clb) (09/28/88)
In article <285@sulaco.UUCP>, allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: > > As most Usenetters realize, there has been a 'disgusting slime throwing The relationship of Guinn's posting to net.admin is rather vague, but it does touch on several subjects which have been recently raised in this group which deserve comment. It also represents an example of the kind of personal attacks which serve no purpose but are all too frequently posted to the net. >Message-Id: <8809261657.AA06031@sulaco.UUCP> >From: allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) > >Since you've decided to be a pain in the ass, deal with this :-) When >you want to shape up and act civil, I will reciprocate. Until then, get >used to being flame-thrower fodder... and by the way, I can keep going >at this just as long as you can. Several people have mentioned that they receive flames by e-mail on a regular basis and it appears that this problem is more widespread than I previously realized. Does anyone have advice on dealing with this kind of thing? I know that simply ignoring them doesn't do any good and even seems to inflame the sender more, causing them to resort to public flames. While it seems that the correct answer is better education for these people, that is impractical to do via the net. It appears that what is required is some monetary deterent, perhaps a "stamp" charge similar to sending a letter: if it cost $1 for each frivolous flame, I suspect these people would lose interest in a hurry. >Ok... I've been archiving too, Chucky. Lets have a go at it. Keep in >mind that NONE of this is EMAIL, these are things that Chucky has posted Another problem which comes up is the practice of quoting postings out of context with the intent of mis-representing the ideas originally expressed. While is is obviously a good policy to reduce the amount of duplication, the reader is not served when a poster slants or "spins" the words of another because the readers are not able to analyze and decide on the ideas for themselves. If the arguments won't hold water then everyone will know it and mis-quoting only serves to hide the fact that the flamer's position won't stand up to scutiny. The only solution that I can see for this problem is moderation of all groups. If the intent is to get votes or to sell products, "spin" may serve a purpose, but if efficient use of bandwidth is desired, spin only serves to create controversy and increase the noise level. For example, in the referenced article, an attempt is made to paint the act of writing ones congressman as somehow subversive. Readers of rec.ham-radio know that they were encouraged to write to their elected representatives in the case of UPS and the FCC. In sci.space readers are being asked to write of their concerns about SDI. This is obviously a basic right and a responsibility of good citizens. To make a claim or insinuation that this is wrong is flagging the critic's point of view as weak and indefensible and a waste of net space. The net isn't the best medium for discussions of controversial subjects, partially because of the delay time involved in the dialog and partly because of the factionalization which tends to occur. Moderation of the groups seems to be the best solution to keep this kind of abuse under control. Another benefit of moderation is to give the group a memory: in the referenced posting there is mention of "yacc" being distributed without permission. However just a couple of months before this issue was raised, the subject of "yacc" was thoroughly hashed out and the vast majority of net readers were fully aware of the problem. A moderator would recognize this kind of situation and could thereby reduce repetition. There has also been a certain amount of talk about legal implications of various practices seen on Usenet. Moderation would serve to filter those postings which might tend to involve individuals and companies that support the net. Given the number of infractions it's not likely that a judge or jury would consider the weak disclaimer in .newusers would be adequate to insulate the major sites from some responsibility. It would be much better to head off the problems before they cause serious trouble. Note that calling for moderation of groups is a change in my position as I previously felt that it would tend to isolate groups and restrict access for posters. However it has become increasingly clear that abusers benefit more than responsible posters from free access. From my experience the greatest reader interest is in software, discussions generating some interest but free programs being much more popular. Moderation of these groups has worked well and serves as a prototype. -- CLBrunow - KA5SOF Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083 clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) (09/28/88)
