🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 18:12:23 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:

>I am reopening the question, since my motives are now under question.
>Should crossposts be blanketly allowed to dfw.general?  Are enforcement
>actions, such as cancels, cease-and-desist requests, and complaints to
>ISPs, appropriate to preserve the meaning of the charter?  Or should
>the charter be treated more as suggestion than as law?

Noooooo!!  NG after NG has been ruined by a handful of a-holes who do
the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater and then hide
behind free speech to attain their ultimate goal, screwing everyone
over.

If you have already made the decision to "go back", I may start a
weekly posting, "How to use kill filters" or "How can I stop seeing
posts from <name>?"

--------------
Steve Silberberg
mailto:steve.silberberg@alum.mit.edu
Steve's Tiny Book of Romance
http://www.callipygianproductions.com/stbor/stbor.html
"For man so feared his ignorance, that he created god in his image"-Eric 3:16

Steve Silberberg <steve.silberberg@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

: If you have already made the decision to "go back", I may start a
: weekly posting, "How to use kill filters" or "How can I stop seeing
: posts from <name>?"

Feel free.  At this point, the decision to back off is meant as
temporary, though it could become permanent if I determine that
I lack the backing of other local news admins.

cb

You have stated that some news feed do not honor cancel requests. I guess I
wonder how many there are that carry dfw.general and how wide spread the
affect of a cancel really is to many readers of dfwg

While I have never really seen the point of cross post in the majority of
instances, I too am guilty of replying to a post and forgetting to
eliminate the additional too groups. (course, sometimes the individual I am
interested in getting a response from reads a a group other then dfwg so no
response is received when I do remember)

The recent flame fest generated lots of traffic, and I found myself simply
scanning down the list of posters within a thread to see if I wanted to
read what any of them had to say. Most of the time the mark ng read option
applied.

Your experiment should be interesting.

Chris Bellomy wrote:

> I am reopening the question, since my motives are now under question.
> Should crossposts be blanketly allowed to dfw.general?  Are enforcement
> actions, such as cancels, cease-and-desist requests, and complaints to
> ISPs, appropriate to preserve the meaning of the charter?  Or should
> the charter be treated more as suggestion than as law?
>
> Until such time as the other DFW-area admins chime in with their
> recommendations, and some consensus is reached, I am suspending
> all my charter enforcement activities for dfw.general.  Perhaps
> during this moratorium, we will see evidence of how the group
> will read in the absence of any attempts to enforce the charter;
> if so, I suspect we will see opinions about enforcement swayed,
> one way or other.
>
> I will not allow the question of what to do with this group turn
> into constant and irrelevant speculation about my political,
> religous, or personal views.  This is not about me; it was never
> about me; it will not be about me.
>
> With this, I leave the floor open.  I'm going to back away for a
> bit, I think, to let the discussion be about the real issue at
> hand, and not about me.
>
> cb

Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in 
news:b_%r8.7680$JZ6.169613@dfw-read.news.verio.net:

> I am reopening the question, since my motives are now under question.
> Should crossposts be blanketly allowed to dfw.general?  Are enforcement
> actions, such as cancels, cease-and-desist requests, and complaints to
> ISPs, appropriate to preserve the meaning of the charter?  Or should
> the charter be treated more as suggestion than as law?
> 
> Until such time as the other DFW-area admins chime in with their
> recommendations, and some consensus is reached, I am suspending
> all my charter enforcement activities for dfw.general.  Perhaps
> during this moratorium, we will see evidence of how the group
> will read in the absence of any attempts to enforce the charter;
> if so, I suspect we will see opinions about enforcement swayed,
> one way or other.
> 
> I will not allow the question of what to do with this group turn
> into constant and irrelevant speculation about my political,
> religous, or personal views.  This is not about me; it was never
> about me; it will not be about me.
> 
> With this, I leave the floor open.  I'm going to back away for a
> bit, I think, to let the discussion be about the real issue at
> hand, and not about me.
> 
> cb

BTW I hear you are no longer a sys admin so you should identify that fact for 
the group. 

