| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message If you don't care one way or the other, won't go visit, don't agree with their reasons, don't agree with their morals, don't want the limitations, etc, just don't vote. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Live and let live. I'll vote for that. If they can have newsgroups such as rec.fart I'm not going to stand in the way of one that may be of value to someone. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:26:51 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: But, only if you have some really -compelling- reason they should not be able to start their group, should you vote "No." Live and let live. Agreed. I don't buy the dilution argument. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:08:14 GMT, patrick conroy wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:26:51 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: But, only if you have some really -compelling- reason they should not be able to start their group, should you vote "No." Agreed. I don't buy the dilution argument. Why don't you go check out alt.genealogy.methods for a good example of a group created by someone who thought they had a better idea? Yes, it's alt rather than rec., but it's the first example I can think of of a group that was very vocally proposed and has since effectively died. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Sep 2004 18:15:43 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
Why don't you go check out alt.genealogy.methods for a good example of a group created by someone who thought they had a better idea? Yes, it's alt rather than rec., but it's the first example I can think of of a group that was very vocally proposed and has since effectively died. Sorry, Dave - I'm not following. And I'd prefer to not check out that group instead I'd rather ask others (you) what you think happened. I like to consider myself bright enough to change my mind if someone "shows me the light". I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. How can something as inexhaustible as "participation in an internet newsgroup" become diluted by another newsgroup? More power to them - if it's any good, I'll join. If it's better, I'll switch. And yes - there's some self-centered hypocrisy at work, on my part. I didn't give a toot about Howard Stern until I had children myself. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , patrick conroy
wrote: How can something as inexhaustible as "participation in an internet newsgroup" become diluted by another newsgroup? More power to them - if it's any good, I'll join. If it's better, I'll switch. IMO the problem with the proposal is that it's simply a duplication of the namespace with no mechanism to enforce the proposed "all-ages" part of the proposal. If they had stayed with the moderated proposal and found a group of moderators that could be trusted I would have voted yes. As it stands, the proposal makes no sense. djb |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , patrick conroy wrote:
I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. No, but you might beef about somebody trying to open up another Elks Club right across the street. IMO that's a bit closer analogy. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:08:05 GMT, patrick conroy
wrote: I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. How about one with a sign, "Christian Moose Lodge, for better people that those sewer-dwelling mad dog Elks" ? |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 12:06:28 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:08:05 GMT, patrick conroy wrote: I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. How about one with a sign, "Christian Moose Lodge, for better people that those sewer-dwelling mad dog Elks" ? Would that be the alcohol-free Elks? G Barry |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 12:06:28 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:08:05 GMT, patrick conroy wrote: I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. How about one with a sign, "Christian Moose Lodge, for better people that those sewer-dwelling mad dog Elks" ? And under that a sign: "Everyone welcome to come in and hang out, even those sewer-dwelling mad dog Elks across the street - and they are welcome to talk and act here just as they do there". Rec.woodworking.all-ages is *IDENTICAL* to the existing newsgroup. There is *NO* difference other than the name. It is an ill-advised attempt to create a moderated newsgroup without a moderator and because it is badly planned and badly implemented it needs to be rejected until such time as someone presents a proposal that is well thought out and planned in such a way that it will meet the goals of the proponents and be acceptable to the usenet community as well. Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:08:05 GMT, patrick conroy wrote:
On 30 Sep 2004 18:15:43 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: Why don't you go check out alt.genealogy.methods for a good example of a group created by someone who thought they had a better idea? Sorry, Dave - I'm not following. And I'd prefer to not check out that group instead I'd rather ask others (you) what you think happened. Well, there's a group called soc.genealogy.methods, which is moderated. The moderator (singular) had some availability problems and the group sat idle for a while. One person (and her sock-puppet/s) who had a grudge that goes back years against said moderator decided to make a big deal about it, and went off and created alt.genealogy.methods with the hope of it being a place to have those discussions but without the 'interference of an absentee moderator' or whatever her catch-phrase was. The group was created (being in alt., it was just a matter of constructing the correct cmsg's), and the group was there. But, there wasn't really a _need_ for it other than the proponent having an opinion that wasn't widely shared by participants in the group. To me, that's pretty similar to the situation we have here. I like to consider myself bright enough to change my mind if someone "shows me the light". Well, groups.google.com's archives of the group have it all, but I just checked 12 articles at random, and didn't find _one_ message which wasn't crosspsted to at least two other similar groups. alt.genealogy.methods I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street. Look at the posts, though; they're all crossposts to similar groups. So, yes there's traffic, but it's all traffic that is on-topic to _other_ groups. It is, in my opinion, a good example of what happens when you have two (or more) groups with similar enough content that people aren't going to decide which to post to, so they'll post to both. By making it unmoderated, the "no crossposts", "no naughty language or OT posts" and so on is going to be ineffective at best, and possibly inviting trolling. How can something as inexhaustible as "participation in an internet newsgroup" become diluted by another newsgroup? More power to them - if it's any good, I'll join. If it's better, I'll switch. Maybe someday one of these un-needed divisions will work, but I haven't seen it happen yet. I see "neutral at best" as an end result here, which makes it hard to want to support it. The fact that the proponents have been _so_ absent here discussing what they want to do and what the real reasons are, makes me wonder what they're _really_ up to. If they want our support, why aren't they here talking about it with us? Dave Hinz |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:26:51 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:39:54 +0000, (Bill Aten) calmly ranted: FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) unmoderated group rec.woodworking.all-ages Newsgroups line: rec.woodworking.all-ages Woodworking for all ages. A suggestion to the Wreckers: If you like the idea, vote "Yes." If you want them out of our hair, vote "Yes". If you don't care one way or the other, won't go visit, don't agree with their reasons, don't agree with their morals, don't want the limitations, etc, just don't vote. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ But, only if you have some really -compelling- reason they should not be able to start their group, should you vote "No." Live and let live. So your vote is for confusion and duplication? If this was for anything other than just a rec.woodworking duplicate your point would be valid - but it is to create an *identical* newsgroup! No difference. That benefits nobody. It is a bad idea and needs to be rejected on that basis. If there is someone who wants to create a valid and reasonable proposal (such as the original moderated proposal only with a better moderation team) then *that* would be properly handled the way you describe. Saying "let them do something wrong, bad and injurious in a small way to our online world just to get them out of our hair" is an irresponsible attitude. Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Douglass wrote:
[snip] So your vote is for confusion and duplication? If this was for anything other than just a rec.woodworking duplicate your point would be valid - but it is to create an *identical* newsgroup! No difference. That benefits nobody. It is a bad idea and needs to be rejected on that basis. If there is someone who wants to create a valid and reasonable proposal (such as the original moderated proposal only with a better moderation team) then *that* would be properly handled the way you describe. Saying "let them do something wrong, bad and injurious in a small way to our online world just to get them out of our hair" is an irresponsible attitude. Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com I agree whole heartedly. Don't cast a "what the heck" vote. mahalo, jo4hn |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:57:34 -0700, Tim Douglass
wrote: It is a bad idea and needs to be rejected on that basis. That's my thought, Tim - and I will vote accordingly. Regards, Tom. "People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Larry Jaques wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:39:54 +0000, (Bill Aten) calmly ranted: FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) unmoderated group rec.woodworking.all-ages Newsgroups line: rec.woodworking.all-ages Woodworking for all ages. A suggestion to the Wreckers: If you like the idea, vote "Yes." If you want them out of our hair, vote "Yes". If you don't care one way or the other, won't go visit, don't agree with their reasons, don't agree with their morals, don't want the limitations, etc, just don't vote. You don't understand Larry. Some people feel compelled to impose their standards onto everybody, so now the nine or ten people who were going to congregate in r.w.m. will have no place to go. But, only if you have some really -compelling- reason they should not be able to start their group, should you vote "No." Live and let live. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If God approved of nudity, we all would have been born naked. If you ever took a walk down the beach at Blacks or Trail 6 San O' you would realize that God hadn't thought that one all the way through. Cheers, Mike |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Half Step responds:
If God approved of nudity, we all would have been born naked. If you ever took a walk down the beach at Blacks or Trail 6 San O' you would realize that God hadn't thought that one all the way through. Yeah. After a certain age, you don't wanna be naked in front of yourself, fer pete's sake. Charlie Self "Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Woodchuck Bill wrote:
(J T) wrote in news:19640-415F7C97-191@storefull- 3152.bay.webtv.net: So what if it has a charter? With no moderator, how's a charter supposed to keep out the trolls, and all? Actually, remember when we had the Dizum.com invasion? IIRC, you were a victim of those attacks, JOAT. Dizum said that they were willing to block any newsgroup with a ban on remailers in their charter, but since the wreck has no charter, they wouldn't block us. Was it ever established that the message making that claim actually came from Dizum? Around the same time, there was at least one other similar post, purporting to be from Dizum, which was demonstrated to be bogus. It's worth noting that neither their published abuse policy https://ssl.dizum.com/help/abuse.html nor their mail-to-news gateway page https://ssl.dizum.com/help/mail2news.html makes any mention of this supposed policy. In any event, Dizum is only one of a host of anonymous remailers. If a troll finds his access through Dizum to be shut down, so what? He'll just find another group. And Google might as well be an anonymous remailer. Anybody can open a hotmail or yahoo account, use that ID to sign up with Google, and post any trash he pleases. Google will respond, eventually, to complaints of abuse, but all they do [in fact, all they *can* do] is shut off the Google Groups account involved. They don't/won't/can't prevent the culprit from immediately opening up another Google Groups account using a different email address from hotmail or yahoo. I noticed that the soft wreck has a clear ban on remailer posts in the proposed charter, so Dizum would probably block that group if it were to be created. ... If, in fact, that is actually Dizum's policy, a proposition that is not supported by Dizum's published "standards", such as they are. But as noted above, Dizum is only one way, of many, by which trolls gain access to newsgroups. Even if Dizum shuts him/them off, that won't keep him/it/them out. Thus, this argument in favor of the proposed new group holds no water. Charters also matter to Ebay auctions too. Ebay does act on Usenet charter violations. Yep, and IMO that alone is sufficient reason to vote NO. What's the problem with occasional posts such as "FA: 3HP 10-inch blurfl" with a link to the eBay auction page? I agree that most ISPs will not act on charter violations, but there are a few examples above of entities that will act, and who knows what the future will bring. Some will, I imagine. And the charter of the proposed new group would outlaw *any* postings offering *anything* for sale or trade. That's a very, very bad idea IMO. For the record, I abstained on the soft wreck vote. And for the record, I voted NO. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Woodchuck Bill wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in om: Thus, this argument in favor of the proposed new group holds no water I was not arguing in favor of the new group. I did not vote "yes". I was pointing out to JOAT that there are some instances where a charter can matter. And my point was that this is not one of them; at least not one in which the charter can make a *beneficial* difference. Even granting the somewhat dubious assumption that the charter would cause Dizum to block access through *their* mail-to-news gateway, 1) many other similar gateways exist, and\ 2) it's still wide-open through Google. And the proposed charter, if enforced, would shut off *all* commercial posts, no matter how limited in frequency, including posts which many of us find to be of benefit. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Woodchuck Bill wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in om: Charters also matter to Ebay auctions too. Ebay does act on Usenet charter violations. Yep, and IMO that alone is sufficient reason to vote NO. What's the problem with occasional posts such as "FA: 3HP 10-inch blurfl" with a link to the eBay auction page? I don't have a problem with Ebay posts here, but you just clarified that charters can have some bearing. That was my point. I never said that charters didn't have any bearing, just that in this case at least, the only discernible effects the charter would have are negative. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, remember when we had the Dizum.com invasion? IIRC, you were a victim of those attacks, JOAT. Dizum said that they were willing to block any newsgroup with a ban on remailers in their charter, but since the wreck has no charter, they wouldn't block us. I noticed that the soft wreck has a clear ban on remailer posts in the proposed charter, so Dizum would probably block that group if it were to be created. Here is a link to the Dizum response to Bob S. http://tinyurl.com/2ahms -- Bill |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT - middle ages? | Woodworking | |||
| OT- Writer Mark Steyn Compares Gun(g) Ho America To "Civilized" Europe or Why Law Abiding Gun Owners Reduce Crime | Metalworking | |||
Hybrid Mode
