" Maynard) (02/27/90)
In the interests of saving CPU and I/O resources for those who have this topic in their kill files, I'm consolidating replies to the three remaining Richard Sexton Sycophants(tm) in this one posting. First, to Mr. Disinformation himself, Dave Hill: (ref: <59506@ccicpg.UUCP>) In article <K5-+QD&@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: |> In article <59198@ccicpg.UUCP> dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: |> >There was only one aquaria group until the pithy screamers |> >got involved: sci.aquaria. |> Actually, there was only one aquaria group until Richard Sexton went |> nuts: alt.aquaria. Then Richard decided to defraud the admins of the |> net, and create sci.aquaria to improve its distribution. Any claim |> otherwise, when Richard has been documented to say that the improved |> distribution was the reason for sci.*, is disinformation. |The alt group is not the concern of this group. You want to discuss |alt go to alt.config. And take your disinformation with you. You asked for it, you got it, Toyota. Voila! alt.config has now been dragged into the war. That still does not change the fact that there was an aquaria group before the sci.* fraud was even conceived, let alone perpetuated. |And which was it Jay? Did Richard try to create sci.aquaria SIMPLY |to defraud, to maim the Holy Hierarchy of usenet, or was he trying |to create a useful (in his eyes) newsgroup? He wanted a rec group, but he wanted better distribution than rec.* gets, so he chose to defraud the admins of the net by advertising a rec group as a sci group. |Richard was perfectly happy. He went off and started posting in |the new group. Sure, he was happy. He got what he wanted, or so he thought: a rec group with sci distribution. His con job succeeded. |Then the pithy screamers started: | "USENET IS SOILED" "OFF WITH HIS HEAD" Careful...your "pithy screamers" includes nearly all of the true net.pioneers - those who have put man-years into making the net fly. Nearly all of them were opposed to the sci fraud, because it _was_ fraud. |Then Peter goes and whips up (without discussion OR vote ) |REC.aquaria. Chuq von Rospach debunks this one, in <38952@apple.Apple.COM>: |Fact: There was discussion. Fact: there was a vote. Fact: this vote and |discussion were validated by the very same newsgroup administrators who |validated Richard's group. What more can I say? rec.aquaria is legit. |And the pithy screamers continue: | "USENET IS SOILED" "DEATH TO SCI.FISHIES" sci.aquaria DID soil the net. Your attempts to label it as "pithy screaming" don't change the facts. |And now people in news.groups talking about removing an alt |group. An ALT group. Marvelous. This is not the first time people in news.groups have discussed removal of an alt.group; in fact, each time an alt group has been duplicated by a mainstream group, this discussion has cropped up. What makes it so eeeeeeeeevil now? Who died and made you net.defender.of.alt.that.is.holy? |Answer me again: Who's creating the problem here? Richard started the problem; you and the other two Sycophants(tm) are perpetuating it. |> >There was one group. You jokers made the second one. |> There was one group. Richard created the second one, and the third was |> created to try to correct the results of Richard's fraud. Your answer is |> more disinformation. |I'll say it again: Leave the ALT group out of this. |It's alt's concern. |Sci was the FIRST group of concern here. Like it or not, the alt.net is viewed by most of the world as an extension of the mainstream net. This discussion is neither unusual nor unnatural. |And what "fraud" do you keep alluding to? No one has EVER shown |any fraud in any of these discussions. You're being disingenous, or just plain stupid. I've been defining the kind of fraud I mean: defrauding net.admins by placing a rec.group under sci. |But I'm glad to see that you agree that the REC group was created |OUTSIDE the usenet guidelines. I agreed to nothing of the sort. The rec group was created following a more than full and fair discussion, and after a full and fair vote. |> >Now you want to take THREE groups, one of which is NONE OF |> >YOUR CONCERN, and create a single group. |> Actually, the idea is to take two groups, one of which is the product of |> outright fraud, and make one, at which time the need for the third will |> go away. Your comment is disinformation. |Again with the fraud. You an expert or something? The facts don't change. |No Jay, that is not the idea. The idea you people have been |campaigning for is the removal of ALL aquaria groups. You want |the sci group out because Sexton was involved in it's creation. Stop putting words in my mouth. There's