jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/03/90)
In article <1990Nov2.191240.4568@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >In article <18667@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >>And as always, I'd love to say more, but I can't. > >"I have here a list..." Eric, you are such an incredible dick. Try reading this, then tell me if you think continuing to run off at the mouth about Len Rose is such a hot idea. Gee, let's all speculate about why Len got busted. Gee, let's all speculate about why Len got fired. Let's try for some NEW rumours, surely the old one are tired and worn out by now. "Speculations here about Len's guilt or innocence will only hurt him. No one who has posted so far has the full facts about this case, which makes such speculation particularly irresponsible, in my opinion." I didn't write this, but repeatedly when I ask people to BE QUIET all I get is this stupid "are you threatening to sue me?" "why don't you just sue me?" "I have here a list..." bullshit. GET A CLUE. LISTEN TO YOUR RESIDENT ATTORNEY AND QUIT SPECULATING ABOUT LEN. Greg Hennessey wrote that if I want to be part of the solution that I should stop posting so much. I wrote Greg a letter saying he should cancel his posting. Now, which one of those two statements follows the advice in the above paragraph best? Greg speculating about why Len was fired, or my asking people to quit speculating? Now, how many of you want Len's legal problems to drag on a few more months so you can gossip and rumourmonger amongst yourselves? Would everyone in favor of making matters worse for Len please post another article on this topic, and please, add a little extra "conjecture" and "speculation" and of course, don't "self censor" yourself. Can't give the appearance of acting in a responsible fashion, now can we? -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/03/90)
In article <6767@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> ereiamjh@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Tom B. O'Toole) writes: >If you want to be part of the solution John, why don't you stop >continuing to post incessantly?? Sure Tom, just as soon as you stop dragging me into your little discussions. Get a clue, Tom. I'll go away just as soon as you people stop insisting that I be involved in your discussions. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
a577@mindlink.UUCP (Curt Sampson) (11/04/90)
> al@crucible.UUCP (Al Evans) writes: > > So the question is valid: How DO we, here at the forefront of the future, > resolve such differences within the anarchy? Perhaps the kill file is > the ultimate weapon? Either that or those of use who have had our honor besmirched will put together a few worms and viri and send them off to our opponent's computer. God forbid. cjs -- Curt_Sampson@mindlink.UUCP (Vancouver, B.C., Canada) {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Curt_Sampson curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca BBS: +1 604 687 6736
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) (11/04/90)
In article <18684@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <1990Nov2.191240.4568@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >>In article <18667@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >>>And as always, I'd love to say more, but I can't. >>"I have here a list..." >Eric, you are such an incredible dick. I know you are, but what am I? > Try reading this, then >tell me if you think continuing to run off at the mouth about >Len Rose is such a hot idea. I never said it was or wasn't. I just commented on the nebulous "Gosh, if I could tell you the *secret*, you'd agree with me"-type statements you've made in the past couple of weeks. -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Manager - University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 EastEnders list: eastender@karazm.math.uh.edu Skate UNIX(r)
joe@zitt (Joe Zitt) (11/04/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > In article <6767@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> ereiamjh@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Tom B. O'To > >If you want to be part of the solution John, why don't you stop > >continuing to post incessantly?? > > Sure Tom, just as soon as you stop dragging me into your little > discussions. Get a clue, Tom. I'll go away just as soon as you > people stop insisting that I be involved in your discussions. "Mommy! Johnny's posting again!" "It's not my fault, Mommy! Tommy posted first!" Joe Zitt ...cs.utexas.edu!kvue!zitt!joe (512)450-1916
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (11/04/90)