I noticed that you Chris Bellomy started at least one political thread. I 
thought that was against the rules! 

Chris you must motify your ISP that you violated the rules and should be 
suspended.

Curmit � 

Curmit � <Don'ttrustPoliticians@aol.org> wrote:

: BTW I hear you are no longer a sys admin so you should identify that fact for 
: the group. 

That is incorrect and irrelevant.

cb

dotmatrix <dotmatrix1@austin.rr.com> wrote:

: I suggest that the term general means just that, open to ALL topics. Why 
: limit discussion on a general news group. Finally, all general news groups 
: have a certain level of crap/flaming/tripe/whatever that wastes bandwidth.  
: This is the price of freedom.

IOW, you are suggesting that dfw.general operate without a charter.
Is that correct?

cb

We damn sure don't need no censor, so why don't you just fuck off?
Chris Bellomy = little Hitler wannabe.

"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
news:b_%r8.7680$JZ6.169613@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> I am reopening the question, since my motives are now under question.
> Should crossposts be blanketly allowed to dfw.general?  Are enforcement
> actions, such as cancels, cease-and-desist requests, and complaints to
> ISPs, appropriate to preserve the meaning of the charter?  Or should
> the charter be treated more as suggestion than as law?
>
> Until such time as the other DFW-area admins chime in with their
> recommendations, and some consensus is reached, I am suspending
> all my charter enforcement activities for dfw.general.  Perhaps
> during this moratorium, we will see evidence of how the group
> will read in the absence of any attempts to enforce the charter;
> if so, I suspect we will see opinions about enforcement swayed,
> one way or other.
>
> I will not allow the question of what to do with this group turn
> into constant and irrelevant speculation about my political,
> religous, or personal views.  This is not about me; it was never
> about me; it will not be about me.
>
> With this, I leave the floor open.  I'm going to back away for a
> bit, I think, to let the discussion be about the real issue at
> hand, and not about me.
>
> cb

Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in
news:w43s8.7685$JZ6.169485@dfw-read.news.verio.net: 

> dotmatrix <dotmatrix1@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> 
>: I suggest that the term general means just that, open to ALL topics. Why
>: limit discussion on a general news group. Finally, all general news
>: groups have a certain level of crap/flaming/tripe/whatever that wastes
>: bandwidth.  This is the price of freedom.
> 
> IOW, you are suggesting that dfw.general operate without a charter.
> Is that correct?
> 
> cb
> 

What is your definition of the word general?

Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in
news:933s8.7684$JZ6.169485@dfw-read.news.verio.net: 

> Curmit � <Don'ttrustPoliticians@aol.org> wrote:
> 
>: BTW I hear you are no longer a sys admin so you should identify that
>: fact for the group. 
> 
> That is incorrect and irrelevant.
> 
> cb

According to Richard Harmon at Austin Roadrunner, you are no longer working 
in the capacity as a sys admin person. So, when did you plan to tell the 
group this?

dotmatrix <dotmatrix1@austin.rr.com> wrote:
: Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in
: news:933s8.7684$JZ6.169485@dfw-read.news.verio.net: 
: 
:> Curmit � <Don'ttrustPoliticians@aol.org> wrote:
:> 
:>: BTW I hear you are no longer a sys admin so you should identify that
:>: fact for the group. 
:> 
:> That is incorrect and irrelevant.
: 
: According to Richard Harmon at Austin Roadrunner, you are no longer working 
: in the capacity as a sys admin person. So, when did you plan to tell the 
: group this?

Richard Harmon at Austin Roadrunner is incorrect.

cb

Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: dotmatrix <dotmatrix1@austin.rr.com> wrote:
:
: : According to Richard Harmon at Austin Roadrunner, you are no longer working 
: : in the capacity as a sys admin person. So, when did you plan to tell the 
: : group this?
: 
: Richard Harmon at Austin Roadrunner is incorrect.