In article <5651@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> loci@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Chuck Brunow) writes: > The relationship of Guinn's posting to net.admin is rather vague, > but it does touch on several subjects which have been recently > raised in this group which deserve comment. It also represents > an example of the kind of personal attacks which serve no purpose > but are all too frequently posted to the net. the relationship of allen's posting to news.admin [ having not been net.admin for quite some time ;-) ] is that you are being accused of committing a felony under texas state law, to wit, "harmful access to a computer". this severe infraction of the law on your part is being given as an example of behavior which exists on the net. your hypocrisy is being noted. your sole saving grace is that the owners of the systems in question have not yet pressed charges against you. you have been asked to refute this information. we would like to see your explaination of this incident. surely you have a story you would like to tell us. -- John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US) HASA, "S" Division "Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" -- Steve Elias
oleg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (09/28/88)
In article <5651@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> loci@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (loci!clb) writes: >In article <285@sulaco.UUCP>, allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: >> [I don't care what Allen says] > The relationship of Guinn's posting to net.admin is rather vague, The relationship is very simple: Allen Gwin is a System Administrator on sulaco, a site which is rapidly becomming a mail hub for its area; Brunow, here acting as a user on killer, runs an inconsequential toy. Just based on their importance to the NET and to Texan sites, I'd disregad "loci" and Brunow as inconsequential. > Several people have mentioned that they receive flames by e-mail > on a regular basis and it appears that this problem is more > widespread than I previously realized. Does anyone have advice > on dealing with this kind of thing? Yes. Don't cause them. If you cause flames, don't whine about getting flamed. Calling for moderation of all groups on the NET because Brunow has made an ass of himself and is now being reminded of it -- now that's audacity! -- Oleg Kiselev "No regrets, no apologies" -- Ronald Reagan (213)337-5230 ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.cts.com UUCP:...!ucla-cs!lcc!oleg Copyright 1988 by Oleg Kiselev. All rights reserved. Quoting is allowed only if attributed.
allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) (09/30/88)
In article <5651@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, loci@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (loci!clb) writes: [my email to Chucky (which he posted) deleted] > Several people have mentioned that they receive flames by e-mail > on a regular basis and it appears that this problem is more > widespread than I previously realized. Does anyone have advice > on dealing with this kind of thing? Yes, as a matter of fact, you gave some advise to the whole net: In article <5572@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> Chucky Brunow writes: ] In addition to setting a good example, another effective means ] of dealing with juvenile behavior is to simply ignore it. ] Without acknoledgement, these children get bored and look ] for something else to do. Your posting merely fans their flames ] by admitting that they are being heard, so chill out. Ahhh... but I see you have received a divine revelation, now... > I know that simply ignoring > them doesn't do any good and even seems to inflame the sender > more, causing them to resort to public flames. Well, make up your mind, Chucky... what's it going to be, ignore it or deal with it? Oh... but you have some more wisdom to share: [with reference to one of my articles where I quote him...] > Another problem which comes up is the practice of quoting > postings out of context with the intent of mis-representing > the ideas originally expressed. While is is obviously a good > policy to reduce the amount of duplication, the reader is not > served when a poster slants or "spins" the words of another > because the readers are not able to analyze and decide on the ideas > for themselves. I see you "conveniently" didn't include an example, did you? Do you know why? Because you CAN'T! When I quote you, I quote you exactly. I would be happy to mail you back your entire article for your re-scrutiny. [the rest of CLBrunow's worthless drivel deleted...] I have learned a lot about you since you crawled back out of your hole. It seems you are some sort of reclusive hacker who in lieu of a job, sits around in his living room all day hacking away at a Unix-PC. From what I can tell, you don't really work... pity, though, because you might get a valuable education if you could see what it is like in the real world. In addition, it seems that you have...on at least two occasions...broken in to other people's computer systems, evading trust placed in you by others, and just generally have the reputation for being a nuisance. There are several of us here in Dallas who have invited you to various functions...to meet other people with similar interests, but you continuously refuse to do anything but sit around on the net and whine (FYI in case the rest of the net feels we just sit around picking on Chucky all the time, we don't). So just go on back to your PC hacking in your dark living room and seethe over what I've written. You can't do anything about it, and you know it's 100% true... but I guess thats what will probably bother you the most, isn't it. > CLBrunow - KA5SOF ^^^^^^ Look Ma! A technician! > Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083 > clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp Would you buy a lousy (loci) product from this man? Bye bye, Chucky... happy seething. -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen Disclaimer: The facts stated are my own. |Olympic Trivia: In 1960, East German pole-vaulter Hans Zimmer set a new world| |record with his 17'9" vault. Today, he's West German pole-vaulter Hans Zimmer|
