mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) (08/28/90)
It is quite interesting, the wrong turn that has been taken in this discussion about splitting rec.birds. John Shipman writes: > Here is the original charter of this group (from the latest > listing of active newsgroups in news.announce.newusers): > rec.birds Hobbyists interested in bird watching. The dictionary defines the hobby of bird watching as: "To identify wild birds and observe their actions and habits in their natural habitat as a recreation." It is quite obvious that the "captive bird" postings are inappropriate to this newsgroup. Now the "captive bird" people claim that we should be tolerant. Yet, when inappropriate postings are made to most newsgroups, the poster is flamed from head to toe unceasingly until they are hounded from the group. By this measure the "captive bird" people have gotten more than their fair share of tolerance. The "captive bird" people claim that it is little trouble to "N" through the postings that don't interest one. Yet, avoiding this inconvenience is the very reason that they left rec.pets in the first place. They claim that the number of articles that one has to "N" through in rec.birds is such a trifle compared to rec.pets. Yet, there is a world of difference in having to "N" through appropriate articles that don't interest one, and having to "N" through articles that are inappropriate to the newsgroup in the first place. The issue, to rec.birds, is not whether the group should be split to accomodate groups of differing interests. The definition of rec.birds is quite clear, and accomodates the appropriate people quite nicely, without change. The issue is whether we can convince the inappropriate people to take their postings and their discussion of a newsgroup split back to the appropriate place, namely rec.pets. Mike
richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) (08/28/90)
In article <64347@oliveb.atc.olivetti.com> mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) writes: > [most of the comments deleted] > > The issue, to rec.birds, is not whether the group should >be split to accomodate groups of differing interests. The definition >of rec.birds is quite clear, and accomodates the appropriate >people quite nicely, without change. The issue is whether we can >convince the inappropriate people to take their postings and their >discussion of a newsgroup split back to the appropriate place, namely >rec.pets. > >Mike Nice diatribe, Mike. Most readers are a tad more tolerant though. If you have rn or nn, hit the ^K key and enter the following two lines: /: *INDOOR/:j /: *indoor/:j Most all indoor posters were using this convention. Your kill file will then skip over all indoor postings which use the term indoor. This will be performed automatically and you won't have to even hit your "n" key. As for guidelines, most all groups have tolerated some changes in their original intent. So it goes. Remember, this is USENET and the dictionary defines that as anarchy (:-). -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = Mike Richman Atmospheric Sciences Water Survey U. of Illinois = = email (uiuc mailserver) internet/bitnet/uucp: mrichman@uiuc.edu = = bitnet: mrichman%uiuc.edu@uiucvmd uucp: uunet!uiuc.edu!mrichman =
sandee@sun16 (Daan Sandee) (08/28/90)
In article <64347@oliveb.atc.olivetti.com> mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) writes: > > It is quite interesting, the wrong turn that has been >taken in this discussion about splitting rec.birds. > >John Shipman writes: >> Here is the original charter of this group (from the latest >> listing of active newsgroups in news.announce.newusers): > >> rec.birds Hobbyists interested in bird watching. > > The dictionary defines the hobby of bird watching as: >"To identify wild birds and observe their actions and habits >in their natural habitat as a recreation." > It is quite obvious that the "captive bird" postings >are inappropriate to this newsgroup. > Etc., etc. I'm sure everybody is sick of the space wars. This group had taken the attitude the past years of *condoning* the pet people, but it hasn't stopped the flames. Myself, I can stand the budgie drivel, but I want very much to see the yelling stopped. There is an ongoing VOTE to create rec.pets.dogs. The reason for this group is partly to clean up rec.pets to make it more liveable for other pet keepers. If this vote passes, we stand a better chance of persuading the pet people to move back to their proper newsgroup. A proposal to create rec.pets.cats as well has been discussed, but has apparently not obtained sufficient support. == I urge anyone who is bothered by the pet postings, or just by the space wars, == to vote YES on rec.pets.dogs. Send mail with subject line of "YES to rec.pets.dogs" to uunet!lectroid!mm (uucp) mm%lectroid.uucp@uunet.uu.net (Internet) or lectroid!mm@uunet.uu.net Daan Sandee sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu Supercomputer Computations Research Institute Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 (904) 644-7045
mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) (08/28/90)
You might find it interesting that quite a few YES votes I have received (so far) were from cat owners who say they are voting YES to rec.pets.dogs so they won't have to read the dog owner articles even if they don't have a rec.pets.cats (since there will be about 50% less articles in the parent [rec.pets] group). So you are very accurate about your point of voting YES for rec.pets.dogs. Michael
mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) (08/28/90)
In article <64347@oliveb.atc.olivetti.com> mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) writes: > The issue, to rec.birds, is not whether the group should >be split to accomodate groups of differing interests. The definition >of rec.birds is quite clear, and accomodates the appropriate >people quite nicely, without change. The issue is whether we can >convince the inappropriate people to take their postings and their >discussion of a newsgroup split back to the appropriate place, namely >rec.pets. I think the issue is what the NAME of a group discussing the hobby of birdwatching should be. Hence the vote to change the name to rec.birding. Let's think back to when you were a novice use of NEWS or just novice to rec.birds. You see rec.pets and rec.birds in your groups listing. You want to know about a certain parrot you've been interested in. The name rec.birds certainly sounds more exact and appropriate than rec.pets (realistically, almost NO ONE reads the group definitions when they subscribe to a new group). If you have a Ford, why post to rec.autos (if it existed) when you can post to rec.autos.fords, right? You post your innocuous question to rec.birds only to get blasted for your "budgie caa-caa" posting which belongs in rec.pets. The question, to me, would seem to be what more descriptive name would be best suited for what is now rec.birds. I've heard rec.birding and rec.birdwatching, do you have something else you'd like to add as a suggestion for a name? >Mike Michael
sandee@sun16 (Daan Sandee) (08/29/90)
In article <64347@oliveb.atc.olivetti.com] mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) writes: ] The issue, to rec.birds, is not whether the group should ] be split to accomodate groups of differing interests. The definition ] of rec.birds is quite clear, and accomodates the appropriate ] people quite nicely, without change. The issue is whether we can ] convince the inappropriate people to take their postings and their ] discussion of a newsgroup split back to the appropriate place, namely ] rec.pets. Agreed. One way is the current effort to establish rec.pets.dogs. Another is ... In article <2148@lectroid.sw.stratus.com] mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) writes: ] I think the issue is what the NAME of a group discussing ] the hobby of birdwatching should be. Hence the vote to ] change the name to rec.birding. You mean the suggestion to change the name - I don't know of any vote. As a birder, I'm quite happy with the current name, but I approve of the suggestion to change it to make it less ambiguous, and so to add force to the effort of getting inappropriate postings out of this group. Daan Sandee sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu Supercomputer Computations Research Institute Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 (904) 644-7045
ron@hpfcso.HP.COM (Ron Miller) (08/29/90)
Re: inappropriate postings
So you want to divide rec.pets into
rec.pets.dog rec.pets.cats&birds&mice&snakes&ferrets&spiders
I don't want to read about cats while looking for pet bird postings.
Also note that USENET is an anarchy. You can change the category name but
you'll have a hard time keeping INDOOR from appearing unless you
make an attempt to meet the wishes of the INDOOR folks. In the history of
USENET, "throwing people out" just doesn't work. Enticing them to another
forum does.
What am I offered to move? (Freedom from insults is a non-starter.)