CORRECTION:

Richard Harmon at Austin Roadrunner denies ever having said such
a thing.  In any event, your bizarre accusation is unfounded and
incorrect.

cb

In article <b_%r8.7680$JZ6.169613@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
Chris Bellomy  <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
- I am reopening the question, since my motives are now under question.
- Should crossposts be blanketly allowed to dfw.general?

	Cross posting should only be allowed as per the charter.

-                                                        Are enforcement
- actions, such as cancels, cease-and-desist requests, and complaints to
- ISPs, appropriate to preserve the meaning of the charter?  

	Yes.

- Until such time as the other DFW-area admins chime in with their
- recommendations, and some consensus is reached, I am suspending
- all my charter enforcement activities for dfw.general.

	Expecting the news admins to notice from a USENET
posting might be a bit wishful... I'm not sure how many of them
visit dfw.usenet.config regularly. (I hit it about once a week.)

	That said, I believe your charter enforcement
methods and actions to be of value, and worthy of being done. 


-- 
Eric Schnoebelen		eric@cirr.com		http://www.cirr.com
	Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes
	       up on the roof and gets stuck.  -- George Carlin

Regional USENET News Co-ordinator <news-czar-nospam@cirr.com> wrote:

: 	Expecting the news admins to notice from a USENET
: posting might be a bit wishful... I'm not sure how many of them
: visit dfw.usenet.config regularly. (I hit it about once a week.)

I know that there is an OOB way to ping these folks, but I hesitate
to use it for something like this.  That's why we have this group,
right?

: 	That said, I believe your charter enforcement
: methods and actions to be of value, and worthy of being done. 

Thanks, Eric.  I greatly appreciate your support.

cb

"Steve Silberberg" <steve.silberberg@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:0561bu0p2cfnv9lgootplcqcjvguns52rt@4ax.com...
>
> If you have already made the decision to "go back", I may start a
> weekly posting, "How to use kill filters" or "How can I stop seeing
> posts from <name>?"

Sounds like a good idea to me.

"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
news:w43s8.7685$JZ6.169485@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> dotmatrix <dotmatrix1@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : I suggest that the term general means just that, open to ALL topics. Why
> : limit discussion on a general news group. Finally, all general news
groups
> : have a certain level of crap/flaming/tripe/whatever that wastes
bandwidth.
> : This is the price of freedom.
>
> IOW, you are suggesting that dfw.general operate without a charter.
> Is that correct?

Are you suggesting that any interpretation of the chater that doesn't agree
with your own is therefore an invitation to a free-for-all?

If you really think about it, you just _might_ understand why your view of
yourself as a righteous netcop is extremely removed from reality as well as
from the users opinions of you and your motives.

Juan Jimenez <bd5@bd5.com> wrote:
: 
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: news:w43s8.7685$JZ6.169485@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
:> dotmatrix <dotmatrix1@austin.rr.com> wrote:
:>
:> : I suggest that the term general means just that, open to ALL topics. Why
:> : limit discussion on a general news group. Finally, all general news
: groups
:> : have a certain level of crap/flaming/tripe/whatever that wastes
: bandwidth.
:> : This is the price of freedom.
:>
:> IOW, you are suggesting that dfw.general operate without a charter.
:> Is that correct?
: 
: Are you suggesting that any interpretation of the chater that doesn't agree
: with your own is therefore an invitation to a free-for-all?

No.  I am responding to this:

"I suggest that the term general means just that, open to ALL topics."

: If you really think about it, you just _might_ understand why your view of
: yourself as a righteous netcop is extremely removed from reality as well as
: from the users opinions of you and your motives.

First of all, Juan, I didn't write the charter.  The charter
was approved by vote of the community.  It declares the intent of
the community with regard to dfw.general.