clb) (10/05/88)
Just when did news.admin become annexed to alt.flame? Allen, et al; In regard to your absurd accusations and wimpy innuendo, I've got this to say: put up or shut up. If you think you have a tale to tell then tell it. Three times you've tried to make something out of nothing, so get specific or blow away. I was somewhat amused by your attempt to make a 286 running xenix sound like a real computer while calling my 68010 with real sysV Unix a toy. Very cute. It so happens that my 7300 will do things your clone won't and I've upgraded the machine three times since it was new. In fact, there's an interesting coincidence there which I'll tell you about some time. The real point of your posting is net.censorship, isn't it? You meticulously avoided addressing issues and tried to change the subject with mud-slinging. But the e-mail that each of you sent saying "shutup or we're going to tell tales" is a blatant attempt to suppress ideas that you can't deal with directly. Oh yes, I know that you claim to be staunch free-speech defenders but what you really mean is that you want to be free to say whatever you want, but not anyone who critisizes what you do with that freedom. Your actions belie all the boistrous rhetoric and show you to be completely intolerant of the rights of others. That point is further emphasized by the fact that you never address these questions directly, but rather you resort to all manner of subversion and abuse of others to drive them away. You guys fear the truth like Dracula fears the light of sunrise. Why don't you get civil and state your case directly and on a mature level? The entire net is bored with your tirades and most people haven't got the time to wade through all your drivel so, if you've got a point to make, make it. I don't think you do. I think you know that what you do is wrong and you won't defend it because you can't. And I'm not impressed with your argument that the end justifies the means, that because you claim to make some contribution to net connectivity that you've earned a right to generate volumes of noise. In any tree structure there are lots more leaf nodes than branches and the point of the branches is to serve the leaf nodes, to connect them together and to provide reliable communications to them. Such "liddy" practices as deliberately interfering with e-mail through your systems and manipulating the flow of news to your own end do a dis-service to the net as a whole. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Usenet is about readers, about a quarter of a million of them. Each of them has their own reason for being on Usenet and the vast majority of them can benefit without causing any harm to anyone else. It is only the few who try to improve their low self-esteem by dragging others down to their level that detract from what is otherwise a successful experiment in communications. Think about it: what are your motives? Are you here to help make Usenet better or are you only interested in your own selfish games? After you've thought about it, state your case in a professional manner and let us all see whether you know what you're doing for/to the net. -- CLBrunow - KA5SOF Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083 clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp
allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) (10/05/88)
In article <5718@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, loci@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (loci!clb) writes: > Just when did news.admin become annexed to alt.flame? It didn't. Several of us have suggested to you (both openly and in email) that we move the discussion to alt.flame or email. You continue to post here. > Allen, et al; In regard to your absurd accusations and wimpy > innuendo, I've got this to say: put up or shut up. You've never denied anything... whats there to "put up"? > If you > think you have a tale to tell then tell it. Three times you've > tried to make something out of nothing, so get specific or blow away. Oh, I think I'll "blow away" from news.admin with this subject. If you want to continue it, I will be happy to do so in alt.flame, one of the dfw groups, or email. I'll be happy to further document anything that I've said... but not here. -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen Disclaimer: The facts stated are my own. |Olympic Trivia: In 1960, East German pole-vaulter Hans Zimmer set a new world| |record with his 17'9" vault. Today, he's West German pole-vaulter Hans Zimmer|