Ron
INDOOR: Why are parrots so afraid of squirrels?duane@cbnewsj.att.com (duane.galensky) (08/30/90)
i'd move to create a newsgroup net.anal.retentive.neat.freaks so that those who can't handle killing uninteresting postings can have their discussions someplace else. duane
mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug28.045702.21315@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) writes: > > Nice diatribe, Mike. Most readers are a tad more tolerant > though. If you have rn or nn, hit the ^K key and enter the > following two lines: > > > /: *INDOOR/:j > /: *indoor/:j > > Most all indoor posters were using this convention. Your kill > file will then skip over all indoor postings which use the term > indoor. This will be performed automatically and you won't have > to even hit your "n" key. As for guidelines, most all groups > have tolerated some changes in their original intent. So it > goes. Remember, this is USENET and the dictionary defines that > as anarchy (:-). Nice smokescreen, Mike. Of course, this brings up the obvious question: wouldn't a convention of this type work equally well in rec.pets, the appropriate place? It's funny, this hypocrisy being exhibited by the "captive bird" people. They invade a newsgroup where they, by definition, don't belong. They claim not to have realized this because they failed or pretended not to have read the charter describing this group, and then adamantly remain after it has been made abundantly clear. They tell us that we should tolerate their presence; a tolerance they refused to exhibit in rec.pets, the appropriate place. They tell us that it should be no trouble to "N" through articles that we don't like; a technique they refused to use in rec.pets, the appropriate place. They try to implement and adopt a header-naming convention; something they refused to do in rec.pets, the appropriate place. Now they tell us that we actually condon their presence (does this sound like Saddam Hussein, or what?), though this discussion keeps popping up every couple of months. They tell us that the invasion of newsgroups by inappropriate posters has happened before on the net, firmly entrenching the justification for their actions in the philosophy of: "two wrongs do, indeed, make a right". They remind us that anarchy is the norm on netnews. Yet when we try to display a little anarchy of our own, we are soundly criticized, proving the axiom that "what is good for the goose, should never be practiced by the gander". I can't recall ever seeing a larger load of hypocritical bullshit in my life. As for my diatribe, Mike, consider this: if the "captive bird" people went back to rec.pets, the appropriate place, these diatribes would probably disappear. As if by magic. Besides, the volume of traffic is so low in this group; what's a diatribe or two among friends? And, in the words of the "captive bird" people, "it shouldn't be much of a bother to just hit the "N" key". I certainly don't hold out much hope of the "captive bird" people leaving this group, but it sure is fun blasting away at the tissue paper they use for a shield. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Mike
mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug29.190354.23386@cbnewsj.att.com>, duane@cbnewsj.att.com (duane.galensky) writes: > > i'd move to create a newsgroup net.anal.retentive.neat.freaks > so that those who can't handle killing uninteresting postings > can have their discussions someplace else. Now there's an idea. Then the "captive bird" people, who left rec.pets for this very reason, can go there and post. Mike
richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) (08/30/90)
In article <49314@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) writes: > > Nice smokescreen, Mike. Of course, this brings up the obvious >question: wouldn't a convention of this type work equally well in >rec.pets, the appropriate place? > > It's funny, this hypocrisy being exhibited by the "captive >bird" people. They invade a newsgroup where they, by definition, >don't belong. They claim not to have realized this because they failed >or pretended not to have read the charter describing this group, and >then adamantly remain after it has been made abundantly clear. They >tell us that we should tolerate their presence; a tolerance they >refused to exhibit in rec.pets, the appropriate place. They tell us >that it should be no trouble to "N" through articles that we don't >like; a technique they refused to use in rec.pets, the appropriate >place. They try to implement and adopt a header-naming convention; >something they refused to do in rec.pets, the appropriate place. >Now they tell us that we actually condon their presence (does this >sound like Saddam Hussein, or what?), though this discussion keeps >popping up every couple of months. > > They tell us that the invasion of newsgroups by inappropriate >posters has happened before on the net, firmly entrenching the >justification for their actions in the philosophy of: "two wrongs >do, indeed, make a right". They remind us that anarchy is the norm >on netnews. Yet when we try to display a little anarchy of our own, >we are soundly criticized, proving the axiom that "what is good for >the goose, should never be practiced by the gander". I can't recall >ever seeing a larger load of hypocritical bullshit in my life. > > As for my diatribe, Mike, consider this: if the "captive >bird" people went back to rec.pets, the appropriate place, these >diatribes would probably disappear. As if by magic. Besides, the >volume of traffic is so low in this group; what's a diatribe or >two among friends? And, in the words of the "captive bird" people, >"it shouldn't be much of a bother to just hit the "N" key". > > I certainly don't hold out much hope of the "captive bird" >people leaving this group, but it sure is fun blasting away at the >tissue paper they use for a shield. > >:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) > Alright, we agree on one point: It is unlikely that the captive bird folks will leave. What we don't agree on is the history. I do not think most of the posters have wandered into this group. Perhaps a few have. My hunch is that they made a calculated move. Perhaps some are birders (in the conventional sense) too. Another point of disagreement (what you refer to as my smok- escreen) is the idea that a non-moderated group is open to ALL, regardless of the stated charter. Look at the addition of bird owners as