🚀 go-pugleaf

bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:

> In <1991May29.172400.24035@tygra.Michigan.COM>
>    jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
> 
> >In article <12570@uwm.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes:
> >"
> >"Oh, he got *F*L*A*M*E*D* all right.  From all sides.  We have a very
> >"contrite user here at the moment.
> >"
> 
> >Thats a shame. Some people just don't know how to handle flamers. If
> >he got harassing e-mail, he should contact the sender's sysop and the
> >feed site of the system from which the posting came. 

        Perhaps the flamers should be more responsible for their own
        actions, & hence wouldn't need sysops to look after them.

> People make misteaks, even the more experienced, and those who "should
> know better". Assuming that somebody is a fool because of one error, is
> extreme prejudice.

        Don't say that in news.admin. 8)

> Never over-react. Keep your cool (or borrow some if you don't have any).
> Remember, we all start out being ignorant.

        THe USENet learning curve is fairly steep, but any "problems"
        with users' articles should be dealt with promptly.  Sysadmins
        would probably have less damage control to do if they provided 
        more education before the fact.

> >He should respond to his flamers and let them know that he has a RIGHT
> >to post anything he wants. How do we solve this problem: Post flames
> >in public newsgroups against the offender and also put him in your
> >system-wide kill file. 
> 
> The RIGHT is not without bounds. The purposes for which the net is
> provided in many places, specifically exclude commercial exploitation
> (and dirty pictures). What right you have in the USA, do not follow
> you wherever you go.

        Exactly.  There has never been such a thing as absolute free 
        speech in America, & as long as news providers, not individual
        posters are paying the transport cost, they have a fairly
        absolute right to determine what goes over their outgoing
        (or even transfer) newsfeed.

> On average, the net community has enough sense to know when to flame,
> and when to keep quiet. Flames are appropriate for persistent
> offenders and thick-skinned individuals. In general, a pleasant note
> saying:
>   "Gee, you really oughtn't do that again,
>    here's how to cancel that naughty article"
> are more productive than a note which causes one's hair on the back
> of the neck to stand on end.

        Flamage rarely does any good, & only serves to make people
        angrier & more defensive of their actions.

> >People who own the machines on this network have the right to determine
> >what stuff they allow to be stored on their hard drives. On the other 
> >hand, NO ONE has the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot post.

        As long as one is paying for it, it doesn't matter whether the
        feed is incoming, outgoing, or simply transferring, one has
        very nearly absolute control over the use his or her resources
        are put to.

> But they don't have the right to forge cancellation messages. Any
> system administrator, with enough brains to tie his boot laces, knows
> how to eliminate unwanted articles locally, without a net-wide
> cancellation.
> 
> You, above most people, should know this from experience.

        Ah.  John Palmer's back.  THis is going to be great fun.



===========================================================================
Steven S. Brack     sbrack@bluemoon.uucp        The Ohio State University
sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com                        sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu
===========================================================================