jj@alice.UUCP (10/29/85)
There are two parts to this article. 1) Last Friday, I suggested that net.flame should be removed. To date, I've received 23 letters about the subject, and the concensus is 22 DELETE 1 KEEP. The one letter that wanted me to "keep" net.flame actually said <and I DO quote> "..sick, faggot head, what gives you the f<>g right to tell any non-pervert ..." <> encloses the obvious. I think that 22:1 is a good start toward a concensus. I also think the obscenity (no profanity, I guess the writer didn't think to demean the name of G*d, if he believes in one) shows how much consideration is due that writer. 2) Today, a totally ungracious individual, who doesn't have to justify the cost of the net, suggests in net.flame that we should all write Gene Spafford (the real verb he was suggesting was "harass", but he was politic and said "write") because Gene enforced a rule that is well known, and did it AFTER consulting other people (who may or may not wish to be named) in positions similar to his. Aside from the obvious, i.e. Gene has to justify the money spent on nutnews at his site, and he does not feel that he can justify nut.bizzare, or any group that doesn't have a start discussed properly on the net, mailing to Gene ignores the fact that he is only one of a bunch of people who agree with one or both of the decisions. Picking on Gene because HE is the keeper of the lists is just plain silly, as well as using the interstate phone system for harassment. In any case, suggesting federal crimes on the net (or something that is likely to be able to be made out as a federal crime) is a good case for removing both a user and a newsgroup, so IT'S TIME! I CALL ON NET ADMINISTRATORS WHO WANT THE NET TO CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION! My mail filter is still up, I will see your profanity, obscenity, and the like, but it will be marked as such when I turn on the mailer, and your root and news administrators will likely get a copy, if you're good at being insulting. -- EVEN NUT.FLAME HAS IT'S LIMITS! "Sunset and evening star, and one clear call for netnews..." Flames to yoursite!/dev/null
rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (10/31/85)
in reference to deleting net.flame: In article <4494@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >IT'S TIME! I CALL ON NET ADMINISTRATORS WHO WANT THE NET TO >CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION! pull your head out. if there ISN'T a flame, it will rear it's ugly head in all the other groups. at least in net.* if people get "out of line" you can say "move this to flame, that's what it's there for," and most of the time they do. at least now all of us flamer types and pseudo flamers, and even the jerks (arndt etc.) play in the sandbox here. without flame, the rest of the USENET community will pay the price. this is somewhat similair to the chicago bears stopping beer sales at the 1/2 of last monday night's game to keep the crowd in control. local sales of pints of booze etc. skyrocketed, and since they knew they "had to get their beer now" the fans set a record for beer consumption. the "solution" was worse than the original problem. cut out flame and everyone WILL pay. x% of garbage is input to the net each day. y% of that garbage is in flame, x% - y% is distributed across all the other groups. without flame, and large chunk of y% will be added to the rest of the net. face facts, if a guy is a schmoe in net.singles, i go into flame and flame him (or he flames me... whatever). after flame is gone we'll just sit and flame in singles. and music....and politics... and religion....and philosophy...and....... your choice, be an idiot, or wake up and smell the coffee. ron ps: notice the sarcastic, mild flame tone in this letter? that is because it is in flame. if there was no flame, this letter would have to be in a "regular group," except *there* it would be sarcastic and have a mild flame tone. and everyone "else" would be subjected to it. my, what a neat can of worms to open up for the rest of the net. who's going to take the blame..er...i mean, be the proud leader of this smart move????
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/31/85)
From Ron Vaughn: >in reference to deleting net.flame: > >In article <4494@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >>IT'S TIME! I CALL ON NET ADMINISTRATORS WHO WANT THE NET TO >>CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION! > >pull your head out. if there ISN'T a flame, it will rear it's ugly head >in all the other groups. at least in net.* if people get "out of line" you >can say "move this to flame, that's what it's there for," and most of the >time they do. at least now all of us flamer types and pseudo flamers, and >even the jerks (arndt etc.) play in the sandbox here. without flame, the >rest of the USENET community will pay the price. It's my impression that net.flame may have the greatest ratio of articles cross posted to other groups. Flames rarely start in net.flame (it's more of a repository), they start in other groups and the flamer has to post there initially or the right people aren't going to hear it. So net.flame doesn't do anything to prevent flames from starting up in other groups. The existence of net.flame also serves as an encouragement to flamming. The group is there, so it seems like an acceptable practice. If your article is a little hot or full of ridicule, just cross post it to net.flame and you don't have to apologize. Net.flame's existence as a ghetto to which we may banish persistent flamers may make the n-key last longer for readers of other groups, but the USENET community still has to pay the price for traffic in net.flame (system and telephone costs are the main issue here, and I think net.flame is hurting, rather than helping, us in that area). If we need a ghetto for flamers why not encourage them to carry on their insults by mail instead? Either that, or flammers will be forced to face the fact that flamming generates a lot of heat and little light and people who resort to flamming without restraint or first trying to be reasonable and understand the other's point of veiw, will generally not be taken seriously by most readers. I think that if net.flame weren't around to make justifying the venting of one's spleen all over the net, the users of other groups who don't appreciate flamming will be faced with two choices: 1) Allow flamming to get out of hand and ruin the newsgroup. or 2) Actively discourage flamming as an acceptable mode of communication, while encouraging reasonable tones of discussion. This can be done in a number of creative and reasonable ways if we are willing to work at it. With the