evolution. Why couldn't the header convention I mentioned work for rec.pets? Two reasons: (i) The shear volume would translate to too many posters not using the headers and, most importantly, (ii) the system blocks out articles, it does not pass them on. So every possible keyword would have to be entered in order to just let birds through. This is not only unworkable, but would be ineffi- cient. One thing birders who are upset at pet bird people who post could do would be to compile a list of names they know post the pet bird articles and add those to their kill file too (:-). A final thought would be to form a chartered group with some power to enforce the charter (read: MODERATED). Short of that, the price you pay for freedom is putting up with some articles which don't fit your idea of "correct". -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = Mike Richman Atmospheric Sciences Water Survey U. of Illinois = = email (uiuc mailserver) internet/bitnet/uucp: mrichman@uiuc.edu = = bitnet: mrichman%uiuc.edu@uiucvmd uucp: uunet!uiuc.edu!mrichman =
ron@hpfcso.HP.COM (Ron Miller) (08/30/90)
Re: Self-fulfilling newsgroup usage 1. The Michael who is trying to "read the rules" to us is ignoring the most fundamental of human behaviors. NOBODY READS THE $&!!#!! MANUALS! The group title entices people who are cruising thru news to use this group for things related to birds. 2. Assuming malice and collusion by petbirders pretty psychotic. Never assume malice when ignorance will explain it equally well. Name the group for what you want accomplished (and provide a place for alternate users to go as well) and you'll get what you want. Assisting the group to be named will get what you want. Assisting petbird folks to get what they want will help you get what you want. Pissing about the rules won't. (In fact, *I will taunt you if you do!* :-) Sounds like you're the sort who would design a product with a big DON'T PUSH ME! button on the front and then complain that people kept pushing it and halting the machine. Vote YES for rec.pets.birds FIRST! (BTW, my newsreader show 3 of 25 active topics being INDOOR related. Yup, we have a REAL BIG PROBLEM!) (not a Mike) Ron
sandra@pyrtech (Sandra Macika) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug30.025814.22471@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) writes: > >Why couldn't the header convention I mentioned work for rec.pets? >Two reasons: (i) The shear volume would translate to too many >posters not using the headers and, most importantly, (ii) the >system blocks out articles, it does not pass them on. So every >possible keyword would have to be entered in order to just let >birds through. > >= Mike Richman Atmospheric Sciences Water Survey U. of Illinois = This is only true if you use "rn" to read your news. If you use "readnews" to read your news, you type in the Articles you want to read about. For example, you could type: readnews -t CATS BIRDS if you only wanted to read Articles that had the word "CATS" or "BIRDS" in the beginnig of the subject line. My system has both "rn" and "readnews" available. Try reading the man page. Let me know if you have questions. Sandra
reynolds@felix.UUCP (David Lee Reynolds) (08/31/90)
In article <536@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> sandee@sun16 (Daan Sandee) writes: >In article <64347@oliveb.atc.olivetti.com] mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) writes: >] The issue, to rec.birds, is not whether the group should >] be split to accomodate groups of differing interests. The definition >] of rec.birds is quite clear, and accomodates the appropriate ^^^^^^^^^ Really? Using this analogy then, rec.aquaria is obviously for those who ONLY track, count, or view, (not own) fish right? I mean why would I post a question about fish to rec.aquaria, when there is an APPROPRIATE group called rec.pets??? >] convince the inappropriate people to take their postings and their >] discussion of a newsgroup split back to the appropriate place, namely >] rec.pets. Thank you for labeling groups of people as "unappropriate" in your last entry. I feel we should add the group called, "rec.birds.flamewar" because in the last week I have the following message counts: out of 175 new messages I found: 20 birding related questions, answers, comments.. 10 pet bird owners questioning methods for improved health of their birds. 4 about some stupid name change for rec.dinnerhouse or such 2 about fish??? 139 Flames on topics ranging from name changes to name calling and the likes. (My old boss calls these people, the wining and snivelling twits, group). >Agreed. One way is the current effort to establish rec.pets.dogs. Another is . ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ rec.pets.birds I can live with this, but the one thing I still can not understand is why this is such a BIG issue??? I thought we could all share with out resorting to name calling, and flame wars! >In article <2148@lectroid.sw.stratus.com] mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) writes: >] change the name to rec.birding. ^^^^^^^^^^^ SEEMS GOOD TO ME!!! >You mean the suggestion to change the name - I don't know of any vote. >As a birder, I'm quite happy with the current name, but I approve of the >suggestion to change it to make it less ambiguous, and so to add force to >the effort of getting inappropriate postings out of this group. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, I guess it is hard for some people to wade through a whopping 10 articles, (AT THE ABSOLUTE MOST) per day in this group, so yes please do change the name. I am saddened by this one fact though, you avid birders are the very people I have turned to for help with the birds I own, and a select few actually were able to over come the "I'm better then you" attitude, of Daan Sandee, and offer quite excellent ideas, so if this is the kind of way you want to cut the ties of friendship, then I guess I was wrong about how nice most of you are! >Daan Sandee sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu >Supercomputer Computations Research Institute >Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 (904) 644-7045 David Lee Reynolds
sandee@sun16 (Daan Sandee) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug30.025814.22471@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu] richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) writes:
] ......... I
] do not think most of the posters have wandered into this group.