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >>jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >>>rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >>>>And as always, I'd love to say more, but I can't. >>>"I have here a list..." >>Eric, you are such an incredible dick. >I know you are, but what am I? So, this is the Electronic Frontier? Based upon what I have seen lately, it looks like a pretty barren landscape where not much will grow (up!). At least in the American Frontier of the last century, this kind of discussion would lead out into the street where it would be settled in short order so that the rest of us could get back into the saloon to finish our drinks. I can see it now, <fade to a barroom scene, with a number of cowpokes drinkin' and playin' cards. At the bar, standing a few feet from each other, are two cowboys. They are NOT discussing the latest stockyard report.> "Bart, you are such an incredible dick!" <The piano player stops playin' and all eyes are on the two cowboys.> "I know you are, bu" <BLAM> <BLAM> <One of the cowboys slumps to the floor. The other finishes his whiskey, takes one glance around around and turns back to the bartender. Everyone else goes back to playin' cards and drinkin' while the piano player starts up again.> <fade back to the present where everyone is hunched in front of a CRT of one sort or another.> I know that it has occurred to people that not all types of communications can be handled via newsgroups or electronic mail. Especially in our current primitive state, there is just no way for one person (or side) to WIN. But then, we have not developed a graceful way to extricate oneself from such a feud with honor. One of the factors contributing to the decline of shoot outs in the street was probably prosecution of the "winner" on any of a number of charges. The "loser", in fatal shootings at least, would fail to partake in any future shoot outs. Perhaps, some sort of "prosecution" of the combatants is needed? And then, once justice has been meted out, the participants would be left alone to see the error in their past behaviour and would not be bombarded with secondary and tertiary postings from others. Of course, that implies a central authority, or a set of authorities adhering to a written code. And, I can guess most peoples' opinion on that subject. Oh, well! I was just thinking. Now, back to the captivating exchange. /craig
al@crucible.UUCP (Al Evans) (11/04/90)
In article <1990Nov4.031734.19127@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >So, this is the Electronic Frontier? Based upon what I have seen lately, it >looks like a pretty barren landscape where not much will grow (up!). >At least in the American Frontier of the last century, this kind of discussion >would lead out into the street where it would be settled in short order so that >the rest of us could get back into the saloon to finish our drinks. Actually, it seems to me like this is a *good* place for this discussion, juvenile though it be. After all, why do you think we call it the *frontier*, podnuh?:-) But *any* society needs mechanisms for adjusting differences, even stupid differences. And for this very new sort of society, it seems evident that those means do NOT involve appeals to authority of any sort, whether lawsuits or sixguns (appeals to sysadmins are discounted as being useful only due to temporary anomalies in the distribution of technology:-) So the question is valid: How DO we, here at the forefront of the future, resolve such differences within the anarchy? Perhaps the kill file is the ultimate weapon? --Al Evans-- -- Al Evans -- uunet!execu!sequoia!crucible!al Though pride may be the most dangerous of sins, self-righteousness is surely the most obnoxious.
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov3.193714.4223@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >I never said it was or wasn't. I just commented on the nebulous >"Gosh, if I could tell you the *secret*, you'd agree with me"-type >statements you've made in the past couple of weeks. perhaps i am following an attorney's advice and not talking about certain matters, the discussion of which will only make things worse for those persons directly involved. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (11/06/90)
In article <284@crucible.UUCP> al@crucible.UUCP (Al Evans) writes: >But *any* society needs mechanisms for adjusting differences, even stupid >differences. And for this very new sort of society, it seems evident that >those means do NOT involve appeals to authority of any sort, whether lawsuits >or sixguns (appeals to sysadmins are discounted as being useful only due >to temporary anomalies in the distribution of technology:-) But the mechanisms that are evolving or are in use are extremely inefficient and still do not produce a resolution to the conflict. The examples provided by just a few of the recent conflicts provide a good variety: 1. The DDMI newsgroup moderation problem evolving into a e-mail war. Quite a bit of modem time spent on that one, eh? And, although there has been moderated behaviour by