children?!
Are you a cokehead?!
you better write to me by e-mail right now.
DrG
DrG
> 2. SNL would actually be worse in a rec group
> 3. Despite what you might believe about propagation, _none_ of the rec.drugs
> groups appear at my site, while all of the alt.drugs sites except
> alt.drugs.hard are here...
Exactly, NO decent ISP is EVER going to accept the idea that
a "recreational.drug" hierarchy is fitting for their server.
Recreational drugs, meaning all drugs, are a BAD IDEA!
This RFD must include KILL rec.drugs.* as an option in
the CFV, since it is over 3 months, and the fraud in the
creation has been shown.
RETURN ALL drug talk to the alt.drugs.* area!
DrG
DrG
>
> In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>,
> Gnosis <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi> wrote:
>
>
> > rec.drugs.smart Smart drugs (nootropics).
>
> Could we call it rec.drugs.nootropics? I don't think rec.drugs.smart
> is a good name; it's quasislang, like rec.drugs.marijuana.
> --
> Shields.
Marijuana is primarily a medicine that has been used for
over 5,000 years.
Marijuana is an herb, not a drug, because it has not been
through any laboratory.
Cannabis is not the correct name -- MJ is spanish.
Cannabis must be legalized for "Medical, Necessary and Industrial"
purposes.
The argument as to whether "recreational therapy" is a
"necessity" is off-topic & irrelevant and any consideration
of that argument dilites the real issue here, which is:
rec.drugs.* has a conotation meaning the "recreational use
of ALL drugs," including "Hard Drugs," and this concept can not
be allowed to exist in a hierarchy on this UseNet.
I have eight KIDS and I DEMAND, as a Father who must
clean up this filthy usenet, that REC.DRUGS.* be KILLED!
DrG
DrG
>Path: hudson.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!CTCnet!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!bounce-back
>From: gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis)
>Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.drugs.cannabis,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,alt.drugs.chemistry,alt.psychoactives,talk.politics.drugs
>Subject: RFD: rec.drugs.* expansion
>Followup-To: news.groups
>Date: 1 Nov 1995 22:26:51 -0000
>Organization: .
>Lines: 131
>Sender: ta...@uunet.uu.net
>Approved: newgroup...@uunet.uu.net
>Message-ID: <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
>Archive-Name: rec.drugs.announce
>Xref: hudson.lm.com news.announce.newgroups:7730 news.groups:170343 rec.drugs.cannabis:7202 rec.drugs.psychedelic:4306 rec.drugs.misc:4375 alt.drugs.chemistry:8450 alt.psychoactives:12733 talk.politics.drugs:55046
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>
>Distribution : World-wide
>
>Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
This Gnosis is a dirty filthy underhanded bastard in the way he
handles this matter -- making replies go to only the news.group
UseNet Group. Gnosis is being a back-stabber. GO TO
news.groups to see how rec.drugs.* is being KILLED!
All return to alt.drugs.*
DrG
KILL the rec.drugs.* hierarchy for the GOOD OF MANKIND!
Colin Douthwaite
: In article <47f3s6$q...@southern.co.nz>,
: Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
: >Isn't it funny how these Usenet RFDs containing Alt.* rmgroup
: >_everyone_ knows that Usenet RFD/CFV documents have no jurisdiction
: >or influence on newsgroups in the Alt.* hierarchy ?
: "officially"?
:
: Nothing's official here.
If the term "official" worries you then substitute "de facto".
" It is a "de facto" standard, whether it is written down
somewhere or not." -- Colin R. Leech 25/10/95
Bye,
albert the panther
d...@pgh.nauticom.net (Law Doctor) writes:
>All Rec.drugs.* groups must be KILLED, for the good of mankind, and I
>suggest we have a CFV on KILLING the entire rec.drugs.* hierarchy because
>of the TERRIBLE IDEA that UUnet and Tale are promoting if they allow the
>rec.drugs.* hierarchy to continue.
Great post, but a little early. Should've waited till April 1st like all
the other jokers.
Stephan Schulz
>gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) wrote:
[Irrelevant Header deleted]
>>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group rec.drugs.announce
>> unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
>> unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>>
>>Distribution : World-wide
>>
>>Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
>
>This Gnosis is a dirty filthy underhanded bastard in the way he
> handles this matter -- making replies go to only the news.group
> UseNet Group. [...]
And yet again "DrG" shows us his intimate knowledge of Usenet...
RFD's _always_ have the Follow-Up set to news.groups only, for the
simple reason that the discussion about new newsgroups is off-topic in
most groups.
Stephan (yet another "European bastard" who does not care who puts
what into which parts of his body, as long as no uninvolved
third party is harmed...and who can distinguish between
"discussion of" and "promotion of".)
-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
Please email me as sch...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew T. Russotto
}: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
}: moderated group rec.drugs.announce
}: unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
}: unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
}
}"Recreational Drugs" is an idea that can NOT be tolerated on this UseNet!
}The PROMOTION of IMMORAL and ILLEGAL activities shall NOT be permitted
}on the HEADER of any NewsGroup, because it is an "attractive nuisance"
}We as respectable netizens can NOT ALLOW the concept of "recreational
}drug usage" to invade and corrupt the minds of our children.
}
}Respectfully Submitted,
}
}DrG
}--
}John M. Grubor, J.D. INTERNET LAW SYSTEMS
}Lawyer Systems Analyst P.O. BOX 114
}Law Office Operation, Management E. McKEESPORT, PA. 15035
}And Trial Preparation Systems (412) 829-7853
You neglected to indicate that you were short, hairy, and live under a
bridge.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com russ...@his.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Peter da Silva
>I have eight KIDS and I DEMAND, as a Father who must
>clean up this filthy usenet, that REC.DRUGS.* be KILLED!
Yeh?
I *demand* you get a vasectomy.
Peter da Silva
Newsgroup names should be recognised by people not in the "in group", as
well as cognoscenti. "Smart" is clearer.
On the other hand, is it accurate?
It'd help if you had a non-etymological reason for preferring an obscure
term.
Peter da Silva
Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>Peter da Silva (pe...@bonkers.taronga.com) wrote:
>: In article <47f3s6$q...@southern.co.nz>,
>: Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>: >Isn't it funny how these Usenet RFDs containing Alt.* rmgroup
>: >statements keep getting officially approved and issued when
>: >_everyone_ knows that Usenet RFD/CFV documents have no jurisdiction
>: >or influence on newsgroups in the Alt.* hierarchy ?
>: "officially"?
>: Nothing's official here.
>If the term "official" worries you then substitute "de facto".
No problem, except it doesn't parse.
The point is that "official approval" implies a lot of stuff that doesn't
pertain to Usenet. Including things like "jurisdiction".
RFDs are not proofread for political correctness. Maybe they should be.
But as it is having something in an RFD doesn't mean anyone official or
not supports it. It just means the RFD had the correct form.
If you want to volunteer to join the cabal I'm sure they'll be happy
to take your recommendations with all the consideration they deserve.
ka...@rci.ripco.com
>
> The Recreational.drugs hierarchy must be KILLED!
> because just the Idea of promoting Hard Drud Usage
> is foreign to the USA.
>
> Now we do not EXPAND rec.drugs, but we KILL IT.
>
> You have all of the alt.drugs.* newsgroups that you
> need and you are NOT going to promote this behavior
> in a Hierarchy NAME!
>
> I will sue the fuck out of Tale for this!
So I guess free speech is permitted unless you don't like the content. Why don't you dry up and go away you hypacritical net nuisance. While actual drug use may be
illegal in this country, talking about it certainly isn't. Quite honestly I don't care how many kids you have. If you give them modem access then it's up to you to see that
they don't subscribe to inappropriate groups. Of course with your theory of being able to post about any topic in any group it would serve you right if somebody posted
nasty stuff in whatever groups they were reading. Go ahead and threaten to sue me you little wart. I'll take you on and leave you broke and homeless along with your
brats.
ka...@rci.ripco.com
James J. Romanowski
more difficult to add controversial groups. I'm not sure the current
USENET hierarchy can accommodate everyone.
Do we perhaps need a 'rating' system for newsgroups akin to a movie rating
system? In the long run, I don't see how the Net will be able to avoid
being treated like other media.
If the rec.drugs supporters want to be left alone, maybe they should
consider a 'listserv' setup instead.
Just adding my 2 cents...
- Jim
Christopher B. Stone
>> rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.
>I'm tempted to suggest sci.chem.recreational.
No, thank you. Sci.* is a hierarchy in which *real work* gets done,
rather than idle chatter about how best to make recreational drugs.
--
Chris Stone
cbs...@phoenix.princeton.edu * http://www.princeton.edu/~cbstone
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King
DrG
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>, gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) writes:
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> > unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> > unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>
>
> >CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:
> >
> >If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
> >rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
> >be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
> >newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.
>
> Do us all a real favor: work this out now.
>
> Let me rephrase:
>
> TO THOSE IN THE ALT.* GROUPS--GNOSIS JUST SAID HE IS GOING TO RMGROUP THE
> ALT.* GROUPS IF THE REC.* GROUPS PASS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
>
> on the first alt to rec.drugs.* migration was bitterly fought when the actual
> rmgroups went out. In fact, the flamewar still inhabits news.groups today (in
> several threads--notably anything with John Grubor involoved).
YES, I saw this CONSPIRACY to promote the concept of "recreational
drug usage" in the USA and I stopped it there!
"Recreational drugs" means the recreational use of HARD DRUGS
and we will not let our KIDS see that shit on this UseNet!
New voting system from now on!
You get as many votes as your AGE!
__________________________________________________________
> Matthew Schnierle py...@oak.grove.iup.edu http://www.ma.iup.edu/~pyld/
> WWW or keyserver for PGP key. These views are mine, not IUP's (I hope)
> "Maybe we should have a new .cool domain, only for people that are cool enough
> to know about it." --Paul Phillips in news.admin.net-abuse.misc
make you into a lawyer, dude.
John Grubor
Doctor Of Law
William E. White
>Exactly, NO decent ISP is EVER going to accept the idea that
>a "recreational.drug" hierarchy is fitting for their server.
You obviously have no fucking clue what exactly an ISP does.
Let me give you a hint. ISP's are businesses. They are in business to
make money. If people want to read about recreational drugs, they
will go to the ISP that offers the rec.drugs.* groups.
Besides, weren't you the one foaming at the mouth about how you
should be allowed to say any damned thing you want in rec.nude and
anyone complaining to your ISP about how utterly fucking annoying
you are is really engaging in some sort of criminal conspiracy?
Sorry, but you're losing credibility really fast, dude. Maybe you
should give Usenet a break for awhile and interact with the real world.
Or have you lost too much credibility there as well?
--
| Bill White +1-614-594-3434 bwh...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu |
| http://oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu/personal/bwhite.html (check it out!) |
| If I have a CVA, shoot me up with Special K |
Christopher B. Stone
DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Christopher B. Stone wrote:
>
>> I agree with you -- recreational drug use is not an approrpiate topic for
>> a mainstream hierarchy. When they first posted the RFD, I brought up
>> these objections. Unfortunately, I wasn't around for the CFV, so I
>> couldn't campaign against it; I had hoped someone would bring this to the
>> attention of the parenting newsgroups. The group acquired a 2/3
>> supermajority only barely, and had an active campaign against it been
>Well thank you for your opinion, but do not be so humble.
>This Hierarchy can now be KILLED by a VOTE because it has been in
>existence for over Three months, and it now MUST be KILLED!
First off, it is extremely rude to post private e-mail to Usenet.
Secondly, if you are going to post private e-mail, please post *ALL* of
what I wrote, rather than a mere excerpt.
I did indeed send the above message to "DrG," but I also told him that his
use of profanity was inappropriate in news.groups, and that a less
strident approach would be more effective. The goal of keeping groups
devoted to substance abuse out of the Big 8 is admirable, but his methods
leave much to be desired.
Now, as to the question of rmgrouping the existing rec.drugs.* groups, I
lean against it, for two reasons. First, I don't think it would be
feasible, as there are no established procedures for RFD seeking to
remove a given group. It would also incite a flamewar on news.groups.