] Perhaps a few have. My hunch is that they made a calculated
] move. Perhaps some are birders (in the conventional sense) too.
] Another point of disagreement (what you refer to as my smok-
] escreen) is the idea that a non-moderated group is open to ALL,
] regardless of the stated charter.
An incredible argument. Why have charters at all, in that case? Why
create new groups? Why not give up the concept of newsgroups
altogether?
We are talking about two groups - rec.birds and rec.pets.
Both were created for a specific purpose. Both have a charter defining
that purpose. Those charters don't overlap. Pet birds are part of the
rec.pets charter. So what's the problem? Well, the problem is that some
people ignore these facts and then when we complain about it, they start
yelling about freedom, and about Usenet being anarchy. It is surprising
nobody has called upon the First Amendment yet (which doesn't apply to
Usenet, incidentally ; it merely restricts the action of Government).
] A final thought would be to form a chartered group with some
] power to enforce the charter (read: MODERATED). Short of that,
] the price you pay for freedom is putting up with some articles
] which don't fit your idea of "correct".
] --
] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
] = Mike Richman Atmospheric Sciences Water Survey U. of Illinois =
] = email (uiuc mailserver) internet/bitnet/uucp: mrichman@uiuc.edu =
] = bitnet: mrichman%uiuc.edu@uiucvmd uucp: uunet!uiuc.edu!mrichman =
Your arguments can be summed up easily.
(a) You know you're not welcome.
(b) You have invaded us anyway.
(c) You now dare us to use force to drive you out.
Where have I heard that reasoning recently ?
HELP ! Saddam Hussein is taking over Usenet!
And not much room for a smiley here.
Next time you blunder into the ladies' restroom, are you prepared to state
that (1) you did it on purpose, because the men's room is full, as usual,
and (2) all this segregation of sexes is irrelevant anyway, and (3) if they
want to keep out undesirable elements, they should install a cloakroom lady?
Okay, a smiley goes here. :-)
But seriously, the comparison is correct. Your behavior is just as uncivilised.
You deliberately ignore agreements that are not laws graven in stone but
still intended to be adhered to by people with some degree of consideration
for their fellow mortals.
I entirely agree with your technical arguments about the use and the
limitations of kill files. But the arguments of principle that you use to
justify your intrusion retroactively are specious and irrelevant. In short,
you are damaging your position by advancing them.
Daan Sandee sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 (904) 644-7045freds@legs.UUCP (Fred Sieg) (08/31/90)
What's with the sudden display of anamosity between the wild and captive bird folks? This morning I was sitting on the patio with our cockatoo on the table getting her usul grooming. Tossed a few peanuts on the table and our friendly neighborhood blue jays darted onto the table to snatch a few. Gee, wild and captive bird only looked at each other. They didn't feel there was anything to fight about! Personally, I've always enjoyed doing/reading both. Fred -- Fred Sieg | uucp: ...!uunet!legs!freds AST Research Inc. | Fax: (714) 727-9358 Tel: (714) 727-8465 If any opinions were expressed, they are my own and not those of my employer (who would NEVER express an opinion).