DDMI, if I were certain people involved in this one, I wouldn't turn my back. 2. The posting of copyrighted material that seems kind of tame on the surface, but is just the kind of issue that can cause major problem for certain sites. In the current environment, this sort of issue could be the one the S.S. is looking for. After all, the government might be a little pissed after the 911 case was dismissed. There will be lots of mail and postings sent over this and they will not modify behaviour one bit. 3. The current "I'm gonna sue" conflict which is generating lots of heat, but little light. If I were going to sue somebody, I would DO IT. Not write about it in a public forum. I would definitely not post any further articles related to the issue and I might possibly not post anything until the suit were settled. > >So the question is valid: How DO we, here at the forefront of the future, >resolve such differences within the anarchy? Perhaps the kill file is >the ultimate weapon? > --Al Evans-- Network traffic certainly would be reduced once everyone got into everyone else's kill file. No, I am certain that all of the folks involved on both sides of the conflicts listed above truly believed that they were IN THE RIGHT and that the posters on the other side were evil, vile, people bent on destroying them and all that they hold dear. And the problem is that there is no higher authority to which the matter could be passed for judgement. No Solomon. No Bible. No Magna Carta. No Constitution. Just some references to Usenet Guidelines. The guidelines may be a start. But the reason legislators attach punishments to laws that are passed is that they realize that not everyone is going to be reasonable all of the time. So, we end up with postings flying fast and furious in every which direction. After the first several dozen, it doesn't matter what is in them as long there are several remarks pointing out the lack of mental facilities by the opposing party. I am not saying discussion is bad. Or that heated discussion and conflict are bad. Hell, I enjoy the inanities as much as the next person. What I am trying to say is that we need to develop a way to deal with these issues, so that they do not get out of hand. The network needs to continue growing and the users need to grow with it. /craig
mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov4.031734.19127@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >... there is just no way for one person (or side) to WIN. ... we have >not developed a graceful way to extricate oneself from such a feud with >honor. Not for the participants, perhaps, but there's a way for the innocent bystanders to "make the fight not exist." KILL files. >Perhaps, some sort of "prosecution" of the combatants is needed? /haugh/a:j will exterminate all sides of this nonsense. (Alas, like the loser in a Wild West gunfight, John's sensible articles will bite the dust, too.) >Of course, that implies a central authority, Nope. Each individual can set his/her own threshold of loss of patience. -- Mike Van Pelt | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Headland Technology | Judging from realistic simulations involving a (was: Video Seven) | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
al@crucible.UUCP (Al Evans) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov6.030346.11113@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >And the problem is that there is no higher authority to which >the matter could be passed for judgement. No Solomon. No Bible. No Magna >Carta. No Constitution. Just some references to Usenet Guidelines. The >guidelines may be a start. But the reason legislators attach punishments to >laws that are passed is that they realize that not everyone is going to be >reasonable all of the time. I'm not at all certain you intended to imply what I thought I saw:-) But if you're saying you believe there should be some higher structure, some "organization" governing the net, then I disagree. I'd rather filter through 4 megs a day of utter drivel than to lose the only "working" anarchy I've ever heard of. And I'm *certain* I wouldn't want everybody on the net to be "reasonable" all the time. I'd rather be exposed to some daily quota of utter raving lunatics -- at least it helps me to firm up my own views (which are, of course, always reasonable:-) The net is the first human society in which everybody has the same quality of weapons -- which is to say, none at all. I think the introduction of ANY "weapon" -- even a legislative or executive authority -- would be, at best, an attempt to stuff worms back into the can. Failing *new* ideas, I suspect ostracism is the only workable technique of enforcing any standards of behavior. --Al Evans-- -- Al Evans -- uunet!execu!sequoia!crucible!al Though pride may be the most dangerous of sins, self-righteousness is surely the most obnoxious.
harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.Co.jp (Alton Harkcom) (11/08/90)
In article <18684@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: =}but repeatedly when I ask people to =}BE QUIET all I get is this stupid "are you threatening to =}sue me?" "why don't you just sue me?" "I have here a =}list..." bullshit. GET A CLUE. LISTEN TO YOUR RESIDENT =}ATTORNEY AND QUIT SPECULATING ABOUT LEN. I've got an idea about ending this thread. Everyone who got a note from Mr. Haugh (whether it was a threat or shut up or not) send him email saying "Please be quiet Mr.Haugh." and then only posting email responses to any future posts in this thread... -- -- $@2#2OEE5!3t<02q<R(J PA$@#15;#22](J TEL 0422-52-5748 FAX 0422-55-1728 E-mail harkcom@pa.yokogawa.co.jp
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (11/08/90)
In article <288@crucible.UUCP> al@crucible.UUCP (Al Evans) writes: >In article <1990Nov6.030346.11113@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > >>And the problem is that there is no higher authority to which >>the matter could be passed for judgement. No Solomon. No Bible. No Magna >>Carta. No Constitution. Just some references to Usenet Guidelines. The >>guidelines may be a start. But the reason legislators attach punishments to >>laws that are passed is that they realize that not everyone is going to be >>reasonable all of the time. > >I'm not at all certain you intended to imply what I thought I saw:-) >But if you're saying you believe there should be some higher structure, >some "organization" governing the net, then I disagree. I'd rather filter >through 4 megs a day of utter drivel than to lose the only "working" >anarchy I've ever heard of. The Usenet is NOT an anarchy. No matter how many times you click your heels and say it, the Usenet is not an anarchy. The alt.* network comes closer to being an anarchy, but even there, there are guidelines being formulated and "enforced". The Usenet has even more rules and regulations and policies and procedures and guidelines. And they are remarkably well observed by the vast majority of the users of the network. The closest the Usenet gets to anarchy is when someone violates a guideline and everyone comes out of the woodwork to beat them back into submission to those guidelines. This mob rule is usually quite effective. However, it is not very efficient in terms of time and money. It can take a long time to resolve the conflict which translates to megabytes of data moving amonst the nodes. These megabytes when multiplied by the number of nodes are actually gigabytes of data being stored and forwarded. I guess the point that I am trying to make here, is that, I don't believe that this society can advance given the inefficiencies. If it doesn't advance, it will peak (has peaked?). And then, like all great societies before it, it will decline. The decline will not nessesarily be precipitated by only internal forces. This society operates within a larger society which can, and has, had impact on the smaller group. >And I'm *certain* I wouldn't want everybody >on the net to be "reasonable" all the time. I'd rather be exposed to some >daily quota of utter raving lunatics -- at least it helps me to firm up >my own views (which are, of course, always reasonable:-) Do not confuse my ramblings with a call for sanity. I also believe that there should be groups that can provide a safety valve against a build up of reasonableness. And there are groups and networks for this. I feel that BIFF is funny and harmless. And I know where to go when I need a dose of BIFF. But I don't want BIFF and his clones erupting all over. >The net is the first human society in which everybody has the same quality >of weapons -- which is to say, none at all. I think the introduction of >ANY "weapon" -- even a legislative or executive authority -- would be, >at best, an attempt to stuff worms back into the can. Failing *new* >ideas, I suspect ostracism is the only workable technique of enforcing >any standards of behavior. > --Al Evans-- I am afraid that I must disagree about the weapons being equal. Being several modem connections away from the Internet backbone, my firing rate is at musket level while those on the backbone have a machine gun rate. With respect to authority, there IS some authority in the guidelines and the adherence most sites give to them. But it is not sufficient to prevent the worst violators of the guidelines from causing a lot of disruptions. Rules and laws really only exist when they prevent you from doing something you want to do. /craig
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (11/09/90)
This thread reminds me what happens in my Latin I class at school. My teacher
gets mad at all the freshmen sitting on one side of the room to be quiet. Then
they start arguing over who was talking. (And being loud about it)
--
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
a577@mindlink.UUCP (Curt Sampson) (11/09/90)
> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org writes: > > In article <HARKCOM.90Nov8083014@potato.pa.Yokogawa.Co.jp> > harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.Co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes: > > I've got an idea about ending this thread. Everyone who got a note > >from Mr. Haugh (whether it was a threat or shut up or not) send him > >email saying "Please be quiet Mr.Haugh." and then only posting email > >responses to any future posts in this thread... > > Is there something naturally stupid about this guys response? No. As a matter of fact, that seems to be the best thing to do in a situation like this. If everybody sends their replies by email it means that the newsgroup doesn't get clogged. Getting hundreds of messages in your mailbox saying "Stop that!" is a time-honored usenet tradition, and one of the methods of "popular control" that works well in an anarchy. This, of course, is MHO. If you agree or disagree, feel free to email me. If there's any significant number of replies I'll summarise to the net. cjs -- Curt_Sampson@mindlink.UUCP (Vancouver, B.C., Canada) {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Curt_Sampson curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/09/90)
In article <HARKCOM.90Nov8083014@potato.pa.Yokogawa.Co.jp> harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.Co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes: > I've got an idea about ending this thread. Everyone who got a note >from Mr. Haugh (whether it was a threat or shut up or not) send him >email saying "Please be quiet Mr.Haugh." and then only posting email >responses to any future posts in this thread... Is there something naturally stupid about this guys response? Perhaps it requires a little context from his previous posting - In article <HARKCOM.90Nov7124816@potato.pa.Yokogawa.Co.jp> harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.Co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes: > (Sorry to bring up an old post, but our feed is still in time warp ;-) Right. "sorry it took ME so long to join in, but it looked like such a good time i could hardly resist". Anyone want to bet money that this guy went to PSU? Hammer. Nail. Thumb. Whack! -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
dave@convex.csd.uwm.edu (David A Rasmussen) (11/11/90)
#### ###
##### ##### %%%%%%%%%%%%%
#### |###| |#### %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
##### \ | | \ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\ \ | \ \ \ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
## \ \ \ \ \ \ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
#### \ \ \ \ \ \ / %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\ \ \ \ | | | | | %%%%%%%%%%%%%
\ \ \ | | | / | \@@@@@ /%%%%%%%%%
\ \ | \ / \/ | <*>-- //// %%%%%
\ | / | / (__/ //| %%
| \/ | / //( )
/ / / /// \ |
| | ____ | /// \ /
| \ ___/ |-- / ////// ^^
| |----/ || ) /////////
\ /---- \___/*\ ////////////////
\ / /////////////
\ --/ ////////////
\ / (------->/////
\ / /////////////
| | ////////////////
| | ///////////////____
| | /
--
Dave Rasmussen - Systems Programmer/Manager, UW-Milwaukee Computing Svcs Div.
Internet:dave@uwm.edu, Uucp:uwm!dave, Bitnet:dave%uwm.edu@INTERBIT
AT&T:414-229-5133 USmail:Box 413 EMS380,Milwaukee,WI 53201david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov8.133951.7304@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >In article <288@crucible.UUCP> al@crucible.UUCP (Al Evans) writes: >>In article <1990Nov6.030346.11113@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >>The net is the first human society in which everybody has the same quality >>of weapons -- which is to say, none at all. I think the introduction of >>ANY "weapon" -- even a legislative or executive authority -- would be, >>at best, an attempt to stuff worms back into the can. Failing *new* >>ideas, I suspect ostracism is the only workable technique of enforcing >>any standards of behavior. >> --Al Evans-- > >I am afraid that I must disagree about the weapons being equal. Being several >modem connections away from the Internet backbone, my firing rate is at musket >level while those on the backbone have a machine gun rate. There isn't even a lack of weaponry .. This recent flap over DDMI.COM showed some examples. There was at least one e-mail bombing of the site. A simple shell script is enough to bomb somebody. A death-threat was made -- a shell script (less than 20 lines) was written which, if installed at an active & well-connected site, would effectively kill off any attempt by that site to make any postings. Those were despite the normal conversational weapons of calling each other names. So, there are weapons. As the technologies improve surely the weapons will be more deadly. >With respect to authority, there IS some authority in the guidelines and the >adherence most sites give to them. The fortunate thing about what authority there is, is that it was mutually agreed to & debated/fought-over in public & was (in all ways) a Community Decision. Those who were interested enough partook, those who weren't have to live with the results. -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- Use the force Wes!
karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu (11/20/90)
david@twg.com writes:
This recent flap over DDMI.COM...
A death-threat was made -- a shell script (less than 20 lines) was
written which, if installed at an active & well-connected site,
would effectively kill off any attempt by that site to make any
postings.
It's 28 lines; 18 of it is the ed(1) stuff to turn a posting into a
cancellation of itself. The rest is framework for deciding whether to
cancel and so forth.