Secondly, rmgrouping does smack of prior restraint. It would not have
been censorship to keep rec.drugs.* out of the Big 8 in the first place.
However, removing them once they are here is more problematic. More
importantly, even if I were convinced that rmgrouping rec.drugs.* were a
Good Thing, it would set a precedent about rmgrouping controversial groups.
I think that reasonable people should settle for a NO vote on the
proposals to expand rec.drugs.*. My analysis of the rec.drugs.* vote
above was correct: it barely acquired a 2/3 supermajority, and had the
CFV been posted to the parenting newsgroups, I suspect it would not have
passed.
I also note that the proponents of the first RFD insisted, over and over
again, that a group for marijuana would in no way encourage people to
experiment with more serious drugs. Obviously their call for an expanded
hierarchy gives lie to that supposition.
I hope to avoid getting embroiled in a huge flamewar over this RFD, so I
am going to minimize any followups to this post. I do call upon the
proponents of this group to post their CFV to the parenting groups, as
such a move is the responsible thing to do.
Temple
In any case, I would like to express my disagreement with the intent to
rmgroup the groups alt.drugs.chemistry and alt.psychoactives, or any
other groups.
Also, I would prefer to see any new groups to be in either the sci.* or
talk.* hierarchies rather than rec.*
(Note: follow-ups are set to be posted only to the news.groups newsgroup
so if you post a reply from alt.drugs.chemistry, or alt.psychoactives it
wouldn't appear in those groups.)
Della Noche
newsgroup - Great!!
However, once again he is quite incorrectly suggesting in THIS Request
for Discussion the removing of the now-extant groups he wants to
"replace" with his own.
Again - if Gnosis wants to form new groups and it's okay with the usual
cabal, then fine. If Gnosis wants to end groups that hundreds of other
people are actively reading and posting too, then no - forget it.
Why has Gnosis included the "killing" of active newsgroups in this RFD?
I don't know. It's as if he's going out of his way to alienate alt.
users from the new groups he wants to establish. Very strange.
Some highlights from the RFD follow:
gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi (Gnosis) wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
>
>Distribution : World-wide
>
>Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
>
>Discussion of this proposal should take place in news.groups.
>Please keep proposals concerning this RFD in news.groups,
Golly, we sure wouldn't want any of those pesky alt.drug people
discussing this.
and take debates
>about the merits of legalisation or the morality of drug-taking to
>talk.politics.drugs.
No, the morality has to do with the same old issue of "Can Gnossis remove
groups that hundred post to and read?" The answer has been a resounding
"NO"! Therefore we have to question the judgement of a person who would
try the same action so soon after the first defeat.
>
>This is *not* a call for votes. Assuming the discussion goes smoothly,
>a Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted by an independent third party 21
>to 30 days from the date of this posting.
>
>Newsgroups lines:
>rec.drugs.announce Announcements about drugs and drug-related issues. (Moderated)
>rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.
>rec.drugs.smart Smart drugs (nootropics).
>
>RATIONALE: all groups
>
>These new groups are intended to expand the rec.drugs hierarchy so
>that the volume of discussion in the existing groups is reduced to a more
>manageable level, and so that some remaining alt.drugs.* enclaves can move
>over to rec.drugs.*.
*IF* they choose to do so.
rec.drugs.announce will provide a way for people
>to stay informed about drug issues even if they don't have to time to
>browse through the rest of the hierarchy; rec.drugs.chemistry will be the
>rec.* version of alt.drugs.chemistry; and rec.drugs.smart is designed to
>provide a workable forum for people interested in nootropics, since no
>such group (except the very obscurely named alt.psychoactives) exists at
>the moment.
>
>Expected arguments against the expansion of rec.drugs
>
>In the hope of preventing needless arguments, we would like to take a
>moment to present the case against some fallacious arguments against
>the groups that are likely to arise (once again).
snip bogus strawmen:
Interestingly, Gnosis did not address the issues that came up with his
attempts to remove alt.drugs groups over much protest.
>CHARTER: all groups
>
>Attempts to sell or trade controlled substances in these groups are *not*
>permissible. Discussion of the merits of legalization and the morality of
>using drugs is off topic and should be conducted in talk.politics.drugs.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>CHARTER: rec.drugs.announce
>
>A low-volume moderated newsgroup for announcements related to drugs
>and drug issues. Possible topics include new versions of drug FAQs;
>information about drug legalization conferences, rallies, votes; changes
>in drug laws or enforcement. Target volume is 1-2 messages daily.
>
>[NOTE: Additional moderators for this group are needed. The job will not
> be very tough, just filter through half a dozen messages daily and
> pick the ones that are acceptable.]
>
>END CHARTER.
This sounds great!
>
>MODERATOR INFO: rec.drugs.announce
>
>Moderator: Dan Morris <dmo...@cloud9.net>
>Moderator: Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
>
>END MODERATOR INFO.
>
>CHARTER: rec.drugs.chemistry
>
>A newsgroup dedicated to the chemistry of recreational drugs. Possible
>topics include the synthesis and extraction of drugs; analogs of
>recreational drugs; theoretical discussions and nomenclature; etc.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>CHARTER: rec.drugs.smart
>
>A newsgroup dedicated to nootropics ("smart drugs"): cognitive enhancers
>that claim to boost intelligence, memory or mental stamina. Possible
>topics include descriptions of effects; availability of nootropics; etc.
>Anabolic steroids are *not* considered an acceptable topic.
>
>END CHARTER.
He's right - the name is misleading.
>
>CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:
>
>If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
>rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
>be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
>newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.
NOW HERE'S THE USUAL GNOSIS PROBLEM.
THERE *ARE* NO CONSEQUENCES FOR ALT. GROUPS!!!
>Posted to : rec.drugs.* news.announce.newgroups
> alt.drugs.chemistry news.groups
> alt.psychoactives talk.politics.drugs
>
>-- __
>Jani "Gnosis" Poijärvi On the neverending quest /(o\ BRAHMAN
>gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi for knowledge by identity. \o)/ +358-0-498797
Let's not post to alt.drugs, where they know Gnosis' style and what to
look out for.
Della Noche
D...@manus.org
> > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > > moderated group rec.drugs.announce
> > > unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
> > > unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
> >
> > I'd still like to have a separate group for mdma and related compounds,
> > for example rec.drugs.ecstasy.
> > --
> > Alt.atheism faqs : http://www.mantis.co.uk/atheism/
> > Rec.drugs.* archives: http://hyperreal.com/drugs/
> > Vegetarian pages : http://www.veg.org/veg/
> HEY you Fucking European BASTARDS! You are NOT going to promote
> your crazy fucking Idea to the USA that "recreational drugs"
> is an acceptable concept. NO WAY!
> The Recreational.drugs hierarchy must be KILLED!
> because just the Idea of promoting Hard Drud Usage
> is foreign to the USA.
> Now we do not EXPAND rec.drugs, but we KILL IT.
> You have all of the alt.drugs.* newsgroups that you
> need and you are NOT going to promote this behavior
> in a Hierarchy NAME!
> I will sue the fuck out of Tale for this!
> DrG
Not just Tale, but Everybody in authority should be ashamed
of themselves for letting this "recreational drug" idea get
started on this UseNet. It seem slike Gnosis "bought off" people
and they looked the other way.
I mean in the alts, O.K. -- but not on the big 7.
"recreational drugs? -- like meaning hard drugs, too?
i was too busy with those other Hard Drug Pushers on that
Borden mailing list, to really see this CFV for rec.drugs.*
happening, and I appologize for my negligence.
But you other Fathers and parents also should ahve paid some attention
to this. It is time to kill this rec.drugs.* hierarchy.
DrG
--
Manus, Inc.
D...@manus.org
DrG
>Path: hudson.lm.com!hookup!news.caren.net!news.join.ad.jp!news.imnet.ad.jp!usenet.seri.re.kr!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!miwok!news.wco.com!news
>From: Della Noche <dno...@mail.wco.com>
>Newsgroups: news.groups,new.announce.newgroups,alt.drugs,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.chemistry,alt.drugs.psychoactives,talk.politics.drugs,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.cannabis
>Subject: Let's Add Some Truth to the RFD On rec.drugs.* expansion
>Date: 6 Nov 1995 20:22:35 GMT
>Organization: benignly impaired
>Lines: 156
>Message-ID: <47lqqb$3...@news.wco.com>
>References: <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury24.calon.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2 (Windows; U; 16bit)
>Xref: hudson.lm.com news.groups:170966 alt.drugs:158855 alt.drugs.pot:32320 alt.drugs.chemistry:8634 talk.politics.drugs:55774 rec.drugs.misc:4637 rec.drugs.cannabis:7598
AND THE TRUTH IS: That Gnosis did NOT create the rec.drugs.* hierarchy
with the proper notice to the parties involved. That must be posted to the
parent's groups also.
A RFD for the KILLING of the rec.drugs.* hierarchy will be presented soon,
Everyone here agrees that the concept of "recreational Drugs" must not be
allowed to exist within the big-7. So they can go back to the alt.drugs.* groups
where they came from and where they belong.
>Let's not post to alt.drugs, where they know Gnosis' style and what to
>look out for.
>
>Della Noche
>
Keep at him, Della -- we will NOT let a rec.drugs.* hierarchy
stand on the big-7.
I've been told that Tale is against recreational hard drugs, so
the case is pretty well closed. NO MORE rec.drugs.* hierarchy on
the big 7!
D...@manus.org
InterNet LawSystems
"morality is the only rule"
Peter da Silva
Peter G. Bouillon <boui...@sol.cs.uni-sb.de> wrote:
>>>> Manus flames <<<
>As you can see for yourself, this is a discussion about newsgroup creation
>and (perhaps) drug abuse support.
Actually, no. Doctor G is a college kid who heard about Rob Pike's attack
on net.suicide as "Elizabeth Bimmler" and has created the persona of "Manus"
as a sort of copycat-crime thing. Unfortunately, he's not nearly as bright
as Pike, so "Manus" is a lot less entertaining.
It has nothing to do with Usenet, and everything to do with story writing.
It's a piece of performance art, if you will.
So please take "news.groups" out of your subject line.
Thank you.
DrG
Yes, that would be fine, Jim.
But we also must remember that there are already
NINE alt.drugs.* groups, and there is PLENTY of Space
for all talk of "recreational drug" usage right there.
DrG
>In article <47jkos$5...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
>Christopher B. Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>I did indeed send the above message to "DrG," but I also told him that his
>>use of profanity was inappropriate in news.groups, and that a less
>>strident approach would be more effective. The goal of keeping groups
>>devoted to substance abuse out of the Big 8 is admirable, but his methods
>>leave much to be desired.
>
You must realize that "profanity" is sometimes necessary to bring a real problem
to the attention of the body.politic. I do not always use Profanity, but I surely do not
want to give up any of the valid tools of prose, which include profanity, blasphemy,
vulgarity, obscenity, satire, wit, skit, parody and Avante-Guarde Risque prose.
In some cases the ends DO justify the means. And I see hard drugs, and gangs,
and violence and guns and domestic abuse as diseases of our society that I
can FIX, if they just listen. So a fuck or two here and there is worth it.
I do not talk that way on court, but in this forum, it is more of a public
"non-captive audience" so the rules are far different here.
>>I also note that the proponents of the first RFD insisted, over and over
>>again, that a group for marijuana would in no way encourage people to
>>experiment with more serious drugs. Obviously their call for an expanded
>>hierarchy gives lie to that supposition.
There is no group for "marijuana." You are using the wrong words.
we have alt.drugs.pot and rec.drugs.cannabis now, that's it.
>I think you fail to distinguish between "encourage to expiriment with",
>"encourage to abuse", "cause to abuse", and "give a forum for learning
>about before trying anything". And a few others.
>
LOOK. We are talking about the CONCEPT of using hard drugs for
a "recreational purpose" and that is WRONG!