germaine@cs.columbia.edu (Germaine Leveque) (08/31/90)
Maybe a posting once a month of the charter of this group would help weed out postings that are considered "inappropriate." Then "INDOOR" people who wander into this group because of the name "rec.birds" would know within a fairly short period of time that this group is not for them. -- ====================================================================== | Germaine A. L'Eveque germaine@cs.columbia.edu (212) 854-8112 | | Academic Records Administrator, Computer Science Department | | Columbia University, 450-D Com.Sci.Bldg., New York, NY 10027 |
boris@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Boris Chen) (08/31/90)
In article <49314@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) writes: >In article <1990Aug28.045702.21315@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) writes: >> >> Nice diatribe, Mike. Most readers are a tad more tolerant >> though. If you have rn or nn, hit the ^K key and enter the >> following two lines: >> >> >> /: *INDOOR/:j >> /: *indoor/:j >> >> Most all indoor posters were using this convention. Your kill >> file will then skip over all indoor postings which use the term >> indoor. This will be performed automatically and you won't have >> to even hit your "n" key. As for guidelines, most all groups >> have tolerated some changes in their original intent. So it >> goes. Remember, this is USENET and the dictionary defines that >> as anarchy (:-). > > Nice smokescreen, Mike. Of course, this brings up the obvious >question: wouldn't a convention of this type work equally well in >rec.pets, the appropriate place? In pets there are several other "groups." There are the dog people the rat people, the hamster people, the rock people, etc. Here it is only INDOOR or OUTDOOR. Very simple. Not difficult. Easy. > They tell us that the invasion of newsgroups by inappropriate >posters has happened before on the net, firmly entrenching the >justification for their actions in the philosophy of: "two wrongs >do, indeed, make a right". They remind us that anarchy is the norm >on netnews. Yet when we try to display a little anarchy of our own, >we are soundly criticized, proving the axiom that "what is good for >the goose, should never be practiced by the gander". I can't recall >ever seeing a larger load of hypocritical bullshit in my life. > What is appropriate is a evolutionary thing. Dynamic, not static. > As for my diatribe, Mike, consider this: if the "captive >bird" people went back to rec.pets, the appropriate place, these >diatribes would probably disappear. As if by magic. Besides, the >volume of traffic is so low in this group; what's a diatribe or >two among friends? And, in the words of the "captive bird" people, >"it shouldn't be much of a bother to just hit the "N" key". Good. So you finally agree that hitting the 'N' key is no bother. So I guess pet bird people are now welcome. /----------------------------------------------------------\ | Boris Chen || Berkeley, CA || boris@ocf.berkeley.edu | \----------------------------------------------------------/
boris@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Boris Chen) (08/31/90)
In article <555@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> sandee@sun16 (Daan Sandee) writes: >HELP ! Saddam Hussein is taking over Usenet! No, I think that a better analogy is "why don't you people go back where you came from....Dang feriners" line of thought. /----------------------------------------------------------\ | Boris Chen || Berkeley, CA || boris@ocf.berkeley.edu | \----------------------------------------------------------/
ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry) (08/31/90)
In article <555@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> sandee@sun16 (Daan Sandee) writes: >Your arguments can be summed up easily. >(a) You know you're not welcome. Interesting to assume that people *know* they aren't welcome when many "birders" have said they didn't mind indoor postings in the least. Probably many more than the few who insist on wasting bandwidth in rantings on the subject. Sort of reminds me of the soc.women arguments in which women brought up the charter of the group and were told to stop being so uptight and mellow out. But, of course, that won't work here. >(b) You have invaded us anyway. Ah, an invasion. An *us* against *them*. Interesting there were no such divisions until recently created. >(c) You now dare us to use force to drive you out. That sounds even sillier than I thought at first. Nobody asks that "force" be used. I can't even think of any "force" that CAN be used. What will you do, call my sysadmin if I post something you don't like? Ask Uunet to cut my feed? Sheesh, this whole thing is so damn stupid that it's hard to believe that it's still being fought about. >I entirely agree with your technical arguments about the use and the >limitations of kill files. But the arguments of principle that you use to >justify your intrusion retroactively are specious and irrelevant. In short, >you are damaging your position by advancing them. How can it be worse? JEHOVAH, JEHOVAH! What are you going to do, STONE me? Mikki Barry
mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) (08/31/90)
Actually, it's a Mike who's saying that, I'm Michael. Michael
sbishop@desire.wright.edu (08/31/90)
In article <555@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, sandee@sun16 (Daan Sandee) writes: > In article <1990Aug30.025814.22471@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu] richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) writes: > ] ......... I > ] do not think most of the posters have wandered into this group. > ] Perhaps a few have. My hunch is that they made a calculated > ] move. Perhaps some are birders (in the conventional sense) too. > ] Another point of disagreement (what you refer to as my smok- > ] escreen) is the idea that a non-moderated group is open to ALL, > ] regardless of the stated charter. > An incredible argument. Why have charters at all, in that case? Why > create new groups? Why not give up the concept of newsgroups > altogether? > We are talking about two groups - rec.birds and rec.pets. > Both were created for a specific purpose. Both have a charter defining > that purpose. Those charters don't overlap. Pet birds are part of the > rec.pets charter. So what's the problem? Well, the problem is that some > people ignore these facts and then when we complain about it, they start > yelling about freedom, and about Usenet being anarchy. It is surprising > nobody has called upon the First Amendment yet (which doesn't apply to > Usenet, incidentally ; it merely restricts the action of Government). > > ] A final thought would be to form a chartered group with some > ] power to enforce the charter (read: MODERATED). Short of that, > ] the price you pay for freedom is putting up with some articles > ] which don't fit your idea of "correct". > ] -- > ] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > ] = Mike Richman Atmospheric Sciences Water Survey U. of Illinois = > ] = email (uiuc mailserver) internet/bitnet/uucp: mrichman@uiuc.edu = > ] = bitnet: mrichman%uiuc.edu@uiucvmd uucp: uunet!uiuc.edu!mrichman = > > Your arguments can be summed up easily. > (a) You know you're not welcome. > (b) You have invaded us anyway. > (c) You now dare us to use force to drive you out. > Where have I heard that reasoning recently ? > HELP ! Saddam Hussein is taking over Usenet! > And not much room for a smiley here. > Next time you blunder into the ladies' restroom, are you prepared to state > that (1) you did it on purpose, because the men's room is full, as usual, > and (2) all this segregation of sexes is irrelevant anyway, and (3) if they > want to keep out undesirable elements, they should install a cloakroom lady? > Okay, a smiley goes here. :-) > But seriously, the comparison is correct. Your behavior is just as uncivilised. > You deliberately ignore agreements that are not laws graven in stone but > still intended to be adhered to by people with some degree of consideration > for their fellow mortals. > I entirely agree with your technical arguments about the use and the > limitations of kill files. But the arguments of principle that you use to > justify your intrusion retroactively are specious and irrelevant. In short, > you are damaging your position by advancing them. > > Daan Sandee sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu > Supercomputer Computations Research Institute > Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 (904) 644-7045 OK, that does it. I quit. I will hereby ignore this group and remove it from my restricted directory. You birders have just totally reinforced my idea that you are a bunch of insensitive, elitist shitheads who really get off by running around bragging about how many species of birds you have spotted on a particular day. To me that smacks of the big game hunters that used to go out and see how many buffalo or rare species they could kill a day. Makes me wonder how many of you avid birders have been volunteering time at the local bird sanctuary or how many have helped in rehabilitation of injured raptors, etc. I (SHOCK, GASP, HORRORS!) keep caged birds. I also enjoy watching the wild ones around my feeders and woods. And I have enjoyed reading about different areas for bird watching. But I am totally sick of the harrassment and obnoxious comments from you snots.
geek@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Chris Schmandt) (09/01/90)
In article <26DDDE51.3DD7@intercon.com> ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry) writes:
<two pretty obnoxious messages>
Can anyone tell me how to automatically kill messages from a
particular sender, using "rn"??