But the script was largely an exercise, and the suggestion was never
intended to be taken nearly as seriously as it was. Nor did I make
the original threat; I just created an implementation of the threat.king@motcid.UUCP (Steven King) (11/21/90)
In article <8313@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >The fortunate thing about what authority there is, is that it was >mutually agreed to & debated/fought-over in public & was (in all >ways) a Community Decision. Those who were interested enough >partook, those who weren't have to live with the results. A Community Decision? You mean, as in a Commune? You mean, as in Communism!?!?!? "I have a list..." (It's a joke, son, a JOKE! :-) -- ---------------------------------------------------+--------------------------- Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all | Steven King four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, | Motorola Cellular sugar, and fat. (Alex Levine) | ...uunet!motcid!king
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (11/21/90)
In article <8313@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >In article I write: >>With respect to authority, there IS some authority in the guidelines and the >>adherence most sites give to them. >The fortunate thing about what authority there is, is that it was >mutually agreed to & debated/fought-over in public & was (in all >ways) a Community Decision. Those who were interested enough >partook, those who weren't have to live with the results. This sounds suspiciously like some democracies I know. /craig
cat@tygra.ddmi.com (CAT-TALK Maint. Account) (11/21/90)
In article <KARL.90Nov20091321@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: "david@twg.com writes: " This recent flap over DDMI.COM... " A death-threat was made -- a shell script (less than 20 lines) was " written which, if installed at an active & well-connected site, " would effectively kill off any attempt by that site to make any " postings. " Hmmm. No death threat as far as I can tell. "It's 28 lines; 18 of it is the ed(1) stuff to turn a posting into a "cancellation of itself. The rest is framework for deciding whether to "cancel and so forth. " "But the script was largely an exercise, and the suggestion was never "intended to be taken nearly as seriously as it was. Nor did I make "the original threat; I just created an implementation of the threat. Yes - I could take such a script and make it do the following: -- Look for any cancellation messages of articles belonging to this site but not originating (the cancel message, that is) from the original poster. -- Add the address of the poster of the cancel message to the database. -- Cancel any and all articles coming from that address as punishment for censorship. Of course, I haven't written such a script. It would just be an "exercise". ;->
karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu (11/22/90)
cat@tygra.ddmi.com writes:
Yes - I could take such a script and make it do the following:
-- Look for any cancellation messages of articles belonging
to this site but not originating (the cancel message, that
is) from the original poster.
-- Add the address of the poster of the cancel message to the
database.
-- Cancel any and all articles coming from that address as
punishment for censorship.
You misunderstand, Mr Palmer.
The death-sentence script generates cancellations that cannot be
distinguished as being from anyone other than the genuine originator.
The cancellations will never even get to your site for analysis,
because the Path: header, providing an audit trail for where an
article claims to have been, will prevent your feed site from sending
them to you. They could even be injected at your feed site, where
they would certainly appear to have come from your site.
Assuming you could get around this rather fundamental assumption in
all incantations of news software, getting the cancellations in
question to your site, you (at your site; no one else) could detect
that they did not in fact originate locally, by noticing that you're
executing rnews rather than inews on articles with Message-ID:
<*@*.ddmi.com> headers. But the addresses contained in the article
appear to be from your own site anyway.
Because of this, adding "the address of the poster of the cancel
message" to your auto-anti-censorship cancel generator would simply
inflict a deeper form of death-sentence on yourself.
Hari-kari by Usenet.
Poetic justice, and all that.
But not to worry; the version I wrote has a bug. It cancels its own
cancellations, ad infinitum. :-)seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (11/24/90)
In article <KARL.90Nov20091321@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >david@twg.com writes: >>This recent flap over DDMI.COM... >>A death-threat was made -- a shell script (less than 20 lines) was >>written which, if installed at an active & well-connected site, >>would effectively kill off any attempt by that site to make any >>postings. In most cases, sysadms tend to be fairly level-headed people, and are the ones called upon to deal with clients (i.e., people using the machine) who are in somway being unreasonable. In the case of ddmi, the sysadm was the one people considered being unreasonable, so what is to happen? And, of course, the postmaster at ddmi's feed wasn't terribly levelheaded either (I was on the receiving end of some of the unlevelheadedness, quite possibly justifiably). That's why the "death threat" was made. But, like most cases like this, it blew over, largely because most single sites are not capable of dealing with the wrath of 100+ people worldwide 8-). But what's going to happen next time? Say JJ manages, deity knows how, to get enough money to buy a cheap '386 and get a newsfeed from uunet, and then starts posting his trash again. What will the collective anarchy do then? -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "*Never* knock on Death's door: ring the bell and seanf@sco.COM | run away! Death hates that!" uunet!sco!seanf | -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor") (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.