>>I hope to avoid getting embroiled in a huge flamewar over this RFD, so I
>>am going to minimize any followups to this post. I do call upon the
>>proponents of this group to post their CFV to the parenting groups, as
>>such a move is the responsible thing to do.
>
You had better do this yourself. Gnosis, the man behind all of this,
is a Hard Drug Promoter and a dirty-dealer on this UseNet.
KILL rec.drugs.* HIerarchy for the GOOD OF MANKIND!
DrG
>In any case, I would like to express my disagreement with the intent to
>rmgroup the groups alt.drugs.chemistry and alt.psychoactives, or any
>other groups.
Exactly, NONE of the ALTS should Ever be removed!
We remove only from the big 7/8 groups -- alts die naturally.
>Also, I would prefer to see any new groups to be in either the sci.* or
>talk.* hierarchies rather than rec.*
This is also a good point. As soon al all of the rec.drug.* groups are killed,
everything will go right back to the way it was, before Gnosis tried this fraud.
We still have the original NINE alt.drugs.* groups and that is PLENTY!
Then, the people in the alt.drugs.* groups can have a valid place to discuss
where to present new group proposals within the UUnet 7/8.
Incidentially, to show how this NATURAL FLOW of UseNet is SUPPOSED
to happen, we will create a new soc.cannabis sci.cannabis or talk.cannabis
7/8 group, and you will SEE how this is going to work. A few monts after the
creation of a talk.cannabis group, the remaining alt.drugs.pot group will die
a NATURAL death
DrG
DrG
>In article <Pine.BSD.3.91.95110...@pink.lm.com>,
>DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Christopher B. Stone wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with you -- recreational drug use is not an approrpiate topic for
>>> a mainstream hierarchy. When they first posted the RFD, I brought up
>>> these objections. Unfortunately, I wasn't around for the CFV, so I
>>> attention of the parenting newsgroups. The group acquired a 2/3
>>> supermajority only barely, and had an active campaign against it been
>>> waged, it would have failed IMHO.
>
>>Well thank you for your opinion, but do not be so humble.
>>This Hierarchy can now be KILLED by a VOTE because it has been in
>>existence for over Three months, and it now MUST be KILLED!
>
>First off, it is extremely rude to post private e-mail to Usenet.
That was NOT private e-mail Chris, It came from your useNet posting
and had the newsgroups built into the reply.
>I did indeed send the above message to "DrG," but I also told him that his
>use of profanity was inappropriate in news.groups, and that a less
>strident approach would be more effective. The goal of keeping groups
>devoted to substance abuse out of the Big 8 is admirable, but his methods
>leave much to be desired.
<see the previous posting for the answer to the above>
>Now, as to the question of rmgrouping the existing rec.drugs.* groups, I
>lean against it, for two reasons. First, I don't think it would be
>feasible, as there are no established procedures for RFD seeking to
>remove a given group. It would also incite a flamewar on news.groups.
>
Well, THAT'S TOUGH SHIT! You will NOT have a rec.drugs.* hierarchy on
this UseNet, and I will sue the fuck out of Tale, et.al if it is nit KILLED!
>Secondly, rmgrouping does smack of prior restraint. It would not have
>been censorship to keep rec.drugs.* out of the Big 8 in the first place.
>However, removing them once they are here is more problematic. More
>importantly, even if I were convinced that rmgrouping rec.drugs.* were a
>Good Thing, it would set a precedent about rmgrouping controversial groups.
Well TOUGH SHIT AGAIN! Recreational DRUGS.* means the use of
"any kind of drug for recreational purposes" and that shall NOT be allowed
to exist on this fucking UseNet. PERIOD! I will spend thousands of dollars
and send hundreds of lawyers to sue every fucking person that votes for it,
if I have to! NO "recreational drugs.* hierarchy will be allowed on the big 7/8.
A precedent NEEDS TO BE SET here if UUnet is ever going to maintain
ANY credibility or respectability!
>I think that reasonable people should settle for a NO vote on the
>proposals to expand rec.drugs.*. My analysis of the rec.drugs.* vote
>above was correct: it barely acquired a 2/3 supermajority, and had the
>CFV been posted to the parenting newsgroups, I suspect it would not have
>passed.
>
Well, the whole thing was FIXED by that filthy Gnosis and that slob Hoss from
Cambridge. And Fucking Tale should have known better.
And TheBob(c) will vote to KILL the rec,drugs.hierarchy, too.
I think he realizes that he does not want to be burdened by the
DEATH of CHILDREN that will come if this rec.drugs.* NewsGroup is
allowed to continue.
If it is not Killed, I am going to go get 60 minutes and jump on
Tale's ass like a fly on shit! And sue the fucker for causing DEATH
to children VIA the UseNet UUnet system!
NO MORE rec.drugs.* hierarchy on the BIG SEVEN/8!
Alan Harder
>> Now, as to the question of rmgrouping the existing rec.drugs.*
>> groups, I lean against it, for two reasons. First, I don't think
>> it would be feasible, as there are no established procedures for
>> RFD seeking to remove a given group. It would also incite a
>> flamewar on news.groups.
>>
> Well, THAT'S TOUGH SHIT! You will NOT have a rec.drugs.* hierarchy
> on this UseNet, and I will sue the fuck out of Tale, et.al if it is
> nit KILLED!
All talk, no action. I have yet to see you carry out any of the
thousands of blustering threats that you have made. The rec groups
will still be around, and no lawsuit will exist. You remind me of a
gopher snake, that vibrates its tail and puffs itself up to look more
threatening. But all of the bravado it can muster dosen't change the
fact that it is really harmless.
> Well TOUGH SHIT AGAIN! Recreational DRUGS.* means the use of "any
> kind of drug for recreational purposes" and that shall NOT be
> allowed to exist on this fucking UseNet. PERIOD!
Not allowed by who? You don't own usenet, you can't dictate what is
on usenet, and you can't do a friggin' thing about it.
> I will spend
> thousands of dollars and send hundreds of lawyers to sue every
> fucking person that votes for it, if I have to!
BWAHAHAHA! You get funnier and funnier.
> NO "recreational
> drugs.* hierarchy will be allowed on the big 7/8. A precedent
> NEEDS TO BE SET here if UUnet is ever going to maintain ANY
> credibility or respectability!
You should know about losing credibility and respectability, since you
have long since lost yours to 90% of the people who don't have you
killfiled yet.
> Well, the whole thing was FIXED by that filthy Gnosis and that slob
> Hoss from Cambridge. And Fucking Tale should have known better.
> And TheBob(c) will vote to KILL the rec,drugs.hierarchy, too. I
> think he realizes that he does not want to be burdened by the DEATH
> of CHILDREN that will come if this rec.drugs.* NewsGroup is allowed
> to continue.
The Death of Children? What are you blathering about now?
> If it is not Killed, I am going to go get 60 minutes and jump on
> Tale's ass like a fly on shit! And sue the fucker for causing
> DEATH to children VIA the UseNet UUnet system!
Sheesh, you get more wierd all the time. I didn't think you could
come off as more of a crackpot than you already have, but you just
keep going, and going, and going....
> NO MORE rec.drugs.* hierarchy on the BIG SEVEN/8!
Oh, okay, since you say so, Mr. God.
-Alan Harder
a...@math.ams.org
Legalize it!
The above commentary, which does not *even* represent the opinion of
the American Mathematical Society, is sold by weight, not by volume.
Some settling of the contents may have occurred during shipping.
Colin Douthwaite
: In article <47ca17$f...@cello.gina.calstate.edu>,
: Jason Kennerly <jke...@cello.gina.calstate.edu> wrote:
: > 3. Despite what you might believe about propagation, _none_ of the rec.drugs
: > groups appear at my site, while all of the alt.drugs sites except
: > alt.drugs.hard are here...
:
: Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
: --
: Shields.
Nor does unsupported comment on anecdotal evidence.
However you will realise that your statement actually confirms
that anecdotal evidence proves something because you cannot prove
nothing ! *8-)
Bye,
Jeffrey S Gostin
>Well, THAT'S TOUGH SHIT! You will NOT have a rec.drugs.* hierarchy on
>this UseNet, and I will sue the fuck out of Tale, et.al if it is nit KILLED!
Suing Tale won't help you, friend. He is a volunteer who is recognized that
The Man when it comes to authenticating/newgroup'ing newsgroups. That's it. He
performs the 'will of the people' as voiced by the CFV's.
>A precedent NEEDS TO BE SET here if UUnet is ever going to maintain
>ANY credibility or respectability!
Consider a few poinst friend:
1. UUNet is NOT the entire Internet. They are one highly visible provider, but
there are far from the only one. UUNet does not control Internet, nor do they
control Usenet. Their credibility isn't at risk here. Tale is a well known
net.personality, and I doubt there's anything you could do to ruin or tarnish
his reputation on the net.
2. This precedent you're talking about is commonly referred to as 'censoring'.
You wish to censor groups you don't feel should have a voice. Regardless of my
opinions on their content, I feel that, since the group(s) met the criteria
for group creation, they should be allowed to have their piece of the net. You
don't like their content? Fine... don't read the groups. Your intentions are
good, your methods speak otherwise.
>If it is not Killed, I am going to go get 60 minutes and jump on
>Tale's ass like a fly on shit! And sue the fucker for causing DEATH
>to children VIA the UseNet UUnet system!
Rather than waste your breath and typing to prevent the drugs group, perhaps
consider taking your preaching somewhere that'll do some good -- To the
streets, to the children, to the schools... To TEACH these kids to make better
decisions, and to not use drugs. Instead of censorship, try education. The
latter is more productive, and is likely to be more successful.
--J
--
======== ======== "Information Superhighway" does for Internet
== == what C.H.I.P.'s did for Cops.
== == -= Destroy Ignorance -- Seek Higher Understanding
===== ======== Ask me for my PGP key. Privacy is your friend.
Kelly Rolf
: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
: moderated group rec.drugs.announce
: unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
: unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
: Distribution : World-wide
: Proponent : Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
: Discussion of this proposal should take place in news.groups.
: Please keep proposals concerning this RFD in news.groups, and take debates
: about the merits of legalisation or the morality of drug-taking to
: talk.politics.drugs.
: This is *not* a call for votes. Assuming the discussion goes smoothly,
: a Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted by an independent third party 21
: to 30 days from the date of this posting.
: Newsgroups lines:
: rec.drugs.announce Announcements about drugs and drug-related issues. (Moderated)
: rec.drugs.chemistry The chemistry of recreational drugs.
: rec.drugs.smart Smart drugs (nootropics).
: RATIONALE: all groups
: These new groups are intended to expand the rec.drugs hierarchy so
: that the volume of discussion in the existing groups is reduced to a more
: manageable level, and so that some remaining alt.drugs.* enclaves can move
: over to rec.drugs.*. rec.drugs.announce will provide a way for people
: to stay informed about drug issues even if they don't have to time to
: browse through the rest of the hierarchy; rec.drugs.chemistry will be the
: rec.* version of alt.drugs.chemistry; and rec.drugs.smart is designed to
: provide a workable forum for people interested in nootropics, since no
: such group (except the very obscurely named alt.psychoactives) exists at
: the moment.
: Expected arguments against the expansion of rec.drugs
: In the hope of preventing needless arguments, we would like to take a
: moment to present the case against some fallacious arguments against
: the groups that are likely to arise (once again).
: * "Drugs are illegal and hence cannot be discussed"
: The Internet is a global community and laws vary greatly. For example, the
: Netherlands have decriminalized cannabis, and the United States allows the
: use of the hallucinogen mescaline in the religious ceremonies of the Native
: American Church. And of course, purely theoretical discussion about any
: subject is permissible.
: * "Use of drugs is morally wrong"
: The issue at stake here is whether there _is_ a need for these rec.drugs
: groups, not whether there _should_ be one. Given the popularity of
: alt.drugs and rec.drugs, we think that there is a clear need. If you must
: discuss morality, please take it to talk.politics.drugs.
: CHARTER: all groups
: Attempts to sell or trade controlled substances in these groups are *not*
: permissible. Discussion of the merits of legalization and the morality of
: using drugs is off topic and should be conducted in talk.politics.drugs.