For most news groups, when it gets this bad I bow out. I'll hang
in here for a while.... I do like to talk about birds! (of the
wild variety...)
chrisbenefiel@wyse.wyse.com (Daniel Benefiel xtmp x2531 dept234) (09/01/90)
I've been watching this thread for awhile now, and my personal opinion just keeps getting stronger. I would like to see a vote put the issue to rest, but I don't believe I have seen a specific vote proposal. Although I've never bothered to read the group charter, it apparently was intended for the "OUTDOOR" folks. Should the vote then be on whether we add to the charter the clause "No INDOOR people allowed" or the clause "INDOOR people welcome"? Dan (My personal story is that since I was in 2nd grade I've been very interested in wild birds and completely nonplussed by captive birds. Then I joined this group to learn more about birds which I'm now doing with both INDOOR and OUTDOOR postings. So I like the group the way it is.)
dkletter@adobe.COM (It's all fun and games until someone PUTS AN EYE OUT) (09/01/90)
i find it completely humourous that before all this aggression came out, the traffic was very minimal and the ratio of indoor to outdoor was about equal most of the time. a very livable situation. of course, now that everyone's arguing the ratio of pure crap to postings with substance is like 5 to 1 and the traffic has skyrocketed. don't y'all think it's funny that a bunch of highly educated adults working in high tech computer firms still have to act like childish whining DOPES if they can't have their way? -- "Yellow... black and rectangular... with wedged shapes inside... Oh, I see them everywhere... Am I losing my mind?"
rmura@world.std.com (Ron Mura) (09/04/90)
In article <2889@wyse.wyse.com> benefiel@wyse.wyse.com (Daniel Benefiel xtmp x2531 dept234) writes: > > (My personal story is that since I was in 2nd grade I've been very > interested in wild birds and completely nonplussed by captive birds. > Then I joined this group to learn more about birds which I'm now > doing with both INDOOR and OUTDOOR postings. So I like the group > the way it is.) I haven't read much of the debate, but for what it's worth I like it the way it is too. I would also like to see the hotlines (now sent via mailing list) in a newsgroup, whether it is this one or another one. -- - Ron Mura, Boston, Mass. rmura@world.std.com
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/05/90)
mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) writes: |In article <1990Aug28.045702.21315@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) writes: |Now they tell us that we actually condon their presence (does this |sound like Saddam Hussein, or what?), though this discussion keeps |popping up every couple of months. Who is this 'us'? I condone the pet birders posting here. Most others seem to also. If you don't agree, then we will have to hold you as our 'guest' :-) |justification for their actions in the philosophy of: "two wrongs |do, indeed, make a right". No, but two rights make a left! -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash
sandra@pyrtech.pyramid.com (Sandra Macika) (09/05/90)
In article <9720014@hpfcso.HP.COM> ron@hpfcso.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes: > >(BTW, my newsreader show 3 of 25 active topics being INDOOR related. > Yup, we have a REAL BIG PROBLEM!) > >Ron I'm just guessing - 20 of them were about inappropriate postings? Sandra
sandra@pyrtech.pyramid.com (Sandra Macika) (09/05/90)
In article <3271@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> geek@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Chris Schmandt) writes: > >Can anyone tell me how to automatically kill messages from a >particular sender, using "rn"?? > >chris I am interested too. If anyone knows, please post. Thanks, Sandra
kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) (09/06/90)
In article <6207@adobe.UUCP>, dkletter@adobe.COM (It's all fun and games until someone PUTS AN EYE OUT) writes: > don't y'all think it's funny that a bunch of highly educated adults > working in high tech computer firms still have to act like childish > whining DOPES if they can't have their way? Actually I glad that someone at least sees how STUPID this whole thing really is. "It's my sandbox, and you can't come in!" Snicker. -- Kurt Baumann 703.709.9890 703.709.9896 FAX
hanrahan@crg8.sqnt.com (Tom Hanrahan) (09/08/90)
In article <2912@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > >|justification for their actions in the philosophy of: "two wrongs >|do, indeed, make a right". > >No, but two rights make a left! > Actually, two rights make a U-Turn. Three rights make a left. -- -- Tom Hanrahan
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/12/90)
hanrahan@crg8.sqnt.com (Tom Hanrahan) writes: >In article <2912@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >>No, but two rights make a left! >Actually, two rights make a U-Turn. Three rights make a left. Yea, I realized that after I posted it but I figured it wasn't worth the trouble to correct myself. But after seeing your message and getting some email on it I decided to correct myself: "No John, I am Wrong. 2 rights make a back, 3 rights make a left and 4 rights make a circle." There. I feel better. OB bird posting: INDOOR: I just gave away my two parakeets (or is that pair o' 'keets) they have a nice new home with two other 'keets. I just didn't have the time for them after I got my new puppy. -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash