admin: can this disgusting stuff be deleted?

lu****@nowhere.zz wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly.

Sorry buddy, but you (or the other guy) probably just responded to a troll.

This troll is a combination of trying to get people into a website, and also
to "pretend" to be a concerned citizen, in the hope of sparking a
cross-posted threat that will probably degenerate into a flame war sooner or
later.

Just don't answer messages like this, and learn to recognise the fakes that
are also a troll. I'm ashamed to be responding, but the only REAL weapon
against trolls is to ignore them; but that requires everyone to know when
they should stay away from the Reply button.

One of my other favourite newsgroups has just been torn to shreds by a few
trolls working together. It also affected a number of other completely
unrelated newsgroups that were cross-posted to. The thing that destroyed all
the newsgroups was the counter-arguments and angry responses which flooded
them all, multiplied in a chain reaction and completely drowned out the real
content of all the groups involved. Within a week, virtually all normal
postings to the group had ceased. Taking a troll message or a fake message
troll seriously is a very dangerous thing.

Just Don't Get Involved (except *maybe* to try to calm down and educate
other people who post troll-victim responses - shrug, I don't know if this
message will work)

Nov 12 '05 #4

lurban

Perhaps you are the troll, BUDDY.

Strangely, Brad has posted to these groups before on a technical/help basis, his
website is active, and he is actually the owner and admin for his domain name.
You, on the other hand, are totally new to any of the newsgroups that I
subscribe to.
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:48:09 +1000, "Andrew Hamm" <ah***@mail.com> wrote:

lu****@nowhere.zz wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly.

Sorry buddy, but you (or the other guy) probably just responded to a troll.

This troll is a combination of trying to get people into a website, and also
to "pretend" to be a concerned citizen, in the hope of sparking a
cross-posted threat that will probably degenerate into a flame war sooner or
later.

Just don't answer messages like this, and learn to recognise the fakes that
are also a troll. I'm ashamed to be responding, but the only REAL weapon
against trolls is to ignore them; but that requires everyone to know when
they should stay away from the Reply button.

One of my other favourite newsgroups has just been torn to shreds by a few
trolls working together. It also affected a number of other completely
unrelated newsgroups that were cross-posted to. The thing that destroyed all
the newsgroups was the counter-arguments and angry responses which flooded
them all, multiplied in a chain reaction and completely drowned out the real
content of all the groups involved. Within a week, virtually all normal
postings to the group had ceased. Taking a troll message or a fake message
troll seriously is a very dangerous thing.

Just Don't Get Involved (except *maybe* to try to calm down and educate
other people who post troll-victim responses - shrug, I don't know if this
message will work)

Nov 12 '05 #5

lu****@nowhere.zz wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly.

Nov 12 '05 #6

lu****@nowhere.zz wrote:

Perhaps you are the troll, BUDDY.

Strangely, Brad has posted to these groups before on a technical/help
basis, his website is active, and he is actually the owner and admin
for his domain name. You, on the other hand, are totally new to any
of the newsgroups that I subscribe to.

Welcome from comp.databases.informix then. I was thinkin about adding my
source ng, but that was after I clicked the send. I just found out recently
that I'm in the top 10 all-time posters in c.d.i, and almost half of my
postings are even thoughtful (I like to believe). One day soonish i might
get started in a db2 group (IBM buyout of Informix and all that) but less
likely to join the others as far as I can see my future.

Maybe this nice guy Brad got sucked in then. I know we both have - fom the
evidence. I recently got that message a few times through other sources. I
don't pay attention of course so I can't recognise it's entire format.

I'm so ****** off at the damage to my other-mentioned favourite ng that I'm
imagining spilling the blood of trolls and spammers this week. But netnews
has absolutely no security beyond the goodwill of the participants, and that
is clearly way too optimistic for this sorry world.

Let's not justify the trolls existence any more. Sorry I got involved.
Pleased to meet you Lurban, Brad and everyone else out there who is
thoughtful enough not to get involved - apologies to you. I think all the
database groups should get together on a regular basis for beer and bbq, but
everyone would have to promise not to start shouting at each other :-)

Kirk out.
Beam me up Scotty.

Nov 12 '05 #7

lurban

lu****@nowhere.zz wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly.

Sorry buddy, but you (or the other guy) probably just responded to a troll.

This troll is a combination of trying to get people into a website, and also
to "pretend" to be a concerned citizen, in the hope of sparking a
cross-posted threat that will probably degenerate into a flame war sooner or
later.