: END CHARTER.
: CHARTER: rec.drugs.announce
: A low-volume moderated newsgroup for announcements related to drugs
: and drug issues. Possible topics include new versions of drug FAQs;
: information about drug legalization conferences, rallies, votes; changes
: in drug laws or enforcement. Target volume is 1-2 messages daily.
: [NOTE: Additional moderators for this group are needed. The job will not
: be very tough, just filter through half a dozen messages daily and
: pick the ones that are acceptable.]
: END CHARTER.
: MODERATOR INFO: rec.drugs.announce
: Moderator: Dan Morris <dmo...@cloud9.net>
: Moderator: Jani Poijärvi <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi>
: END MODERATOR INFO.
: CHARTER: rec.drugs.chemistry
: A newsgroup dedicated to the chemistry of recreational drugs. Possible
: topics include the synthesis and extraction of drugs; analogs of
: recreational drugs; theoretical discussions and nomenclature; etc.
: END CHARTER.
: CHARTER: rec.drugs.smart
: A newsgroup dedicated to nootropics ("smart drugs"): cognitive enhancers
: that claim to boost intelligence, memory or mental stamina. Possible
: topics include descriptions of effects; availability of nootropics; etc.
: Anabolic steroids are *not* considered an acceptable topic.
: END CHARTER.
: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AFFECTED ALT GROUPS:
: If rec.drugs.chemistry passes its vote, alt.drugs.chemistry will be
: rmgrouped. If rec.drugs.smart passes its vote, alt.psychoactives will
: be rmgrouped. These rmgroups will be issued six months after the
: newgroups creating the rec groups are issued.
: PROCEDURE:
: This RFD is being issued in accordance with the guidelines set in the
: "How to create a new Usenet newsgroup" FAQ that is regularly posted to
: news.announce.newgroups. Its language is based on previously submitted
: RFDs.
: After a discussion period of 21 to 30 days, if there are no overwhelming
: objections to the proposed groups, there will be a Call For Votes (CFV)
: posted to the same groups as this RFD. The voting period will be at least
: 21 days. If the group passes by a 2/3 majority and receives 100 more YES
: votes than NO votes, it will be created.
: DISTRIBUTION:
: Posted to : rec.drugs.* news.announce.newgroups
Colin Douthwaite
:
: RFD's _always_ have the Follow-Up set to news.groups only, for the
: simple reason that the discussion about new newsgroups is off-topic in
: most groups. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^
Proof ?
Many groups don't even have Charters.
Bye,
Russ Allbery
> The point of giving newsgroups good names is to make it easy for
> administrators to pick and chose which groups to carry. In the past, a
> "family friendly" provider could carry all of the Big 7 confident in the
> knowledge that groups dedicated to pornography, recreational drug use,
> and so forth were stuck in alt.*.
Missed rec.arts.erotica did you, Chris?
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
Peter Seebach
>se...@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) wrote:
[blatant troll about confusing me with someone else deleted.]
>There is no group for "marijuana." You are using the wrong words.
>we have alt.drugs.pot and rec.drugs.cannabis now, that's it.
Same thing.
>>I think you fail to distinguish between "encourage to expiriment with",
>>"encourage to abuse", "cause to abuse", and "give a forum for learning
>>about before trying anything". And a few others.
>LOOK. We are talking about the CONCEPT of using hard drugs for
>a "recreational purpose" and that is WRONG!
No, it isn't. It's stupid, but so is bowling. And you have completely
failed to respond to the paragraph you quote.
>KILL rec.drugs.* HIerarchy for the GOOD OF MANKIND!
An amusing troll, but not a patch on Kibo with a hangover.
(And yes folks, it's a troll.)
-s
--
Peter Seebach - se...@solon.com || se...@intran.xerox.com --
C/Unix proto-wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help. No, really!
Copyright 1995 Peter Seebach. -- High energy particle theology
The *other* C FAQ - ftp taniemarie.solon.com /pub/c/afq
Gnosis
: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
: moderated group rec.drugs.announce
: unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
: unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
First off, apologies to all for not replying sooner, but my site's
newsfeed has been *extremely* slow lately... that's why I'm replying
to myself instead of addressing the comments directly, they haven't
even arrived here yet! (Obviously, I have access to another system where
I can read news so I know about them.)
Anyway, I have decided to drop the section about the alt groups *ENTIRELY*
from the RFD. That's right, no rmgroups from me, just a periodically-
posted pointer to the new groups should they pass.
To the conspiracy theorist: The reason why I posted only to two alt groups
is quite simple. This expansion directly concerns only two of them,
alt.drugs.chemistry (-> r.d.chemistry) and alt.psychoactives (-> r.d.smart).
As for the suggested additions:
* rec.drugs.ecstasy was in the draft RFD, but most people thought
it's too specialized a topic, and I'd be tempted to agree. For time
being, it can stay in r.d.psychedelic.
* rec.drugs.effects is a classic example of a newsgroup built to "draw off"
all the noise from a group. Unfortunately, groups like this never work,
and we'd just have one more group filled with junk (cf. alt.drugs.culture).
I hope that covers the major points. A 2nd RFD will be posted in a week
or two, and I'll attempt to reply to all queries raised here.
DrG
>In article <47ijfr$i...@hudson.lm.com>, DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>> but I know a real genius called Matt, and he goes to
>> school here in Pennsylvania, and he seems like a good
>> dude, and he is against hard drugs, and he seems to know
>> his way around this net, because he is a professional
>> spammer-hunter and spammer killer, but I don't remember
>> his whole last name. I go through over 200 emails and postings
>[...]
>
>Thanks for letting us know. Get back to us when you have that RFD ready.
>--
>Shields.
Well, the Guy Matt is actually not the right guy. I have hundreds of
humanoids in my cyberspace memory here, and I get them mixed up.
The reason for this one was they were both from Pa. schools, now YOU
figure out how the humanoid memory storage system works, huh?
Actually the guy I was thinking of was Tim Skirvin. But I don't know if he
actually understands the issue well enough to do it right.
I think Della could do this one much better anyway. DELLA! CAROL!
Are you out there in cyberspace, Darling?
DellaNoche/Carol is the one who originally called my attention to
this Gnosis fraud. Peter was a great help, too, as was Carl, and ALL
of the rest of the anti-hard drug people.
But WHY did Tale let this happen? That's wah I want to know.
I will talk to Della and get back to this thread.
Seek Tao, MIchael, and
Shalom.
DrG
Russ Allbery
> Actually the guy I was thinking of was Tim Skirvin. But I don't know if he
> actually understands the issue well enough to do it right.
> I think Della could do this one much better anyway. DELLA! CAROL!
> Are you out there in cyberspace, Darling?
> DellaNoche/Carol is the one who originally called my attention to
> this Gnosis fraud. Peter was a great help, too, as was Carl, and ALL
> of the rest of the anti-hard drug people.
You're getting far too obvious. This is like the forged Tale retirement
note that named Richard Sexton as his successor. (Of course, I bit on that
one....)
The alternative is that you actually have no idea who the people are behind
the names you're dropping, but that seems to be getting less likely....
DrG
>In article <47o19g$e...@hudson.lm.com> D...@manus.org (DrG) writes:
>
>>Well, THAT'S TOUGH SHIT! You will NOT have a rec.drugs.* hierarchy on
>>this UseNet, and I will sue the fuck out of Tale, et.al if it is nit KILLED!
>Suing Tale won't help you, friend. He is a volunteer who is recognized that
>The Man when it comes to authenticating/newgroup'ing newsgroups. That's it. He
>performs the 'will of the people' as voiced by the CFV's.
Look, sorry that I flamed Tale, I was just pissed.
The "will of the people" is the will of the CABAL here.
>>A precedent NEEDS TO BE SET here if UUnet is ever going to maintain
>>ANY credibility or respectability!
>Consider a few poinst friend:
>
>1. UUNet is NOT the entire Internet. They are one highly visible provider, but
>there are far from the only one. UUNet does not control Internet, nor do they
>control Usenet. Their credibility isn't at risk here. Tale is a well known
>net.personality, and I doubt there's anything you could do to ruin or tarnish
>his reputation on the net.
Where is the FAQ on Tale? I do not want to ruin or tarnish anybody, I just
want you guys to understand that the CONTENT is fine in any NewsGroup,
but the TITLE is a condonation of the activity "reasonably to be expected"
thereunder."
Do YOU condone the recreational use of SMACK?!
Now ANSWER the fucking question, since you, Jeffrey,
are such a big nethead. make a record!
>
>2. This precedent you're talking about is commonly referred to as 'censoring'.
>You wish to censor groups you don't feel should have a voice. Regardless of my
>opinions on their content, I feel that, since the group(s) met the criteria
>for group creation, they should be allowed to have their piece of the net. You
>don't like their content? Fine... don't read the groups. Your intentions are
>good, your methods speak otherwise.
STUPID boy here -- mixing up CONTENT and HEADERS/NAMES
of UseNet NewsGroups. Headers are marks of ACCEPTANCE
by the group.
>>If it is not Killed, I am going to go get 60 minutes and jump on
>>Tale's ass like a fly on shit! And sue the fucker for causing DEATH
>>to children VIA the UseNet UUnet system!
I appologize for Flaming Tale here, but he is the boss.
This was not his fault alone, but they are all to blame,
starting with the BIG Seven Bum*/Law* type bigshots.
Well, i think 60 minutes would be very interested in this story.
But I am still working on it -- it will take me a few months.
>Rather than waste your breath and typing to prevent the drugs group, perhaps
>consider taking your preaching somewhere that'll do some good -- To the
>streets, to the children, to the schools... To TEACH these kids to make better
>decisions, and to not use drugs. Instead of censorship, try education. The
>latter is more productive, and is likely to be more successful.
Look dude, I do NOt want to ever censor any CONTENT of what anybody says.
But you are NOT going to have the ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE of a rec.drugs.*
hierarchy on your UUnet/ISP Big seven/8 without getting SUED by some Parents!
Education starts right here on UseNet.
You want to talk about "recreational drugs" then go to the alts, PERIOD.
There are eight alt.drugs.* NewsGroups to pick from.
A Concerned Father
*selah*
Summary:
Keywords:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Temple (psyc...@mindvox.phantom.com) wrote:
: For some reason I have been unable to find the original RFD post for this.
I checked in ftp.uu.net and it seems that this "RFD" has not actually
been officially filed--at least, it is not listed in the
usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/ lists.
(Note: follow-ups have been set to news.groups)
DrG
>>>>>> " " == DrG <D...@manus.org> writes:
>In article <47o19g$e...@hudson.lm.com> D...@manus.org (DrG) writes:
>
>on usenet, and you can't do a friggin' thing about it.
Yes I can STUPID! I can KILL the rec,drugs hierarchy! Watch me BOY!
> > I will spend
> > thousands of dollars and send hundreds of lawyers to sue every
> > fucking person that votes for it, if I have to!
> > NO "recreational
> > drugs.* hierarchy will be allowed on the big 7/8. A precedent
> > NEEDS TO BE SET here if UUnet is ever going to maintain ANY
> > credibility or respectability!
>
>You should know about losing credibility and respectability, since you
>have long since lost yours to 90% of the people who don't have you
>killfiled yet.
What the fuck would you know asshole? There can't be TOO many who
have killfiled me, because I get over fifty responses a day to my articles.
I mean, why dom't YOU killfile me PLEASE! So I don't have to contimue to
hear your FRIVOLOUS arguments!
> > Well, the whole thing was FIXED by that filthy Gnosis and that slob
> > Hoss from Cambridge. And Fucking Tale should have known better.
I appologize for Flaming Tale here, but he IS the fucking Boss.
The Buck has to stop somewhere.
If you are going to be a "boss" -- get ready for everybody to hate you!
> > And TheBob(c) will vote to KILL the rec,drugs.hierarchy, too. I
> > think he realizes that he does not want to be burdened by the DEATH
> > of CHILDREN that will come if this rec.drugs.* NewsGroup is allowed
> > to continue.