an obvious and well-proven need for an aquaria group...at least as much as there is ever a need for a group. The group is properly placed in rec.aquaria. I want the sci group out, not because Richard conned it through, but because it doesn't belong where it is. I'd be just as firm in my opposition if Gene Spafford had done it (but he has much, much, much better sense than to try to con people.) |Jeez, maybe we should take up a collection and get you a bigger disk. Feel free. I won't turn it down. |> >If you want to call for the deletion of a newsgroup let's |> >talk about REC.aquaria, you know, the one that was created |> >without ANY regard to the net.guidelines. |> Your call for deleting the group that fits properly in the hierarchy is |> disinformation. The group was created in regard for the guidelines - |> more so than Richard's group, which was created in violation of the |> guidelines about a name consensus. |It's Mr. Disinformation himself. Jay the BIG LIE won't work here. Then why do you keep trying it? |Rec.aquaria was created without discussion OR vote. Peter held a |poll and when it went HIS way he created rec.aquaria. He and |his ilk IMMEDIATELY began campaigning for the removal of the |sci group. Terabytes of discussion. Probably the single longest, most voluminous discussion in the history of the net about a group; perhaps the biggest on any subject. "Without discussion." Suuuuuure. What do you call a vote? Peter's vote was taken openly and fairly. The results were posted for all to see. The only difference is that nobody went out campaigning for votes to that one. |> sci.aquaria is the group that needs to go away. |NEEDS. Very telling that. What NEED? Demonstrate some NEED. |Show me how sci.aquaria is causing irrepairable damage to usenet. |Explain to me why sci.aquaria has no right to exist. |Thrill me with the NEED to remove sci.aquaria. As much as anything needs to happen on the net...It has no right to exist because it was created fraudulently. |But of course, gathering facts and making decisions based on them |doesn't seem to be your forte. Weeeell...at least I don't try to con people into getting my way. -- Next is the founding Sycophant, John Berryhill: (ref: <12118@nigel.udel.EDU>) |Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. I'll second that. I can't believe that you people are still doing this. |Jay Maynerd is calling for the removal of an alt group in news.groups |and he thinks that his opposition is nutty? Again, this is not the first time this kind of thing has been discussed. Why is it now such a heinous crime? Is it, perchance, because it's YOUR pet ox getting gored? |The ONLY reason that Jay and the ficcites have renewed their clamor over |sci.aquaria is that they know durn well that their chief antagonist's |machine is no longer in service. The minute that I saw that gryphon |was going to the great Usenet in the sky I KNEW that they would try |to pull a fish.boner. While I count the departure of gryphon as, on balance, a Good Thing, I was prepared to let the horse carcass rot in peace. Only after Dave Hill resumed his disinformation campaign did I feel compelled to respond. |Of sci.aquaria and rec.aquaria only sci.aquaria was created in accord |with the commonly accepted guidelines. You guys had your verification |period in which to check out the votes. If you had reason to believe |that there was fraud involved, why didn't you simply verify the votes? |I'll tell you why - because you knew very well that each and every |person on that list knew exactly what they were voting for. Haw. There's better than a misconception per sentence in the preceding paragraph. sci.aquaria ignored a key guideline: There should be a consensus on the name. Richard could have avoided the entire controversy by creating rec.aquaria first, and then doing sci.aquaria if the need existed. Instead, he chose to push for the sci group because it would get better distribution. Yes, there was a verification period; checking out every last vote - even those that had been shamelessly campaigned for - would not have changed the basic fraud, because (as I, among others, have been saying ever since Richard ignored net.consensus and called for sci.aquaria) the fraud was not in the votes counted, but rather in the name of the group itself: it was intended to mislead net.admins into think a group whose contents were recreational in nature was really about hard science. Finally, I don't believe that every one of the 400-odd YES voters really understood the issues involved; most of them simply wanted an aquaria group, and didn't care whether or not it was in the right place. |Do you expect anyone to believe that this is anything other than a pathetic |attempt to get the "last word" in now that gryphon is gone? I do, and already some posters have. Further, that last sentence sounds like you feel inadequate because you don't have the support of the mighty Richard Sexton. (Sycophants need the approval of their leader to feel adequate.) I've even seen postings from rsex@somewhere.or.other that sound like Richard, and had seen some before I wrote the referenced posting; I had assumed that it was Richard himself. (Say HALLELUJAH!) (Blech.) |You should be ashamed of yourself. Why? For refusing to let disinformation pass? -- Finally, for the Sycophant(tm) Sweetheart, Patricia O Tuama: (ref: <18026@rpp386.cactus.org>) (John, I thought you had better sense than that...) |In article <K5-+QD&@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: |>nuts: alt.aquaria. Then Richard decided to defraud the admins of the |>net, and create sci.aquaria to improve its distribution. Any claim |Oh calm down, Jay, no one has ever denied this. Oh yeah? See above. |But tell me something -- why is it wrong to switch from a rec group |to a sci group in order to get better distribution but not wrong to |switch from a talk group to a soc group for exactly the same reason? Which one are you referencing, pray tell? |You're being very hypocritical on this issue which lends credence to |Dave Hill's assertion that the only reason for all this fussing and |fighting about sci.aquaria is because it was Richard Sexton's propo- |sal. It doesn't have anything to do with defrauding anyone. It has |to do with net.politics. How can I be hypocritical when I don't even know what you're talking about? BTW, does this mean you're back to being willing to talk about sci.aquaria? Or are you going to ignore yet another of my responsive answers to your inflammatory questions? -- Just for Jeff Daiell, here's a net.attaboy, to Chuq von Rospach: (ref: <38952@apple.Apple.COM>) (directed to Dave Hill:) |If you're going to accuse people of lying, at least pretend to get your own |facts straight. |>It's Mr. Disinformation himself. |I couldn't have said it better myself. Nor I, Chuq. Tell me, do you write for a living? :-) :-) -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "Klein bottle for sale. Inquire within." - Charles Hannum
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (02/28/90)
In article <CR_+.Z-@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: It's always nice to see someone live up to their handle. > He wanted a rec group, but he wanted better distribution than rec.* > gets, so he chose to defraud the admins of the net by advertising a rec > group as a sci group. Horsie-doodoo, you ignorant splut. Richard said two things: He wanted a serious aquaria group AND better distribution. Where's the fraud you keep screaming about? They're talking SCIENCE in sci.aquaria. Where's the fraud? > Sure, he was happy. He got what he wanted, or so he thought: a rec group > with sci distribution. His con job succeeded. Better than that. He got a SCI group for serious discussion AND a REC group for the more hobby minded. > |Then the pithy screamers started: > | "USENET IS SOILED" "OFF WITH HIS HEAD" > > Careful...your "pithy screamers" includes nearly all of the true > net.pioneers - those who have put man-years into making the net fly. > Nearly all of them were opposed to the sci fraud, because it _was_ > fraud. I don't care if they wired the net with their own veins, they are screaming needlessly. I'll ask you one more time as you seem to be incredibly dense: What fraud? Let us in on your little secret. Tell us JUST WHAT you're talking about, rather than running around like Chicken Little screaming "fraud fraud the USENET sky is falling." > |Then Peter goes and whips up (without discussion OR vote ) > |REC.aquaria. > > Chuq von Rospach debunks this one, in <38952@apple.Apple.COM>: > > |Fact: There was discussion. Fact: there was a vote. Fact: this vote and > |discussion were validated by the very same newsgroup administrators who > |validated Richard's group. > > What more can I say? rec.aquaria is legit. I am not the only person on the net that has challanged this. Many others remember precisely what happened. The rec group WAS created WITHOUT DISCUSSION or VOTE. Talk about FRAUD. Talk about disimformation, you guys are bloody gold medalists. > This is not the first time people in news.groups have discussed removal > of an alt.group; in fact, each time an alt group has been duplicated by > a mainstream group, this discussion has cropped up. What makes it so > eeeeeeeeevil now? Who died and made you net.defender.of.alt.that.is.holy? So they were WRONG then and you're WRONG now. Why am I not surprised that you can't see that? > You're