Secondly, the enforcement I make of the charter, with regard to
cancellation of crossposts, was discussed without opposition in
this very group over a year ago.  Other than from you and some
visitors from Austin, there has been no significant opposition
voiced here recently to continuing enforcement of the charter.
I am not particularly concerned about the Austin folks, as they
have no reason to have any interest in a newsgroup about issues
relevant to the DFW area.  But I am concerned about your opinion.

I have read your posts here for a long time, Juan, and while I
have not always agreed with your tactics, I have observed that
you are very capable of a logical, reasoned response.  So, I am
dismayed to see you here accusing me of being "a righteous netcop,"
and of dismissing opinions contrary to mine out of hand, without
your making much of an attempt to understand the issue here in
its full context.

I admit that I have been impatient with you when you tried to
turn this into a free speech issue, but that is because I've
already been through those arguments about 1000 times, and the
"free speach" argument collapsed every time.  I detest the idea
of having to rehash all that stuff yet again, especially with
someone who should know better.  (If you want to claim Hipcrime
as your ally, maybe you should download a copy of NewsAgent and
go all the way with it.  But I can't imagine that you'd really
want to do that.)

One thing to keep in mind about all this is that regional
newsgroups are not part of Usenet proper.  They are their
own fiefdoms, with their own rules and their own enforcement
mechanisms.  dfw.* is not at all unique in this regard.  If
you'd like to have an equivalent to dfw.general with no rules,
issue a newgroup for free.dfw.general and see who carries it.
Maybe it will catch on; maybe it won't.  Either way, we'll
learn something.  Or, you can try creating your own regional
hierarchy in competition with dfw.* -- maybe dallas.* -- and
see who carries that.  You have options.  Disregarding the
charters of dfw.*, though, is not one of them.

cb

On 8 Apr 2002 17:39:34 GMT, news-czar-nospam@cirr.com (Regional USENET
News Co-ordinator) wrote:

>In article <b_%r8.7680$JZ6.169613@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
>Chris Bellomy  <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>- I am reopening the question, since my motives are now under question.
>- Should crossposts be blanketly allowed to dfw.general?
>
No, it would destroy the ingegrity of the group, as we've seen
previously.

>	Cross posting should only be allowed as per the charter.
>
Agreed.

>-                                                        Are enforcement
>- actions, such as cancels, cease-and-desist requests, and complaints to
>- ISPs, appropriate to preserve the meaning of the charter?  
>
>	Yes.

Yes, agreed.
>
>- Until such time as the other DFW-area admins chime in with their
>- recommendations, and some consensus is reached, I am suspending
>- all my charter enforcement activities for dfw.general.

I certainly hope that some job spammer doesn't decide to crosspost all
their openings, every day! The noise level now in dfw.general is
barely tolerable, it will only get worse if there is no charter
enforcement and the charter was created by the people, for the people,
etc. The charter should be respected.
>
>	Expecting the news admins to notice from a USENET
>posting might be a bit wishful... I'm not sure how many of them
>visit dfw.usenet.config regularly. (I hit it about once a week.)
>

Don't underestimate who reads this group. We lurk.

>	That said, I believe your charter enforcement
>methods and actions to be of value, and worthy of being done. 
>

I submit that the people complaining have never seen, or do not
recall, exactly what a useless mess a group can become without rules.
Airnews will continue to act upon valid complaints of charter
violations and will continue to recognize your cancels should they be
submitted.

L. Maurer
Director of Policy Enforcement
Airnews

Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in
news:TAps8.7755$JZ6.171208@dfw-read.news.verio.net: 