>
>The Death of Children? What are you blathering about now?
MY Children! Any anybody elses children STUPID!
Don't you know that the NAMES of the big 7/8 UseNet NewsGroups are
a reflection fo what we CONDONE as a society!
CRACK KILLS! HEROIN KILLS! METH. KILLS! COCAINE KILLS!
And you want to promote the discussion of the "recreational use" of these
things? Where is your MORALITY,Alan?!
> > If it is not Killed, I am going to go get 60 minutes and jump on
> > Tale's ass like a fly on shit! And sue the fucker for causing
I appologize for Flaming Tale. But this is much bigger than tale.
I am still investigating.
> > DEATH to children VIA the UseNet UUnet system!
>
>Sheesh, you get more wierd all the time. I didn't think you could
>come off as more of a crackpot than you already have, but you just
>keep going, and going, and going....
Yes, and you can call me whatever you want, but you will NEVER
stop me. I want proper regimentation and DECENCY on this UseNet,
and we have not had much of that up to now.
> > NO MORE rec.drugs.* hierarchy on the BIG SEVEN/8!
>
>Oh, okay, since you say so, Mr. God.
>
>
>-Alan Harder
That is "DOCTOR God," Alan. I create children, systems, laws
and bionic body politic analysis/operation/control software,
but you would not understand.
Go back to your Calculus.
DrGod
Peter da Silva
>I will be DAMNED if I will let this
>exist in MY world. What about the rest of you?
I don't believe in damnation or the immortal soul, but if there is a hell
I am sure it has a special place for people who followup to their own
messages.
Jeffrey S Gostin
>Where is the FAQ on Tale?
I don't believe there is such an animal. Talk to him... maybe you'll find out
what you want to know.
>Do YOU condone the recreational use of SMACK?!
>Now ANSWER the fucking question, since you, Jeffrey,
>are such a big nethead. make a record!
Well, 'friend'... IN GENERAL, I don't condone to use of recreational drugs.
However, each person is responsible for themselves. I don't pretend to know
what's right for everyone. If John Doe decided to shoot up, well, I can't stop
him. If Mary Jane Smith decides to do crack, fine... I can't stop her. I'd
like to think that people can make responsible decisions, but, again, I can't
stop people from not doing that.
Record enough for you?
>STUPID boy here -- mixing up CONTENT and HEADERS/NAMES
>of UseNet NewsGroups. Headers are marks of ACCEPTANCE
>by the group.
Friend, you know nothing about me. Making statements as to my intelligence
without such knowledge is dangerously ignorant, and offensive.
>I appologize for Flaming Tale here, but he is the boss.
>This was not his fault alone, but they are all to blame,
>starting with the BIG Seven Bum*/Law* type bigshots.
No. Tale is a human being. He's not 'the boss'. He is a volunteer who
implements the will of the Usenet Population, as given by duly registered
votes on CFV's. Nothing more. Holding him responsible for Usenet, and making
him its scapegoat is ignorant, clearly unthinking, and thoroughly unwarranted.
>Look dude, I do NOt want to ever censor any CONTENT of what anybody says.
>But you are NOT going to have the ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE of a rec.drugs.*
>hierarchy on your UUnet/ISP Big seven/8 without getting SUED by some Parents!
Friend, once again, I'll tell you... UUNet _is_ an ISP. That's it. So far as
the "attractive nuisance of rec.drugs.* on your . . . big seven/8", I can only
say that the group is here to stay. The constitution is a wonderful thing.
They have as much right to babble about their favorite topic as you have to
waste bandwidth with yours. The fact that you don't like theirs means as
little to me as how I feel about yours does to you.
>Education starts right here on UseNet.
Wrong. Education starts in the home, and in the schools. Usenet is a reflexion
of society. If you don't like what you see here, take a good hard look at
society. You'll find the source there.
>You want to talk about "recreational drugs" then go to the alts, PERIOD.
>There are eight alt.drugs.* NewsGroups to pick from.
I don't care to discuss recreational drugs. I don't use them, and have no
interest in them. But I also won't tell people that they can't discuss them.
Christopher B. Stone
albert the panther <pan...@lava.net> wrote:
>D...@manus.org (DrG) writes:
>>LOOK. We are talking about the CONCEPT of using hard drugs for
>>a "recreational purpose" and that is WRONG!
>Rubbish. Total rubbish. Who are you to decide what is 'WRONG"
>for anyone but yourself?
While I realize that the original poster was trolling, I should point out
that the argument "who is to decide what is WRONG for anyone but
yourself?" is in fact a silly argument. If we pass a law increasing aid
to the homeless, that is a moral judgement. If we say murder is wrong,
that is a moral judgement. I have no problem making such moral
judgements, and I do not see why we cannot make them about drug abuse as
well.
Steve Adams
>MY Children! Any anybody elses children STUPID!
>Don't you know that the NAMES of the big 7/8 UseNet NewsGroups are
>a reflection fo what we CONDONE as a society!
>CRACK KILLS! HEROIN KILLS! METH. KILLS! COCAINE KILLS!
Driving kills. Cholesterol kills. War kills. &c. All are freely
discussed on the net. What's your point?
>And you want to promote the discussion of the "recreational use" of these
>things? Where is your MORALITY,Alan?!
Uh, morality doesn't have anything to do with it! Last I checked, we
were constitutionally permitted to talk about anything we want, with a
few restrictions (inciting riot, conspiracy, etc). Destroying freedom
of speech is the first step on the road to despotism.
>Yes, and you can call me whatever you want, but you will NEVER
>stop me. I want proper regimentation and DECENCY on this UseNet,
>and we have not had much of that up to now.
Decency? You use more "4 letter words" than all of your
correspondants put together....I'd feel a lot safer with my kids
discussing recreational drugs than having them within earshot of you.
>DrGod
Quite an opinion of yourself, eh?
-Steve
Steve Adams
>The NAMES of our BIG 7/8 NewsGroups are a REFLECTION
>of what Academia and USA Society CONDONES as *acceptable behavior.*
Hardly. It does define what is important for SOME people to discuss.
And discussion is protected by the Constitution, Mr. disbarred lawyer.
>*Recreational Drugs* means the recreational use of all drugs, including crack,
>heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.
No. It means (on the net) DISCUSSION of that topic, which is
perfectly acceptable.
>This is a FACT that had better be promptly uinderstood by all in UUnet/UseNet.
Bah.
>I will be DAMNED if I will let this
>exist in MY world. What about the rest of you?
Maybe you should talk to the Dutch. They might disagree with you and
are part of this workld....
Jani Patokallio
an acquaintance's account, my own feed is unbearably slow...]
In article <47jkos$5...@cnn.Princeton.EDU> cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone) writes:
>I think that reasonable people should settle for a NO vote on the
>proposals to expand rec.drugs.*. My analysis of the rec.drugs.* vote
>above was correct: it barely acquired a 2/3 supermajority, and had the
>CFV been posted to the parenting newsgroups, I suspect it would not have
>passed.
Not. The vote was 4:1 in favor, and it would've been even more biased
to the yes side if ~200 votes hadn't been invalidated due to some twit
sending out a pre-filled form. But what really annoys me is:
>I also note that the proponents of the first RFD insisted, over and over
>again, that a group for marijuana would in no way encourage people to
>experiment with more serious drugs. Obviously their call for an expanded
>hierarchy gives lie to that supposition.
What? The original CFV stated, quite clearly, that we only wanted to
create the minimum number of groups necessary and that we would expand
later, which is what is happening now. Second, the new groups have
nothing to do with "more serious drugs": r.d.announce is a moderated forum
for all drugs, r.d.chemistry is for serious discussion真 (I assure you,
you won't find many teenagers who can synthesize LSD), and r.d.nootropics
deals with supplements which are mostly legal, even in the United States.
But most importantly, what does this have to do with anything? rec.drugs
was created to meet an obvious demand, alt.drugs already had 200000 readers
(if you believe "Umpire") long before r.d.* came along, and as we have
repeated many, many times to you discussion of something does not mean
promotion of the thing.
>proponents of this group to post their CFV to the parenting groups, as
>such a move is the responsible thing to do.
This CFV has nothing to with the parenting groups, and it will not be
crossposted there.
--
Jani Patokallio Kilahtiko avaruuden tasapinta? Member of UVV
jpat...@alpha.hut.fi Sukelsiko jostain 3 pisaraa?
Lintilla the Warlock
> A precedent NEEDS TO BE SET here if UUnet is ever going to maintain
> ANY credibility or respectability!
And you'll be able to do that with childish threats and swearing?
Alan Harder
In article <47q9cq$r...@hudson.lm.com> D...@manus.org (DrG) writes:
> a...@math.ams.org (Alan Harder) wrote:
>>
>> Not allowed by who? You don't own usenet, you can't dictate what
>> is on usenet, and you can't do a friggin' thing about it.
> Yes I can STUPID! I can KILL the rec,drugs hierarchy! Watch me
> BOY!
I've been watching you post your threats on which you never follow
through. It's really very amusing. By the way, I'm 38. Hardly a
boy.
>> You should know about losing credibility and respectability, since
>> you have long since lost yours to 90% of the people who don't have
>> you killfiled yet.
> What the fuck would you know asshole?
Great comeback.
> There can't be TOO many who
> have killfiled me, because I get over fifty responses a day to my
> articles. I mean, why dom't YOU killfile me PLEASE! So I don't
> have to contimue to hear your FRIVOLOUS arguments!
My frivolous arguments? BWAHAHAHA! At least I don't act like I'm
Mr. Usenet God, who can dictate what happens here. No, you provide
too much amusement to killfile you. However, when you make grandiose
statements, expect me to shoot them down.
>> The Death of Children? What are you blathering about now?
> MY Children! Any anybody elses children STUPID! Don't you know
> that the NAMES of the big 7/8 UseNet NewsGroups are a reflection fo
> what we CONDONE as a society! CRACK KILLS! HEROIN KILLS!
> METH. KILLS! COCAINE KILLS! And you want to promote the
> discussion of the "recreational use" of these things? Where is
> your MORALITY,Alan?!
I want to promote the discussion of the responsible use of any
mind-altering substance. If more intelligent discussion took place,
and the so-called "hard" drugs were legal, many less people would die.
But you can't let that get in the way of getting your precious herb
legalized, now can you? I'm very secure in my morality, thank you.
I don't believe that the government should be able to dictate what a
person can put into their own body. This is true for any drug. You,
however, seem to be of the opinion that it's okay for the government
to impose into the private lives of the people, just like you try to
impose your will on the Usenet community. I believe in personal
freedom, as long as it doesn't impinge on others' freedom. You seem
happy with our personal freedom being taken away by a dictator's whim.
>> > If it is not Killed, I am going to go get 60 minutes and jump on
>> > Tale's ass like a fly on shit! And sue the fucker for causing
>> Sheesh, you get more wierd all the time. I didn't think you could
>> come off as more of a crackpot than you already have, but you just
>> keep going, and going, and going....
> Yes, and you can call me whatever you want, but you will NEVER stop
> me. I want proper regimentation and DECENCY on this UseNet, and we
> have not had much of that up to now.
In other words, you want to censor Usenet. You want things to be as
DrG wants them to be, to hell with democracy. You want to be the King
of Usenet. Well forget it, it's not going to happen. These things
are decided by voting, and if the will of the Usenet community is in
agreement with your opinion, then things will be the way you like
them, but if not, there's not a single thing you can do about it.
>> > NO MORE rec.drugs.* hierarchy on the BIG SEVEN/8!
>>
>> Oh, okay, since you say so, Mr. God.
>>
>>
>> -Alan Harder
> That is "DOCTOR God," Alan. I create children, systems, laws and
> bionic body politic analysis/operation/control software, but you
> would not understand. Go back to your Calculus.
Well, I happen to be a programmer/analyst/system manager that works
for the American Mathematical Society. And I do understand that you
have the hugest ego I've ever encountered. But to me you're just a
puny person typing at your keyboard, trying to impose your will and
ego on the net. Good luck, you're going to need it.