Just don't answer messages like this, and learn to recognise the fakes that
are also a troll. I'm ashamed to be responding, but the only REAL weapon
against trolls is to ignore them; but that requires everyone to know when
they should stay away from the Reply button.

One of my other favourite newsgroups has just been torn to shreds by a few
trolls working together. It also affected a number of other completely
unrelated newsgroups that were cross-posted to. The thing that destroyed all
the newsgroups was the counter-arguments and angry responses which flooded
them all, multiplied in a chain reaction and completely drowned out the real
content of all the groups involved. Within a week, virtually all normal
postings to the group had ceased. Taking a troll message or a fake message
troll seriously is a very dangerous thing.

Just Don't Get Involved (except *maybe* to try to calm down and educate
other people who post troll-victim responses - shrug, I don't know if this
message will work)

Nov 12 '05 #8

lu****@nowhere.zz wrote:

Perhaps you are the troll, BUDDY.

Strangely, Brad has posted to these groups before on a technical/help
basis, his website is active, and he is actually the owner and admin
for his domain name. You, on the other hand, are totally new to any
of the newsgroups that I subscribe to.

Nov 12 '05 #9

"Andrew Hamm" <ah***@mail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-79573.news.uni-berlin.de...

lu****@nowhere.zz wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly.
Sorry buddy, but you (or the other guy) probably just responded to a

troll.
This troll is a combination of trying to get people into a website, and also to "pretend" to be a concerned citizen, in the hope of sparking a
cross-posted threat that will probably degenerate into a flame war sooner or later.

Andrew,

I actually read this ng and participate sometimes. I'm not a troll.
Normally, I ignore all the ng spam just like you but this stuff is getting
unacceptable. I don't know the details of how a newsgroup is monitored, but
there must be an administrator somewhere. IMO, that person should delete
this crap soon after it's posted. It's not only disgusting but way off
topic.

For anybody that's interested, a person responded to me personally about my
post and gave me a really good tip on munging an email address. Always
munge the right (domain) side of the address to reduce the load on your
domain's mail server. With a munged domain name the mail server never
receives it.

--
Brad Kunkel
Integrated Business, Inc.

Nov 12 '05 #10

"Andrew Hamm" <ah***@mail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-79573.news.uni-berlin.de...

lu****@nowhere.zz wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly.
Sorry buddy, but you (or the other guy) probably just responded to a

troll.
This troll is a combination of trying to get people into a website, and also to "pretend" to be a concerned citizen, in the hope of sparking a
cross-posted threat that will probably degenerate into a flame war sooner or later.

Nov 12 '05 #11

"Brad Kunkel" <bk*****@ibisoftwaredropthis.com> wrote in message
news:YN****************@news.uswest.net...

I actually read this ng and participate sometimes. I'm not a troll.
Normally, I ignore all the ng spam just like you but this stuff is getting
unacceptable. I don't know the details of how a newsgroup is monitored, but there must be an administrator somewhere. IMO, that person should delete
this crap soon after it's posted.

You've really grasped the senescence of this internet thingy, haven't you
Brad?
Perhaps the United States government should be policing it ....?

Nov 12 '05 #12

Brad Kunkel wrote:

I actually read this ng and participate sometimes. I'm not a troll.
Normally, I ignore all the ng spam just like you but this stuff is getting
unacceptable. I don't know the details of how a newsgroup is monitored, but
there must be an administrator somewhere. IMO, that person should delete
this crap soon after it's posted. It's not only disgusting but way off
topic.

You have a lot to learn about usenet. Usenet is not a message board,
usenet groups are a distributed system, messages are stored on your
local server and sent from server to server. There is no central point.
There is no administrator for a newsgroup. There will usually be an
admin at your local server, but there are literally thousands of
newsgroups delivered by most servers. There is no one to appeal to.
Forget about it.

Here's more information (or you can google for "how usenet works"):

http://www.smr-usenet.com/tech/how.shtml

Brian Rodenborn

Nov 12 '05 #13

"Brad Kunkel" <bk*****@ibisoftwaredropthis.com> wrote in message
news:YN****************@news.uswest.net...

I actually read this ng and participate sometimes. I'm not a troll.
Normally, I ignore all the ng spam just like you but this stuff is getting
unacceptable. I don't know the details of how a newsgroup is monitored, but there must be an administrator somewhere. IMO, that person should delete
this crap soon after it's posted.

You've really grasped the senescence of this internet thingy, haven't you
Brad?
Perhaps the United States government should be policing it ....?

Nov 12 '05 #14

Brad Kunkel wrote:

I actually read this ng and participate sometimes. I'm not a troll.
Normally, I ignore all the ng spam just like you but this stuff is getting
unacceptable. I don't know the details of how a newsgroup is monitored, but
there must be an administrator somewhere. IMO, that person should delete
this crap soon after it's posted. It's not only disgusting but way off
topic.

Nov 12 '05 #15

Alistair Maclean

In message <40***************@boeing.com.invalid>, Default User
<fi********@boeing.com.invalid> writes

Brad Kunkel wrote:

There is no administrator for a newsgroup.
Some groups are in fact moderated (aka administered).
There will usually be an
admin at your local server, but there are literally thousands of
newsgroups delivered by most servers. There is no one to appeal to.
Forget about it.

Here's more information (or you can google for "how usenet works"):

http://www.smr-usenet.com/tech/how.shtml

Brian Rodenborn

--
Alistair Maclean

Lisa : Dad, whatâ€™s a Muppet?
Homer: Well, itâ€™s not quite a mop and itâ€™s not quite a puppet.

Nov 12 '05 #16

Alistair Maclean wrote:

In message <40***************@boeing.com.invalid>, Default User
<fi********@boeing.com.invalid> writes
Brad Kunkel wrote:

There is no administrator for a newsgroup.

Some groups are in fact moderated (aka administered).

I don't believe any of the groups referenced are moderated ones, or the
question would not likely have arisen. Moderation is a different beast
than is normally thought of as administration. You can complain about
moderators letting a post go out, but once it's out there, there's
nothing they can do about it. The are a prepost filter, not
one for after the fact.

There is a great confusion between usenet groups and typical web-based
forums, which have a central reposititory for messages, from which a
moderator or admin can remove posts. Usenet posts can sometimes be
removed via cancels, but some newsservers ignore all cancels.

The bottom line is, it's pointless for anyone to ask for an admin to do
something about these posts.

Brian Rodenborn

Nov 12 '05 #17

Alistair Maclean

In message <40***************@boeing.com.invalid>, Default User
<fi********@boeing.com.invalid> writes

Brad Kunkel wrote:

There is no administrator for a newsgroup.
Some groups are in fact moderated (aka administered).
There will usually be an
admin at your local server, but there are literally thousands of
newsgroups delivered by most servers. There is no one to appeal to.
Forget about it.

Here's more information (or you can google for "how usenet works"):

http://www.smr-usenet.com/tech/how.shtml

Brian Rodenborn

--
Alistair Maclean

Lisa : Dad, whatâ€™s a Muppet?
Homer: Well, itâ€™s not quite a mop and itâ€™s not quite a puppet.

Nov 12 '05 #18

Alistair Maclean wrote:

In message <40***************@boeing.com.invalid>, Default User
<fi********@boeing.com.invalid> writes
Brad Kunkel wrote:

There is no administrator for a newsgroup.

Some groups are in fact moderated (aka administered).

Nov 12 '05 #19

Firstly, I'd like to say - Take it easy boys - you know who you are. Play
nice in public. Don't hurl sarcasm. It'll end in tears.

Brad Kunkel wrote:

Andrew,

I actually read this ng and participate sometimes. I'm not a troll.
Normally, I ignore all the ng spam just like you but this stuff is
getting unacceptable. I don't know the details of how a newsgroup is
monitored, but there must be an administrator somewhere. IMO, that
person should delete this crap soon after it's posted. It's not only
disgusting but way off topic.

Sadly, no, and that's why netnews is ultimately doomed if too many script
kiddies decide it's fun to do damage. I'm holding my breath on the other ng
I mentioned - it's been quiet now for a whole 1.5 days....

There is a concept of a cancel-message in netnews, but there's a few
complications

1) so many servers out there that it's difficult to clean them all

especially because:

2a) not all servers respect a cancel message at all (lack of trust)

2b) some servers have a stricter time limit, or require the cancel to appear
to have come from the OP (which is very easy to forge, admittedly)

The protocol for netnews is very Hippy. It assumes that people are going to
be nice to each other and hand out flowers rather than insults and abuse.
Fat chance.

Peace and Love to all groovy programmers and admins

Nov 12 '05 #20

Firstly, I'd like to say - Take it easy boys - you know who you are. Play
nice in public. Don't hurl sarcasm. It'll end in tears.

Brad Kunkel wrote:

Andrew,

I actually read this ng and participate sometimes. I'm not a troll.
Normally, I ignore all the ng spam just like you but this stuff is
getting unacceptable. I don't know the details of how a newsgroup is
monitored, but there must be an administrator somewhere. IMO, that
person should delete this crap soon after it's posted. It's not only
disgusting but way off topic.

Nov 12 '05 #21

"Captain Pedantic" <th************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...

You've really grasped the senescence of this internet thingy, haven't you
Brad?
Perhaps the United States government should be policing it ....?

Unfortunately Captain, that time is coming if individuals do not take a
stand.

--
Brad Kunkel
Integrated Business, Inc.

Nov 12 '05 #22

"Captain Pedantic" <th************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...

You've really grasped the senescence of this internet thingy, haven't you
Brad?
Perhaps the United States government should be policing it ....?

Unfortunately Captain, that time is coming if individuals do not take a
stand.

--
Brad Kunkel
Integrated Business, Inc.

Nov 12 '05 #23

"Default User" <fi********@boeing.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:40***************@boeing.com.invalid...

There is no administrator for a newsgroup. There will usually be an
admin at your local server, but there are literally thousands of
newsgroups delivered by most servers. There is no one to appeal to.
Forget about it.

Default:

Admins at each local server should take initiative. I believe that at
sometime way back in history, every one of these newsgroups had a code of
conduct.

--
Brad Kunkel
Integrated Business, Inc.

Nov 12 '05 #24

"Default User" <fi********@boeing.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:40***************@boeing.com.invalid...

There is no administrator for a newsgroup. There will usually be an
admin at your local server, but there are literally thousands of
newsgroups delivered by most servers. There is no one to appeal to.
Forget about it.

Nov 12 '05 #25

Brad Kunkel wrote:

Admins at each local server should take initiative. I believe that at
sometime way back in history, every one of these newsgroups had a code of
conduct.

You don't seem to grasp the point. There is a local admin for YOUR
newsserver. That means he or she is responsible for thousands of
newsgroups. Obviously, said admin is not reading each newsgroup to watch
for complaints.

You can try to contact this person and see if you could get the message
deleted from your server, but what would that do? It will still be on
thousands of other servers around the world. Very likely your request
will be ignored. Do you realize how many spam messages in total are
posted each day to usenet? Your ISP would have to have a team of admins
doing nothing else all day but issuing cancels.

Frankly, most ISPs don't give a rat's ass about usenet. Even here at
Boeing, it can be a real struggle for our IT people to get our provider
to address service problems with the usenet feed, and we're a big
customer.

Complaints about misbehaving posters are useless directed at your admin.
You need to find where the spam came from and try to complain there.
That may work, may not, especially if the spam came in from an unsecured
NNTP server.

The funny (well not in funny as in amusing) is that much of the spam IS
clobbered before it gets to you by the cancelbots. That's why you
frequently see the spam look something like:

Hey here's spam 39949
The number makes each post subject unique and squeaks past the
cancelbots, which look for massive postings of the same subject.

A few years ago, the shadowy guys behind the scenes shut off the
cancelbots for a period of time just to let people know what the real
situation would be. Horrible is the word.

Using a few smart killfile entries can get rid of much of the rest of
spam.

Brian Rodenborn

Nov 12 '05 #26

Brad Kunkel wrote:

Admins at each local server should take initiative. I believe that at
sometime way back in history, every one of these newsgroups had a code of
conduct.

Nov 12 '05 #27

"Brad Kunkel" <bk*****@ibisoftwaredropthis.com> wrote in message
news:CC***************@news.uswest.net...

"Captain Pedantic" <th************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...

You've really grasped the senescence of this internet thingy, haven't you Brad?
Perhaps the United States government should be policing it ....?

Unfortunately Captain, that time is coming if individuals do not take a
stand.

I agree. If "the internet" can't regulate itself, I'd like the US
government to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong and on my behalf
please.

Nov 12 '05 #28

"Brad Kunkel" <bk*****@ibisoftwaredropthis.com> wrote in message
news:CC***************@news.uswest.net...

"Captain Pedantic" <th************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...

You've really grasped the senescence of this internet thingy, haven't you Brad?
Perhaps the United States government should be policing it ....?