being disingenous, or just plain stupid. I've been defining the > kind of fraud I mean: defrauding net.admins by placing a rec.group under > sci. AHA! Finally. Hey ace, have you READ the sci group yet? Oh, you don't carry it, huh? Too bad, they seem to be talking REAL science there. Sure it has to do with breeds of fish, oxygenation of water, solubility of trace elements in water, plant species and their various lighting problems/solutions but HEY THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. Chemistry, physics biology but it sure as HELL ain't science, huh? > I agreed to nothing of the sort. The rec group was created following a > more than full and fair discussion, and after a full and fair vote. That is a complete and utter LIE. There was NO formal discussion for the creation of rec.aquaria, and NO formal vote. I'll say it again: There was a discussion about the lack of discussion. There was a POLL that was supposed to gather OPINION about the group NAME. It was NEVER a FORMAL VOTE. > Stop putting words in my mouth. Why? Peter and Chuq do it all the time. Dave
rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) (03/01/90)
In article <CR_+.Z-@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >Finally, for the Sycophant(tm) Sweetheart, Patricia O Tuama: Ahhhhh, how nice. Hey, Richard, did you see this? >Which one are you referencing, pray tell? Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you read news.groups on a regular basis. Those of us who do know I was referring to soc.religion.eastern which started off as a talk group and was switched to a soc group in order to get better distribution. The vote on this just ended a week ago, Jay. Where have you been? >BTW, does this mean you're back to being willing to talk about >sci.aquaria? No, it doesn't, dear. I would like to know, however, why you're being such a hypocrite about this business with distribution. Your primary argument turns on the notion that s.a is fraudulent because it "cheats" unsuspecting sysadmins by causing them to pay for a rec group as part of the sci hierarchy. I would like to know why you're not just as concerned about unsuspecting sysadmins having to pay for a talk group as part of the soc hierarchy. . t r i s h a o t u a m a just another Sycophant(tm) Sweetheart on the Usenet of Life
jcoper@ccu.umanitoba.ca (03/01/90)
In article <31@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) writes her .sig as: > . > t r i s h a o t u a m a > just another Sycophant(tm) Sweetheart > on the Usenet of Life Hi Trisha... no one's been nice to you in a while so I figured I just say a friendly "Hi." Hi! Well, enough of that... Catch you all later. Joe.
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (03/02/90)
rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you read news.groups on a regular basis. > Those of us who do know I was referring to soc.religion.eastern > which started off as a talk group and was switched to a soc group > in order to get better distribution. Actually, the relevant fact was that it was MODERATED, so it belonged with the other moderated soc.religion groups and not with the unmoderated talk.religion groups. What's the point of a free-speech hierarchy if there's a potential censor in charge of each group? -Dan Veditz dveditz@dbase.A-T.com Vote NO on moderated talk.* groups { uunet | ncar!cepu }!ashtate!dveditz
okunewck@shire.cs.psu.edu (Phil OKunewick) (03/03/90)
In article <449@dbase.A-T.COM> dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) writes: >What's the point of a free-speech hierarchy if there's a potential >censor in charge of each group? Hi. Would you care to provide us a list of moderators who are warping the discussion, by censoring articles that disagree with ther views? I'm having a hard time finding any. (Clue: A censor feels that truth is bad. A moderator feels that irrelevant drivel is bad. There's a slight difference there.) If you post something in rec.humor, I'm not going to read it. Not that it isn't funny; I just don't feel like wading through the 95% crud to find the 5% humor (it *is* rec.humor, y'know). If you mail it to Brad and it's actually funny, I will see it. Brad is a (*gasp!*) moderator. But because of him, I'm more likely to hear what you have to say. Can this "censorship" actually be enhancing your freedom of speech? Do you still want to post drivel? You can still do it! Try alt.stupidity, alt.flame, rec.humor, alt.rissa... Now: Do you still feel that you are being censored by these moderators? If so, then why do you want to infringe on *MY* right to read things that interest me, by cluttering my favorite newsgroups with trash? -- ---Phil (This is yet another self-referential .signature .)