> DrGod
Christopher B. Stone
Jani Patokallio <jpat...@epsilon.hut.fi> wrote:
>>proponents of this group to post their CFV to the parenting groups, as
>>such a move is the responsible thing to do.
>This CFV has nothing to with the parenting groups, and it will not be
>crossposted there.
I disagree with this point. Not everyone agrees with you that recreational
drug use is hunky dory, and there are plenty of people on the parenting
groups who are concerned with the way in which the net will influence
their children's choices about substance abuse. I submit that such
concern is entirely legitimate.
I am not going to waste a lot of time campaigning against this RFD,
because the original rec.drugs.* groups were already established.
However, the proponents ought to do the responsible thing and let *all*
interested parties know of their proposal, including those who may not
share the proponents' worldview.
*selah*
: Follow-up To: news.groups
I take that back. I had checked under rec.drugs.chemistry and
rec.drugs.smart and there was nothing listed. Then I checked under
rec.drugs.announce and the RFD was there for all 3 groups. So it is official.
DrG
D...@manus.org (DrG) wrote:
>psyc...@mindvox.phantom.com (Temple) wrote:
>
>>In any case, I would like to express my disagreement with the intent to
>>rmgroup the groups alt.drugs.chemistry and alt.psychoactives, or any
>>other groups.
>
>Exactly, NONE of the ALTS should Ever be removed!
>We remove only from the big 7/8 groups -- alts die naturally.
>
>>Also, I would prefer to see any new groups to be in either the sci.* or
>>talk.* hierarchies rather than rec.*
>
>This is also a good point. As soon as all of the rec.drug.* groups are killed,
>everything will go right back to the way it was, before Gnosis tried this fraud.
>We still have the original NINE alt.drugs.* groups and that is PLENTY!
<supra/para/corr>
>Then, the people in the alt.drugs.* groups can have a valid place to discuss
>where to present new group proposals within the UUnet 7/8.
>
The NAMES of our BIG 7/8 NewsGroups are a REFLECTION
of what Academia and USA Society CONDONES as *acceptable behavior.*
*Recreational Drugs* means the recreational use of all drugs, including crack,
heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.
This is a FACT that had better be promptly uinderstood by all in UUnet/UseNet.
I will be DAMNED if I will let this
exist in MY world. What about the rest of you?
DrG
Daniel R. Reitman
>a...@math.ams.org (Alan Harder) wrote:
>. . . .
>MY Children! Any anybody elses children STUPID!
>Don't you know that the NAMES of the big 7/8 UseNet NewsGroups are
>a reflection fo what we CONDONE as a society!
>CRACK KILLS! HEROIN KILLS! METH. KILLS! COCAINE KILLS!
>And you want to promote the discussion of the "recreational use" of these
>things? Where is your MORALITY,Alan?!
>. . . .
Get the <bleep> out of news.groups and discuss the effects of drugs on the drug
newsgroups.
Daniel Reitman
VDENNY
rec.sport.softball. We're civilized and drug free.
Vince
D...@manus.org
> Gnosis <gno...@brahman.nullnet.fi> wrote:
> >>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) moderated group rec.drugs.announc
> >>>> unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
> D...@manus.org wrote:
> >> HEY you Fucking European BASTARDS! You are NOT going to promote your
> >> crazy fucking Idea to the USA that "recreational drugs" is an acceptable
> >> concept. NO WAY!
> As you can see for yourself, this is a discussion about newsgroup creation
> and (perhaps) drug abuse support. This has nothing to do with story writing
> so please take `alt.prose' out of your Newsgroups: line.
> Thank you.
> --
> boui...@cs.uni-sb.de
DRUG ABUSE SUPPORT!
And THERE you have it Gentlemen/Ladies.
THAT is what the rec.drugs.* hierarchy looks like!
How ASHAMED these UseNet Officials should be!
Jut allowing a recreational drug hierarchy on the
big 8 is a tacit admission that you CONDONE such behavior.
This is USAUseNet and we will NOT allow European
*recreational use of hard drugs* standards to invade
UseNet. This is USAUseNet, for those of who who are
uninformed. Period.
supra/who who/you who/^
--
Manus, Inc.
D...@manus.org
D...@manus.org
> D...@manus.org (DrG) wrote:
> >The NAMES of our BIG 7/8 NewsGroups are a REFLECTION
> >of what Academia and USA Society CONDONES as *acceptable behavior.*
> Hardly. It does define what is important for SOME people to discuss.
> And discussion is protected by the Constitution, Mr. disbarred lawyer.
A Disbarred Lawyer is the most Dangerous Man on earth.
He can sue the fuck out of you at no cost to him.
Since he was disbarred, all of the criminals trust
him even more. And all of the Criminals come running
in from the UseNet to discuss their next intimidation
plans.
> >*Recreational Drugs* means the recreational use of all drugs, including cra
k,
> >heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.
> No. It means (on the net) DISCUSSION of that topic, which is
> perfectly acceptable.
And the Discussion of recreational drugs will be kept to the alts.
NO Recreational Drugs NAMES, period.
> >This is a FACT that had better be promptly uinderstood by all in UUnet/UseN
t.
> Bah.
> >I will be DAMNED if I will let this
> >exist in MY world. What about the rest of you?
> Maybe you should talk to the Dutch. They might disagree with you and
> are part of this workld....
FUCK THE DUTCH! This is an AMERICAN UseNET!
All of the fucking money is RIGHT HERE, so therefore,
all of the fucking law will be made RIGHT HERE!
Watch me motherfucker. I am making it a new specialty
of Suing ISPs. I am doing it pro se, at no cost to
me. ANY American ISP that carrys a *rec.drugs.* NewsGroup
can get the shit sued out of them if the kid ODs on Drugs,
after having read the shit on their Big 8 server.
MANY young hungry lawyers will want to get a chunk of this!
<supra: ANY begins new and different CASE, not related to
CASE designated in previous text>
--
Manus, Inc.
D...@manus.org
Law Doctor
: DrG (ma...@telerama.lm.com) wrote:
: > vhak...@butler.cc.tut.fi (Hakulinen Ville) wrote:
: > >
: > > In article <8152648...@uunet.uu.net>,: > > > moderated group rec.drugs.announce
: > > > unmoderated group rec.drugs.chemistry
: > > > unmoderated group rec.drugs.smart
: > >
: > > The creation of these groups seems to me to be a good idea, but
: > > I'd still like to have a separate group for mdma and related compounds,
: > > for example rec.drugs.ecstasy.
: > > --
: > > Alt.atheism faqs : http://www.mantis.co.uk/atheism/
: > > Rec.drugs.* archives: http://hyperreal.com/drugs/
: > > Vegetarian pages : http://www.veg.org/veg/
: > HEY you Fucking European BASTARDS! You are NOT going to promote
: > your crazy fucking Idea to the USA that "recreational drugs"
: > is an acceptable concept. NO WAY!
: > The Recreational.drugs hierarchy must be KILLED!
: > because just the Idea of promoting Hard Drud Usage
: > is foreign to the USA.
: > Now we do not EXPAND rec.drugs, but we KILL IT.
: > You have all of the alt.drugs.* newsgroups that you
: > need and you are NOT going to promote this behavior
: > in a Hierarchy NAME!
: > I will sue the fuck out of Tale for this!
: > DrG
: Not just Tale, but Everybody in authority should be ashamed
: of themselves for letting this "recreational drug" idea get
: started on this UseNet. It seem slike Gnosis "bought off" people
: and they looked the other way.
: I mean in the alts, O.K. -- but not on the big 7.
: "recreational drugs? -- like meaning hard drugs, too?
: i was too busy with those other Hard Drug Pushers on that
: Borden mailing list, to really see this CFV for rec.drugs.*
: happening, and I appologize for my negligence.
: But you other Fathers and parents also should ahve paid some attention
: to this. It is time to kill this rec.drugs.* hierarchy.
: DrG
: --
: Manus, Inc.
: D...@manus.org
ALL PARENTS GROUPS go to the new INTERNET SYSTEMS
group for discussion of the system to regulate the
big 8 Groupnames.
INTERNET SYSTEMS is now located at alt.IS
--
John M. Grubor, J.D. INTERNET LAW SYSTEMS
Lawyer Systems Analyst P.O. BOX 114
Law Office Operation, Management E. McKEESPORT, PA. 15035
And Trial Preparation Systems (412) 829-7853
Christopher B. Stone
>Maybe you should talk to the Dutch. They might disagree with you and
>are part of this workld....
Again, I am not trying to defend the troller; however, it irks me a bit
to see the rec.drugs.* proponents continually suggest that drug abuse is
widely condoned outside of the United States.
Make the point that most states have laws against drugs, and their
response is always, "Point of Amsterdam, Mr. Speaker!" Even witn Dutch
society, there is not necessarily a consensus that lax drug laws are
beneficial; and in any case, I would suggest that the Netherlands are an
outlier in terms of strict drug laws. For instance, in Egypt, the son of
UN Secretary General Boutrous-Boutros Ghali was recently arrested for
distributing LSD!
The point of all this is not to argue whether or not drug laws ought to
be liberalized, but to point out that under the status quo, most states
prohibit the use of recreational drugs, and the few that permit the use
of such drugs regulate them heavily. If one accepts the proposition that
newsgroups devoted to illegal activities -- such as alt.binaries.*, which
are often breeding grounds for copyright violations -- ought to remain in
alt.*, then that is where the drugs groups should go, the Dutch
notwithstanding.
Law Doctor
: In article <47ijfr$i...@hudson.lm.com>, DrG <ma...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
: Thanks for letting us know. Get back to us when you have that RFD ready.
: --
: Shields.
I had the wrong people mixed up. I posted on this yesterday, and it
never made it to this server.
The whole reason behind this fiasco is now clear.
Gnosos just wanted his own Moderated Rec.drugs group.
What a DIsgrace to the big 8.
Matt Elrod
cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone) wrote:
[snip]
}If one accepts the proposition that
}newsgroups devoted to illegal activities -- such as alt.binaries.*, which
}are often breeding grounds for copyright violations -- ought to remain in
}alt.*, then that is where the drugs groups should go, the Dutch
}notwithstanding.
}--
}Chris Stone
There is a fundamental difference between copyright infringement,
and the discussion of illegal activities. One might get you arrested,
the other will not.
If one accepts your proposition, all newsgroups discussing law
(devoted to illegal activities) belong in the alt hierarchy.
Matt Elrod.
DrG
>albert the panther <pan...@lava.net> wrote:
>>D...@manus.org (DrG) writes:
>
>>>LOOK. We are talking about the CONCEPT of using hard drugs for
>>>a "recreational purpose" and that is WRONG!
>
>>Rubbish. Total rubbish. Who are you to decide what is 'WRONG"
>>for anyone but yourself?
>
>While I realize that the original poster was trolling, I should point out
>that the argument "who is to decide what is WRONG for anyone but
>yourself?" is in fact a silly argument. If we pass a law increasing aid
>to the homeless, that is a moral judgement. If we say murder is wrong,
>that is a moral judgement. I have no problem making such moral
>judgements, and I do not see why we cannot make them about drug abuse as
>well.
>Chris Stone
>cbs...@phoenix.princeton.edu * http://www.princeton.edu/~cbstone
>"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King
Well, that was not a Troll Chris, and I see you DID get the point.
RECREATIONAL HARD DRUG USAGE is Wrong!
open and shut case.
DrG
Peter da Silva
>Whew! Reading this flamefest makes me happy I'm into something simple like
>rec.sport.softball. We're civilized and drug free.
Steroids?
Ellen Anthony
they'll go away. I suggest deleting articles that obviously aren't
about writing without commenting on them.
cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone) wrote:
>In article <47qml1$9...@netsrv2.spss.com>, Steve Adams <ad...@spss.com> wrote:
>>Maybe you should talk to the Dutch. They might disagree with you and
>>are part of this workld....