Unfortunately Captain, that time is coming if individuals do not take a
stand.

I agree. If "the internet" can't regulate itself, I'd like the US
government to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong and on my behalf
please.

Nov 12 '05 #29

"Default User" <fi********@boeing.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:40***************@boeing.com.invalid...

You don't seem to grasp the point. There is a local admin for YOUR
newsserver. That means he or she is responsible for thousands of
newsgroups. Obviously, said admin is not reading each newsgroup to watch
for complaints.

Offhand, I'd say they should use spam-filters for blatant obscenity but,
then again, I could do that too. I get your point that Usenet is
distributed. What I guess I don't get is why it's not organized; not a
central authority but a code of ethics. If Usenet ever becomes mainstream,
governments will likely get involved and screw it up.

Regards,
Brad Kunkel
Integrated Business, Inc.

Nov 12 '05 #30

"Default User" <fi********@boeing.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:40***************@boeing.com.invalid...

You don't seem to grasp the point. There is a local admin for YOUR
newsserver. That means he or she is responsible for thousands of
newsgroups. Obviously, said admin is not reading each newsgroup to watch
for complaints.

Nov 12 '05 #31

"Captain Pedantic" <th************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...

I agree. If "the internet" can't regulate itself, I'd like the US
government to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong and on my behalf
please.

good thinkin...

Nov 12 '05 #32

"Captain Pedantic" <th************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...

I agree. If "the internet" can't regulate itself, I'd like the US
government to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong and on my behalf
please.

good thinkin...

Nov 12 '05 #33

Clive Eisen

Brad Kunkel wrote:
snip

.. What I guess I don't get is why it's not organized; not a

central authority but a code of ethics. If Usenet ever becomes mainstream,
governments will likely get involved and screw it up.

It's not organised for historical reasons. Maybe you aren't old enough
to remember when WAN connections were
a) Slow
b) Expensive
c) Mostly dialup
d) Rare

Info was distributed once to a server near you and then read by local
users. News was one way that this happened, and you just got your news
from your upstream server who got it from their upstream server .....
a long way upstream servers co-operated to make sure that all messages
were copied everywhere. Depending on the route to you messages would get
hoplesly out of sync, which is one reason why threaded newsclient were
created

Because server A would serve sever B through Z and vice versa depending
which host got a particular message first it became almost mandetory to
carry all messages/groups ( sometimes excluding binary groups because
disk was EXPENSIVE) and some of the porn groups, even if you didn't have
local users subscribed to some of those groups, because others depended
on your feed.

HTH

Nov 12 '05 #34

Clive Eisen

Brad Kunkel wrote:
snip

.. What I guess I don't get is why it's not organized; not a

central authority but a code of ethics. If Usenet ever becomes mainstream,
governments will likely get involved and screw it up.

Nov 12 '05 #35

Clive Eisen wrote:

Brad Kunkel wrote:
snip

. What I guess I don't get is why it's not organized; not a
central authority but a code of ethics. If Usenet ever becomes
mainstream, governments will likely get involved and screw it up.

It's not organised for historical reasons. Maybe you aren't old enough
to remember when WAN connections were
a) Slow
b) Expensive
c) Mostly dialup
d) Rare

Info was distributed once to a server near you and then read by local
users. News was one way that this happened, and you just got your news
from your upstream server who got it from their upstream server .....
a long way upstream servers co-operated to make sure that all messages
were copied everywhere. Depending on the route to you messages would get
hoplesly out of sync, which is one reason why threaded newsclient were
created

Because server A would serve sever B through Z and vice versa depending
which host got a particular message first it became almost mandetory to
carry all messages/groups ( sometimes excluding binary groups because
disk was EXPENSIVE) and some of the porn groups, even if you didn't have
local users subscribed to some of those groups, because others depended
on your feed.

HTH

You are very mature man, I can say. Am wondering can usenet become AGAIN
mainstream?

--
Enor

Nov 12 '05 #36

Clive Eisen wrote:

Brad Kunkel wrote:
snip

. What I guess I don't get is why it's not organized; not a
central authority but a code of ethics. If Usenet ever becomes
mainstream, governments will likely get involved and screw it up.