existence of net.flame, people are just too lazy to exercise the second option. Net.flame is an irresponsible way to handle irresponsible behaviour. >cut out flame and everyone WILL pay. x% of garbage is input to the net >each day. y% of that garbage is in flame, x% - y% is distributed across >all the other groups. without flame, and large chunk of y% will be added >to the rest of the net. How large? How large was x% before net.flame was created? Without net.flame, y% will be unjustified flammage (hypothetically leaving an acceptable amount x%-y%). You treat these variables as constants, when their value really depends on how comfortable we make the net for flammers. net.flame contributes a lot to that comfort. I would rather have all the 'y%' of supposedly unjustified flame distributed amoung other groups, because if it is unjustified there is more impetus to get the flamers to cut it out and behave. >face facts, if a guy is a schmoe in net.singles, >i go into flame and flame him (or he flames me... whatever). after flame is >gone we'll just sit and flame in singles. and music....and politics... >and religion....and philosophy...and....... Well, you don't go straight to net.flame do you? Each of you battles a few rounds in net.singles first (perhaps cross posting to net.flame). By the time others get mad enough to tell you to keep it in net.flame, a good part of the dammage has been done, and the net still continues to pay for the subsequent traffic you generate in net.flame. Besides, we could more easily think of other scenarios than the one you give. Mail the schmoe a letter instead of posting it and encourage others to take the same route. Try ignoring him. Flamming arguments have to end somewhere. Sometimes we need to be big enough to let the schmoe have the last word in the interest of civility (even when the schmoe is wrong). If you really care about setting the guy right a letter might be just as effective. If he's not open to reason, he's not worth arguing with (or listening to). Let's all get some practice at swallowing our pride, shall we? It might do us some good. > your choice, be an idiot, or wake up and smell the coffee. > > ron > >ps: notice the sarcastic, mild flame tone in this letter? that is because >it is in flame. if there was no flame, this letter would have to be in >a "regular group," except *there* it would be sarcastic and have a mild >flame tone. and everyone "else" would be subjected to it. my, what a >neat can of worms to open up for the rest of the net. who's going to >take the blame..er...i mean, be the proud leader of this smart move???? It *is* in a "regular group" (cross posted to net.news.group). -- Paul Dubuc cbsck!pmd
john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (10/31/85)
>From: rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) >Message-ID: <376@ihdev.UUCP> >Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > >In article <4494@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >>IT'S TIME! I CALL ON NET ADMINISTRATORS WHO WANT THE NET TO >>CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION! > >pull your head out. if there ISN'T a flame, it will rear it's ugly head >in all the other groups. at least in net.* if people get "out of line" you >can say "move this to flame, that's what it's there for," and most of the >time they do. at least now all of us flamer types and pseudo flamers, and >even the jerks (arndt etc.) play in the sandbox here. without flame, the >rest of the USENET community will pay the price. I disagree with that. Much of net.flame is already cross-posted to other groups such as net.politics and net.religion. Those flames would exist with or without net.flame. Also, flames exist independent of net.flame already- try putting a posting in net.micro praising the 80x86 over the 680x0 or vice versa; you will need an asbestos terminal. Rather, net.flame seems to be more like net.bizarre, but with some sort of permission (no, not a raison d'etre). When net.bizarre was first being considered for "official" creation, many worried that by not creating the group, the other net groups would become deluged with postings that should have been in net.bizarre. Well, net.bizarre is now dead (actually, it's most sincerely dead) and none of the deluge has come. I think that the general sensibility of *most* netters is such that they realize that if something is not *that* important and there is no apropriate group, then it may not be worth posting. To say "move this to net.flame, that's what it's there for" is a lot like saying "post it to net.bizarre, they'll like it there". -- Name: John Ruschmeyer US Mail: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Phone: (201) 571-3451 *** NEW NUMBER *** UUCP: ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john ...!princeton!moncol!john ...!pesnta!moncol!john "...I don't imagine being a supernatural being is much fun since people probably would be more reluctant to invite me to parties." - Gene Spafford
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (11/03/85)
> Last Friday, I suggested that net.flame should be removed. > To date, I've received 23 letters about the subject, and the > concensus is 22 DELETE 1 KEEP. Sorry for not responding earlier, but I didn't think anyone would take this person (jj@alice.uucp) seriously. Obviously, I want to keep net.flame. FLAMERS OF THE NET, UNITE! We lost net.bizarre through inaction (or so they keep trying to tell us - remember all those postings about "yes we DID cross-post the deletion discussion to net.bizarre"), don't let it happen to net.flame! -- der Mouse {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse Hacker: One responsible for destroying / Wizard: One responsible for recovering it afterward
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/04/85)
Why not just stop carrying it. Don't bother telling anyone. None of the
flamers would notice anyway.
--
Name: Peter da Silva
Graphic: `-_-'
UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter
IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!petermarco@andromeda.UUCP (Louis Marco) (11/06/85)
I don't believe it: A two-page flame flaming net.flame!
If this is all such a pitiful waste of time, what is your
essay on why net.flame is a stupid, un-needed waste of valuable
resources doing in net.flame using up all the valuable resources?
If you really believed all that stuff about rational discussion,
you would have posted a tasteful, rational article to wherever such
things get posted. Why does someone who feels as you do even read
net.flame? If no one wanted this newsgroup, it seems to me it would
just dry up and disappear.
Lou Marco
CCIS,Rutgers,Newark
(...the usual disclaimers...)