>Again, I am not trying to defend the troller; however, it irks me a bit
>to see the rec.drugs.* proponents continually suggest that drug abuse is
>widely condoned outside of the United States.
>Make the point that most states have laws against drugs, and their
>response is always, "Point of Amsterdam, Mr. Speaker!" Even witn Dutch
>society, there is not necessarily a consensus that lax drug laws are
>beneficial; and in any case, I would suggest that the Netherlands are an
>outlier in terms of strict drug laws. For instance, in Egypt, the son of
>UN Secretary General Boutrous-Boutros Ghali was recently arrested for
>distributing LSD!
>The point of all this is not to argue whether or not drug laws ought to
>be liberalized, but to point out that under the status quo, most states
>prohibit the use of recreational drugs, and the few that permit the use
>of such drugs regulate them heavily. If one accepts the proposition that
>newsgroups devoted to illegal activities -- such as alt.binaries.*, which
>are often breeding grounds for copyright violations -- ought to remain in
>alt.*, then that is where the drugs groups should go, the Dutch
>notwithstanding.
lee s. bumgarner
>
> You know, I am a dummy about how to do these things,
that was an understament
> Maybe he flamed me in the
> past and my brain just did an auto reject on his whole
> name. Fuck! I am really getting fast at this keyboard any
> more -- I am bullshitting too much here.
DrG, you simply _must_ come to peace with your inner child.
>
> KILL HARD DRUGS by Killing rec,drugs.* hierarchy on UseNET!
Is this, like, a troll or something?
---
-----> Undertoad (under construction) http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/ <--------
REALITY.SYS corrupted. Reboot universe (Y/N/Q)? | "Usenet is Frosty The Snowman
committing suicide with a flame thrower."-- Kibo |Somebody visited a.r.k and all
I got was this lousy .sig | M$'s Blackbird is EVIL, do not support it! | ##30##
Alan Harder
>> Maybe you should talk to the Dutch. They might disagree with you
>> and are part of this workld....
> FUCK THE DUTCH! This is an AMERICAN UseNET!
Wrong. Usenet is carried world wide. Articles are posted from around
the world. There is no central administration of Usenet, so it has no
nationality.
> All of the fucking money is RIGHT HERE, so therefore, all of the
> fucking law will be made RIGHT HERE!
American drug laws don't apply to someone living in another country.
> Watch me motherfucker.
We are watching, and laughing.
> I am making it a new specialty of Suing ISPs.
I look forward to hearing about the many cases you will be involved
in. Or is this just more of your posturing?
> I am doing it pro se,
> at no cost to me. ANY American ISP that carrys a *rec.drugs.*
> NewsGroup can get the shit sued out of them if the kid ODs on
> Drugs, after having read the shit on their Big 8 server. MANY
> young hungry lawyers will want to get a chunk of this!
And, of course, the same would apply to alt.drugs newsgroups, right?
Because children can get a hold of alt groups too.
-Alan Harder
a...@math.ams.org
Legalize it!
The above commentary, which does not *even* represent the opinion of
the American Mathematical Society, is sold by weight, not by volume.
Some settling of the contents may have occurred during shipping.
Steve Adams
>In article <47qml1$9...@netsrv2.spss.com>, Steve Adams <ad...@spss.com> wrote:
>>Maybe you should talk to the Dutch. They might disagree with you and
>>are part of this workld....
>Again, I am not trying to defend the troller; however, it irks me a bit
>to see the rec.drugs.* proponents continually suggest that drug abuse is
>widely condoned outside of the United States.
Nor do I believe it is. As you rightly point out, the Dutch do allow
certain liberalities with drugs that the US, and other nations do not.
The point I was making is that Herr Doktor is claiming to speak for
the 'world'.
While it's true that the Netherlands are an outlier in the drug law
group, most certainly the issue gets plenty of political discussion.
For a politician in the US to even suggest this kind of thing is
tantamount to career suicide (I'm sure that someone will post a
counter-example).
>The point of all this is not to argue whether or not drug laws ought to
>be liberalized, but to point out that under the status quo, most states
>prohibit the use of recreational drugs, and the few that permit the use
>of such drugs regulate them heavily. If one accepts the proposition that
>newsgroups devoted to illegal activities -- such as alt.binaries.*, which
>are often breeding grounds for copyright violations -- ought to remain in
>alt.*, then that is where the drugs groups should go, the Dutch
>notwithstanding.
I have to disagree with this. There is NO reason why this discussion
can't be carried out in a 'Big 8' group. The US isn't the world, and
our moral sensibilities ought not to dictate what goes on here. Would
you like the net to be controlled by the most restrictive morality,
say, Iran?
-Steve
Steve Adams
>Steve Adams (ad...@spss.com) wrote:
>> D...@manus.org (DrG) wrote:
>> >The NAMES of our BIG 7/8 NewsGroups are a REFLECTION
>> >of what Academia and USA Society CONDONES as *acceptable behavior.*
>> Hardly. It does define what is important for SOME people to discuss.
>> And discussion is protected by the Constitution, Mr. disbarred lawyer.
>A Disbarred Lawyer is the most Dangerous Man on earth.
>He can sue the fuck out of you at no cost to him.
Perhaps, if he weren't also prevented by sanction from filing
lawsuits. Guess you don't have any recourse, Mr. disbarred,
dangerous lawyer. (Personally, I could list several politicians who
are far more dangerous than you are...to both my health and wallet)
>Since he was disbarred, all of the criminals trust
>him even more. And all of the Criminals come running
>in from the UseNet to discuss their next intimidation
>plans.
Wait, wait! He claims association with criminals as a POSITIVE???
Wow! Actually, in thinking about it, I doubt any criminals would want
to sully their reputation by hanging out with a disbarred, sanctioned
lawer who is on a major (and dangerous) ego trip.
>> >*Recreational Drugs* means the recreational use of all drugs, including cra
>k,
>> >heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.
>> No. It means (on the net) DISCUSSION of that topic, which is
>> perfectly acceptable.
>And the Discussion of recreational drugs will be kept to the alts.
>NO Recreational Drugs NAMES, period.
Limiting free speech? Who says you get to decide what gets discussed
where? I could easily write an editorial reply or letter to the
editor on this topic and get it printed. Would you sue the newspaper,
Mr. Disbarred Lawyer? Oh, wait, you can't because your sanctioned.
>> >I will be DAMNED if I will let this
>> >exist in MY world. What about the rest of you?
>> Maybe you should talk to the Dutch. They might disagree with you and
>> are part of this workld....
> FUCK THE DUTCH! This is an AMERICAN UseNET!
No, it's not. While the vast majority of participants are Americans,
we don't own the net, nor should we. The Dutch have a very high
number of sites on the web, as do the Swedes and Germans. Why should
they be forced to limit their discussions by YOU? You really ought to
see someone about the megalomania...
>All of the fucking money is RIGHT HERE, so therefore,
>all of the fucking law will be made RIGHT HERE!
Nope. This will in the end have to be resolved at the treaty level.
Or perhaps you will "sue" in the World Court......oops, I may have
given him an idea...
>Watch me motherfucker. I am making it a new specialty
>of Suing ISPs.
Case # please. Just one will do.
>I am doing it pro se, at no cost to
>me. ANY American ISP that carrys a *rec.drugs.* NewsGroup
>can get the shit sued out of them if the kid ODs on Drugs,
>after having read the shit on their Big 8 server.
>MANY young hungry lawyers will want to get a chunk of this!
Jusr one case #. That's all I want to see. More baseless threats.
-Steve
Law Doctor
: D...@manus.org (DrG) writes:
: >There is no group for "marijuana." You are using the wrong words.
: >we have alt.drugs.pot and rec.drugs.cannabis now, that's it.
: A bud by any other name smells as sweet.
STUPID BOY! If you want your bud, you had better learn to use the
right words!
: >LOOK. We are talking about the CONCEPT of using hard drugs for
: >a "recreational purpose" and that is WRONG!
: Rubbish. Total rubbish. Who are you to decide what is 'WRONG"
: for anyone but yourself?
ANYTHING that kills people is WRONG!
HARD DRUGS kill people! Now STOP getting the
Herb mixed in with the HARD DRUGS!
The herb is a medicine that keeps people AWAY
from the hard drugs via, harm reduction therapy.
DrG
DrG
>
> In <47ijfr$i...@hudson.lm.com> ma...@telerama.lm.com writes:
> >
> > You know, I am a dummy about how to do these things,
>
> that was an understament
I was just kidding, stupid.
I can do the RFD myself - it's just that I am so busy that I was
looking for someone to work on it.
We are getting a new CyberHardDrugCop here tomorrow to start
busting people for promoting heroin and crack on the net.
You got any problem with that?
> > Maybe he flamed me in the
> > past and my brain just did an auto reject on his whole
> > name. Fuck! I am really getting fast at this keyboard any
> > more -- I am bullshitting too much here.
>
> DrG, you simply _must_ come to peace with your inner child.
>
Inner Child? I mean, shit man -- I got eight kids and two
wives to worry about -- that makes TEN childlike people I must
look out for.
> > KILL HARD DRUGS by Killing rec,drugs.* hierarchy on UseNET!
>
> Is this, like, a troll or something?
This is the TRUTH, Lee.
If you want to be in on the NEO-Cabal you must DO THIS.
E-mail me for Details.
> -----> Undertoad (under construction) http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/ <--------
> REALITY.SYS corrupted. Reboot universe (Y/N/Q)? | "Usenet is Frosty The Snowman
> committing suicide with a flame thrower."-- Kibo |Somebody visited a.r.k and all
> I got was this lousy .sig | M$'s Blackbird is EVIL, do not support it! | ##30##
I checked with KIBO, and he supports this whole proposal.
He called me on the telephone last night.
Write me lee, and I will give you my PGP key.
DrG
DrG
But the bigger problem is HERE with this
big 8. The WHOLE REASON why the ALT's left the
BIG-7 back in 1987/88 was the DRUG groups.
And here we are Right back at the SAME problem!
NO rec.drugs.* in the big 8!
It just cannot be allowed to stand, and if it
does, than UUnet will lose ALL credibility.
I only use my power to sue as a last resort.
Go do a deja news on me and read the Whole story.
You DO agree with me Daniel, so make sure you and your
satelites vote to Kill the rec.drugs.* hierarchy.
Shalom,
DrG
DrG
>
> D...@manus.org (DrG) wrote:
>
> >MY Children! Any anybody elses children STUPID!
> >Don't you know that the NAMES of the big 7/8 UseNet NewsGroups are
> >a reflection fo what we CONDONE as a society!
> >CRACK KILLS! HEROIN KILLS! METH. KILLS! COCAINE KILLS!
> discussed on the net. What's your point?
>
> >And you want to promote the discussion of the "recreational use" of these
> >things? Where is your MORALITY,Alan?!
> were constitutionally permitted to talk about anything we want, with a
> few restrictions (inciting riot, conspiracy, etc). Destroying freedom
> of speech is the first step on the road to despotism.
>
> >Yes, and you can call me whatever you want, but you will NEVER
> >stop me. I want proper regimentation and DECENCY on this UseNet,
> >and we have not had much of that up to now.
> Decency? You use more "4 letter words" than all of your
> correspondants put together....I'd feel a lot safer with my kids
> discussing recreational drugs than having them within earshot of you.
>
> >DrGod
> Quite an opinion of yourself, eh?
>
> -Steve
There is only one word for you steve --STUPID!
The argument can NEVER be judged by the promoter.
You are a MOTHERFUCKING COCKSUCKING WHORELICKING
PIGFUCKING SHITHEAD ASSHOLE if you let your kids
discuss the recreational use of HARD DRUGS!
Go smoke a fucking joint, steve, and GROW UP!
You are a STUPID punk who does not even know how to
stick to an ISSUE!
DrGodFuck!
Christopher B. Stone
In article <47vqit$l...@netsrv2.spss.com>, Steve Adams <ad...@spss.com> wrote:
>cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone) wrote:
>>Again, I am not trying to defend the troller; however, it irks me a bit
>>to see the rec.drugs.* proponents continually suggest that drug abuse is
>>widely condoned outside of the United States.