It's not organised for historical reasons. Maybe you aren't old enough
to remember when WAN connections were
a) Slow
b) Expensive
c) Mostly dialup
d) Rare

Info was distributed once to a server near you and then read by local
users. News was one way that this happened, and you just got your news
from your upstream server who got it from their upstream server .....
a long way upstream servers co-operated to make sure that all messages
were copied everywhere. Depending on the route to you messages would get
hoplesly out of sync, which is one reason why threaded newsclient were
created

Because server A would serve sever B through Z and vice versa depending
which host got a particular message first it became almost mandetory to
carry all messages/groups ( sometimes excluding binary groups because
disk was EXPENSIVE) and some of the porn groups, even if you didn't have
local users subscribed to some of those groups, because others depended
on your feed.

HTH

You are very mature man, I can say. Am wondering can usenet become AGAIN
mainstream?

--
Enor

Nov 12 '05 #37

Brad Kunkel wrote:

"Captain Pedantic" <th************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...
I agree. If "the internet" can't regulate itself, I'd like the US
government to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong and on my behalf
please.

good thinkin...

Yes, I am agreeing with you both that US goverment is best to tell us all
what to do.

--
Enor

Nov 12 '05 #38

Brad Kunkel wrote:

"Captain Pedantic" <th************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...
I agree. If "the internet" can't regulate itself, I'd like the US
government to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong and on my behalf
please.

good thinkin...

Yes, I am agreeing with you both that US goverment is best to tell us all
what to do.

--
Enor

Nov 12 '05 #39

Teresa Redmond

sorry for the x-post!

On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:43:22 +0100, in comp.database.oracle, Enor
Mouspenis <en***********@hotmail.com> scribbled:

Brad Kunkel wrote:
"Captain Pedantic" <th************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...
I agree. If "the internet" can't regulate itself, I'd like the US
government to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong and on my behalf
please.

good thinkin...

Yes, I am agreeing with you both that US goverment is best to tell us all
what to do.

my irony meter is now broken.

--
Teresa Redmond
Programmer/Analyst III
Anteon Corporation
tredmond at anteon dot com

Nov 12 '05 #40

Teresa Redmond

sorry for the x-post!

On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:43:22 +0100, in comp.database.oracle, Enor
Mouspenis <en***********@hotmail.com> scribbled:

Brad Kunkel wrote:
"Captain Pedantic" <th************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...
I agree. If "the internet" can't regulate itself, I'd like the US
government to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong and on my behalf
please.

good thinkin...

Yes, I am agreeing with you both that US goverment is best to tell us all
what to do.

my irony meter is now broken.

--
Teresa Redmond
Programmer/Analyst III
Anteon Corporation
tredmond at anteon dot com

Nov 12 '05 #41

Brad Kunkel wrote:

Offhand, I'd say they should use spam-filters for blatant obscenity but,
then again, I could do that too. I get your point that Usenet is
distributed. What I guess I don't get is why it's not organized; not a
central authority but a code of ethics. If Usenet ever becomes mainstream,
governments will likely get involved and screw it up.

There is a code of ethics, but it's notoriously hard to enforce such a
code. The main ways are taking action against those who misbehave. For
individual posters that requires that they have an ISP that cares what
they do and will take action. For rogue ISPs, you can read up on the
Usenet Death Penalty.

Usenet won't become mainstream, or at any rate more mainstream than it
is. Web-based forums, Yahoo groups, blogs, chatrooms, etc. all provide
enough alternate communication channels to keep usenet pretty much under
the radar. The one that might kill it would be binary sharing.

The best really is to use the filters.

Brian Rodenborn

Nov 12 '05 #42

Brad Kunkel wrote:

Offhand, I'd say they should use spam-filters for blatant obscenity but,
then again, I could do that too. I get your point that Usenet is
distributed. What I guess I don't get is why it's not organized; not a
central authority but a code of ethics. If Usenet ever becomes mainstream,
governments will likely get involved and screw it up.

Nov 12 '05 #43

"Clive Eisen" <cl***@serendipita.com> wrote in message
news:40***********************@lovejoy.zen.co.uk.. .

It's not organised for historical reasons. Maybe you aren't old enough
to remember when WAN connections were
a) Slow
b) Expensive
c) Mostly dialup
d) Rare

Thanks, Clive. I'm old enough to have played around with FidoNet but never
paid much attention to the technical aspects. After thinking it through, I
now agree with you and the other respondents that nothing can or should be
done. I'll just filter shawcable.net and optonline.net on my end.

Regards,
Brad Kunkel
Integrated Business, Inc.

Nov 12 '05 #44