6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/12/89)
From article <4509.2583b654@uwovax.uwo.ca>, by jpalmer@uwovax.uwo.ca (J. Palmer): > In article <8139@stiatl.UUCP>, meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: >> Mr. Paris claims via email to have over 60 sysadmins to have >> written him saying that they are dropping talk.bizarre propagation. > I get the strong feeling that at least some sysadmins are no > longer propagating talk.bizarre: during the past week, our system has > received only 95 articles in t.b, and nearly 300 in rec.humour and > comp.sys.ibm.pc. Usually these three groups have about the same number > of postings. Christ on a crutch! If this is true, the net will soon become a place NONE of us want to be! Re-propogate talk.bizarre RIGHT NOW! Lock it out of visibility on your system if you must, but DO NOT refuse to propogate it or THEY will catch on and rain their crap down on the legitimate groups! I can't believe anybody would be stupid enough to follow the brainless suggestion that bizarre-ites be goaded like this. They spill over enough already! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
cj@modernlvr.sgi.com (C J Silverio) (12/12/89)
In article <3290@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: [regarding as yet unverified assertions that brainless sysadmins are un-propagating t.b] |If this is true, the net will soon become a place NONE of us want to be! I think so too. Although, judging by your further fulminations and frothings, not for the same reason. |Re-propogate talk.bizarre RIGHT NOW! Lock it out of visibility on your system |if you must, but DO NOT refuse to propogate it or THEY will catch on and |rain their crap down on the legitimate groups! I, for one, resent this comment. My postings are "crap"? Have you even READ them? I thought not. And as for "legitimate" <snort>, I just HAVE to ask you what on earth you think USENET is for. Can you say "recreation"? SURE you can. Now tell us what "legitimate" means in that context. |I can't believe anybody would be stupid enough to follow the brainless |suggestion that bizarre-ites be goaded like this. They spill over enough |already! Support that "spill over" assertion with fact. I suggest you start with the crossposting ratios posted in news.lists. Call me back when you've read them. WHEN will people learn that the net needs good neighbors? If you don't want it [sci.aquaria, talk.bizarre] available on your system, FINE. But feed it downstream like a cooperative dude, huh? --- ucbvax!brahms!silverio C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 cj@modernlvr.wpd.sgi.com "The news.* weenies should no more be in charge of the net than the printers at a newspaper should decide its editorial content." R. Sexton
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (12/13/89)
In article <1922@odin.SGI.COM> cj@modernlvr.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
WHEN will people learn that the net needs good neighbors? If you
don't want it [sci.aquaria, talk.bizarre] available on your system,
FINE. But feed it downstream like a cooperative dude, huh?
How?
If someone "downstream" (nearly meaningless term these days) wants a
group, they can find someone who wants to feed it to them. There's
nobody standing in their way.
There are plenty of other ways to be neighborly, without doing
everything someone else wants me to do with this system.mjc@nl.cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio) (12/13/89)
Can we please discuss the group on its own merits, or lack thereof, rather than attempting to blackmail the net as a whole? That's not likely to go over well; many sysadmins would probably leave the group alone, except that the proponents of the group are now threatening to make the rest of the net a miserable place to be. Let's hope that the sysadmins are willing to come down hard on the sites that originate such vandalism. Maybe when no one will feed them, they'll learn. Monica Cellio mjc@cs.cmu.edu
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/13/89)
Gads. My first true flame-war. What excitement! (yawn...) Just for the record, I don't read news.admin, and this is the last article I will cross-post there. From article <1922@odin.SGI.COM>, by cj@modernlvr.sgi.com (C J Silverio): > In article <3290@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: > |Re-propogate talk.bizarre RIGHT NOW! Lock it out of visibility on your system > |if you must, but DO NOT refuse to propogate it or THEY will catch on and > |rain their crap down on the legitimate groups! > I, for one, resent this comment. My postings are > "crap"? Have you even READ them? I thought not. I read talk.bizarre for about a month before unsubscribing it in frustration. It was entertaining for a while, but the record was broken. I thought the fact that I lasted a month was brave. > And as for "legitimate" <snort>, I just HAVE to ask you what on earth you > think USENET is for. Can you say "recreation"? SURE you can. Now tell us > what "legitimate" means in that context. OK, "legitimate" was the wrong word. "Desirable" was the right one. I'm afraid recreation isn't on MY top ten list. I gave up on extrovertive relativism a long time ago. If democracy can ever work, it's through rational self-interest. In this case, it indicates I ought to encourage people to continue propogating talk.bizarre even if they don't make it available to their users so that I personally don't have to deal with crazies on the net. > |I can't believe anybody would be stupid enough to follow the brainless > |suggestion that bizarre-ites be goaded like this. They spill over enough > |already! > Support that "spill over" assertion with fact. I suggest you start with > the crossposting ratios posted in news.lists. Call me back when you've read > them. ANY % is too much. Sure, I can skip over headers I don't like, but too often I am tricked into starting to read some snuggles crap. Besides, it often costs money to cross-post. > WHEN will people learn that the net needs good neighbors? > If you don't want it [sci.aquaria, talk.bizarre] available > on your system, FINE. But feed it downstream like a > cooperative dude, huh? I agree 100%. You read the original post, and you agreed with my statement that was roughly equivalent (I fail to quote it here) except in motive, of course. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/13/89)
From article <7313@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, by mjc@nl.cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio): > Can we please discuss the group on its own merits, or lack thereof, rather > than attempting to blackmail the net as a whole? That's not likely to go > over well; many sysadmins would probably leave the group alone, except that > the proponents of the group are now threatening to make the rest of the net > a miserable place to be. Out of some paranoid allegiance to clarity, let me point out that *I* am not the one making such threats. I further have not see any explicit threats from bizarre-ites (haven't read the group lately except for cross-posts). My theory is that if their group loses connectivity, they'll abandon it and filter out everywhere else, not by conscious effort, but by diffusion. (Hell, maybe it will be conscious effort...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (12/13/89)
In article <7313@pt.cs.cmu.edu> mjc@nl.cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio) writes: > Can we please discuss the group on its own merits, or lack thereof, rather > than attempting to blackmail the net as a whole? That's not likely to go > over well; many sysadmins would probably leave the group alone, except that > the proponents of the group are now threatening to make the rest of the net > a miserable place to be. That's not quite what's being said. It's not proponents of talk.bizarre that have been posting on this. No regular talk.bizarre poster has made any threats at all. Some old experienced hands (not me) have just made the observation that for a variety of reasons trying to stop propagation of talk.bizarre is real dumb. Is that o. k.?
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/13/89)
In article <1922@odin.SGI.COM> cj@modernlvr.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes: > And as for "legitimate" <snort>, I just HAVE to ask > you what on earth you think USENET is for. Can > you say "recreation"? SURE you can. Now tell us > what "legitimate" means in that context. Usenet is for recreation? For re-creation, perhaps, of working systems. I sure don't plow theough the junk in comp.dcom.lans.whatever for *fun*. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com