>Nor do I believe it is. As you rightly point out, the Dutch do allow
>certain liberalities with drugs that the US, and other nations do not.
>The point I was making is that Herr Doktor is claiming to speak for
>the 'world'.
Again, I am not trying to defend "Herr Doktor." However, while you
criticize him for "claiming to speak for the world," you are doing the
very same thing yourself, below:
>I have to disagree with this. There is NO reason why this discussion
>can't be carried out in a 'Big 8' group. The US isn't the world, and
>our moral sensibilities ought not to dictate what goes on here. Would
>you like the net to be controlled by the most restrictive morality,
>say, Iran?
Again, you say argue that rec.drugs is justified on the grounds that "the
US isn't the world" -- implying that the rest of the world condones drug
abuse. That simply is not so. And no, I while would not pick Iran as my
model for Usenet nor would I necessarily pick the *least* restrictive
state, the Netherlands. The Netherlands seems to be a Mecca for the
rec.druggies, but I submit that the choice between the Netherlands and
Iran is a false choice, given that most states fall in between those two
extremes.
Let us be clear about what the rec.drugs.* proponents are asking for.
They want a newsgroup -- rec.drugs.chemistry -- dedicated to the
dissemination of techniques for manufacturing mind-altering chemical
substances. This is *NOT* debating club stuff here, folks. The New York
Times had an artice the other day about a train wreck that occured a few
years ago in which the National Transportation Safety Board alleged the
engineer was high on marijuana.
Would we want someone to try a recipe for God-knows-what that appeared on
rec.drugs.chemistry, and then proceed to operate some heavy construction
equipment or drive a school bus? Or perhaps Usenetters might travel more
comfortably knowing that a commuter airline pilot could learn on
rec.drugs.* how to defeat a random drug test?
The rec.drugs.* people seem to take the view that words are always
entirely innocuous. They tell us there is a difference between
discussing an illegal act, and actually carrying out an illegal act, and
they are right to make the distinction. But if the assassination of
Yitzhak Rabin taught us anything, it is that words can exert a very
powerful influence on people. Some right-wing nut cases saw Yitzhak
Rabin dressed in effigy as a Nazi, and they decided to treat him as a
Nazi. Likwise, surely rec.drugs.* could legitimate drug use in the eyes
of those who are too easily persuaded by sharp rhetoric.
In my opinion, denying proposals for things like rec.drugs is simply
using the net responsibly. It is fashionable on Usenet to claim that
"government is eager to censor us," but in fact if we put even an ounce
of responsibility into our operation of the net, government wouldn't have
a point to stand on. In other words, we are providing folks like Sen.
Exon with ammunition when we turn a blind eye to proposals such as rec.drugs.
Daniel R. Reitman
d...@pgh.nauticom.net (Law Doctor) writes:
>. . . .
>There is NOTHING you can do to STOP the killing of the rec.drugs.hierarchy
>from this UUnet. I will get a Federal Court Order MANDAMUS against Tale
>if I have to, but we will first follow the regular peocedure HERE!
>. . . .
Once again, Mr. Grubor demonstrates that Pennsylvania had an easy bar exam his
year.
1. Mandamus is not the proper remedy. There is no indication that Tale is
acting in any governmental function by moderating this group.
2. Tale is not the proper defendant if Mr. Grubor seeks an injunction. The
ISP's who offer Usenet and the newsgroups in question are.
3. Any such injunction would probably be unconstitutional.
Daniel Reitman
Daniel R. Reitman
>. . . .
>But the bigger problem is HERE with this
>big 8. The WHOLE REASON why the ALT's left the
>BIG-7 back in 1987/88 was the DRUG groups.
Please fill us in, net.historians.
>And here we are Right back at the SAME problem!
>NO rec.drugs.* in the big 8!
>It just cannot be allowed to stand, and if it
>does, than UUnet will lose ALL credibility.
Of course, your credibility is such that I find your claims difficult to
believe.
>I only use my power to sue as a last resort.
You certainly seem to threaten and claim to have filed plenty of suits.
>. . . .
>You DO agree with me Daniel, so make sure you and your
>satelites vote to Kill the rec.drugs.* hierarchy.
I have no satellites.
And how the <bleep> do you know what I think? INHO, whether those groups exist
is not worth discussing.
Daniel Reitman
Colin Douthwaite
: In article <47qqie$7...@nntp.hut.fi>,
: Jani Patokallio <jpat...@epsilon.hut.fi> wrote:
:
: >>proponents of this group to post their CFV to the parenting groups, as
: >>such a move is the responsible thing to do.
:
: >This CFV has nothing to with the parenting groups, and it will not be
: >crossposted there.
:
: I disagree with this point. Not everyone agrees with you that recreational
: drug use is hunky dory, and there are plenty of people on the parenting
: groups who are concerned with the way in which the net will influence
: their children's choices about substance abuse. I submit that such
: concern is entirely legitimate.
:
: I am not going to waste a lot of time campaigning against this RFD,
: because the original rec.drugs.* groups were already established.
: However, the proponents ought to do the responsible thing and let *all*
: interested parties know of their proposal, including those who may not
: share the proponents' worldview.
I concur.
Bye,
Colin Douthwaite
: Decency? You use more "4 letter words" than all of your
: correspondants put together....I'd feel a lot safer with my kids
: discussing recreational drugs than having them within earshot of you.
You should reflect on that...and reconsider.
Your kids, and anyone else's kids, discussing drugs as a means of
fun and pleasure, i.e. recreation, holds infinitely greater potential
danger than using, hearing, or seeing, four-letter ancient Anglo Saxon
words. Those old words are unlikely to lead to misery and death.
Granted, those 4-letter words lose impact and value when used merely
for profanity.
Bye,
Russ Allbery
> Perhaps the President of the United States should be sent a copy of
> this rec.drugs.* expansion RFD and asked for his personal comments ?
> He may actually wish to vote if it progresses to a CFV.
That would be excellent. I'm not particularly fond of our current
President, and being able to attack him on the grounds that he doesn't
support free speech would be a good way of getting him kicked out in the
next election.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
Jonathan Jones
In article <47te2q$j...@cnn.princeton.edu>,
Christopher B. Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <DHs9x...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>Peter da Silva <pe...@bonkers.taronga.com> wrote:
>
>>Alt.binaries is in alt simply because of volume. It would be too hard to get
>>an unmoderated binaries group passed in comp.
>
>I always thought it was in alt.* because it contained numerous pictures
>scanned in violation of copyright. At least that is one of the reasons.
It's in alt simply beacuse nobody has ever run a successful CFV for
comp.binaries.pictures.* I don't know if anyone has even tried, but there
is no reason why it couldn't be done. I doubt it would succeed though,
and even if it did the news admins who don't take alt.binaries.pictures.*
wouldn't take comp.binaries.pictures.*, and for the same reasons (which
vary from site to site, but include size, copyright violations, and
low "relevance" to many sites).
Jonathan
Law Doctor
: In article <47o0af$e...@hudson.lm.com>, DrG <D...@manus.org> wrote:
: >se...@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) wrote:
: [blatant troll about confusing me with someone else deleted.]
: >There is no group for "marijuana." You are using the wrong words.
: >we have alt.drugs.pot and rec.drugs.cannabis now, that's it.
: Same thing.
WHAT A STUPID ASSHOLE THAT YOU ARE! for saying somethinbg like that!
Cannabis is a MEDICINE -- it is a natural HERB! It is not a "drug" like
something that has been put through the Laboratory!
And the MAIN use of Cannabis is MEDICAL!
NOTHING should EVER have the tag recreational.drug attached to it.
RECREATIONAL DRUG USE KILLS!
Stupid young boy!
: >>I think you fail to distinguish between "encourage to expiriment with",
: >>"encourage to abuse", "cause to abuse", and "give a forum for learning
: >>about before trying anything". And a few others.
: >LOOK. We are talking about the CONCEPT of using hard drugs for
: >a "recreational purpose" and that is WRONG!
: No, it isn't. It's stupid, but so is bowling. And you have completely
: failed to respond to the paragraph you quote.
The ENTIRE CONCEPT of useing any DRUG for a recreation is DESPICABLE!
: >KILL rec.drugs.* HIerarchy for the GOOD OF MANKIND!
: An amusing troll, but not a patch on Kibo with a hangover.
KIBO is no longer relevant.
NOTHING before last years mosaic-Netscape bustout is relevant any more!
KIBO IS DEAD! Get that straight!
He was pre-renaming! That is like B.C. any more!
It is NOT a troll, asshole. Just watch!
: -s
: --
: Peter Seebach - se...@solon.com || se...@intran.xerox.com --
FUCK YOU PETER!
You are one of the STUPIDEST ASSHOLES I have seen in a long time!
How old are you boy?!
If he doesn't post this answer, somebody please do.
This shithead Peter Seebach must be a real young FUCK UP,
becaUSE HE has NO knowledge of society whatsoever!
DrG
alt.prose
why do we have BOTH news.admin and news.admin.policy?
Which ASSHOLE engineered this HALF-BIFURCATION?
That is a sign of a REAL system fuck-up!
You cannot have a take-off segment to a newsgroup, and
maintain a NON-BIFURCATED major -- it will just NOT WORK!
bunch of fuck-ups around here.
Peter da Silva
Christopher B. Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <DHs9x...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>Peter da Silva <pe...@bonkers.taronga.com> wrote:
>>Alt.binaries is in alt simply because of volume. It would be too hard to get
>>an unmoderated binaries group passed in comp.
>I always thought it was in alt.* because it contained numerous pictures
>scanned in violation of copyright. At least that is one of the reasons.
I created it, so I ought to know. It was created because all the alt.sex
groups were getting dumped, using the excuse of volume, mainly because
people were posting binaries to alt.sex groups. Creating alt.binaries got
rid of that excuse for not carrying alt.sex.
(the first alt.binaries group was alt.binaries.multimedia, but .pictures
quickly took over as the standard place for this stuff)
Colin Douthwaite
: Christopher B Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> writes:
:
: > I am not going to waste a lot of time campaigning against this RFD,
: > because the original rec.drugs.* groups were already established.
: > However, the proponents ought to do the responsible thing and let *all*
: > interested parties know of their proposal, including those who may not
: > share the proponents' worldview.
: If they did that, Chris Lewis would have to cancel the RFD.
That might be quite a good idea actually.
: Let's just stick to informing directly relevant groups, shall we?
Depends on the seriousness and implications of the subject matter.
The recreational drugs ( rec.drugs.* ) concept does have widespread
and serious implications to the world community, especially the
impressionable members of that community.
: Given the high percentage of US readers of Usenet, I'd wager that
: at least someone in every group is interested in US Presidential
: elections. That doesn't mean that an RFD about US Presidential
: elections should be crossposted to every group.
Perhaps the President of the United States should be sent a copy of
this rec.drugs.* expansion RFD and asked for his personal comments ?
He may actually wish to vote if it progresses to a CFV.
Bye,
Shaun Flisakowski
You are a slippery one.
Someone a while back posted a list of addresses John has used
to post from. I would appreiciate a repost of that information.
Thanks,
--
Shaun flis...@cs.wisc.edu
"In your heart you know its flat."
-Flat Earth Society
Christopher B. Stone
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>That would be excellent. I'm not particularly fond of our current
>President, and being able to attack him on the grounds that he doesn't
>support free speech would be a good way of getting him kicked out in the
>next election.
[Falls over laughing.]
Christopher B. Stone
Jonathan Jones <jaj...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <47te2q$j...@cnn.princeton.edu>,
>Christopher B. Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>I always thought it was in alt.* because it contained numerous pictures
>>scanned in violation of copyright. At least that is one of the reasons.
>It's in alt simply beacuse nobody has ever run a successful CFV for
>comp.binaries.pictures.*
Well, I do know that the reason we don't have rec.arts.startrek.creative,
but rather alt.startrek.creative, is because of copyright reasons. That
point occasionally comes up in the Star Trek groups.