> Juan Jimenez <bd5@bd5.com> wrote:
>: 
>: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
>: news:w43s8.7685$JZ6.169485@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
>:> dotmatrix <dotmatrix1@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>:>
>:> : I suggest that the term general means just that, open to ALL topics.
>:> : Why limit discussion on a general news group. Finally, all general
>:> : news groups have a certain level of crap/flaming/tripe/whatever that
>:> : wastes bandwidth. This is the price of freedom.
>:>
>:> IOW, you are suggesting that dfw.general operate without a charter.
>:> Is that correct?
>: 
>: Are you suggesting that any interpretation of the chater that doesn't
>: agree with your own is therefore an invitation to a free-for-all?
> 
> No.  I am responding to this:
> 
> "I suggest that the term general means just that, open to ALL topics."
> 
>: If you really think about it, you just _might_ understand why your view
>: of yourself as a righteous netcop is extremely removed from reality as
>: well as from the users opinions of you and your motives.
> 
> First of all, Juan, I didn't write the charter.  The charter
> was approved by vote of the community.  It declares the intent of
> the community with regard to dfw.general.
> 
> Secondly, the enforcement I make of the charter, with regard to
> cancellation of crossposts, was discussed without opposition in
> this very group over a year ago.  Other than from you and some
> visitors from Austin, there has been no significant opposition
> voiced here recently to continuing enforcement of the charter.
> I am not particularly concerned about the Austin folks, as they
> have no reason to have any interest in a newsgroup about issues
> relevant to the DFW area.  But I am concerned about your opinion.
> 
> I have read your posts here for a long time, Juan, and while I
> have not always agreed with your tactics, I have observed that
> you are very capable of a logical, reasoned response.  So, I am
> dismayed to see you here accusing me of being "a righteous netcop,"
> and of dismissing opinions contrary to mine out of hand, without
> your making much of an attempt to understand the issue here in
> its full context.
> 
> I admit that I have been impatient with you when you tried to
> turn this into a free speech issue, but that is because I've
> already been through those arguments about 1000 times, and the
> "free speach" argument collapsed every time.  I detest the idea
> of having to rehash all that stuff yet again, especially with
> someone who should know better.  (If you want to claim Hipcrime
> as your ally, maybe you should download a copy of NewsAgent and
> go all the way with it.  But I can't imagine that you'd really
> want to do that.)
> 
> One thing to keep in mind about all this is that regional
> newsgroups are not part of Usenet proper.  They are their
> own fiefdoms, with their own rules and their own enforcement
> mechanisms.  dfw.* is not at all unique in this regard.  If
> you'd like to have an equivalent to dfw.general with no rules,
> issue a newgroup for free.dfw.general and see who carries it.
> Maybe it will catch on; maybe it won't.  Either way, we'll
> learn something.  Or, you can try creating your own regional
> hierarchy in competition with dfw.* -- maybe dallas.* -- and
> see who carries that.  You have options.  Disregarding the
> charters of dfw.*, though, is not one of them.
> 
> cb

I was all set to apologize for my error with regard to your job status. But I 
see that you are nothing more than a pompus ass who can not see the forest 
through the trees. Your vote/election/attitude is the entire problem here. 

No one is suggesting that SPAM be allowed or tolerated, cross posted or 
otherwise. I don't even suggest that non regional topics be tolerated. Why 
would DFW want to hear about a hail storm in Seattle. The problem is that you 
do seek to sensor the group with your values as you desire to apply them, 
"The world according to Chris Bellomy". As far as your attitude regarding 
Austin goes....you started it with your unfair sensorship of an Austin post 
that was very topical and relevand and no other members of DFW complained 
about. That action caused the poster undue harm. 

I will not stand for sensorship. You do not own the hardware, or the 
software, or the access lines. This is not Chris Bellomy's group. It belongs 
to the DFW users and users world wide who care to post here. I think it's 
past time to contact the ACLU and ask them to get involved in this. People 
like you threaten our freedoms.

With your behind the scene connections to other ISP's you are abusing the 
privilage of being in a position of authority.  

Case in point:

"One thing to keep in mind about all this is that regional
> newsgroups are not part of Usenet proper.  They are their
> own fiefdoms, with their own rules and their own enforcement
> mechanisms." 

Bingo...you just fried your butt. You seem to think that you are the King of 
the fiefdom. Very telling I think and you are also the enforcement mechanism? 
Man go get some good meds, you seriously need them!


By the way, I found Richard Harmon quite reasonable...other than not liking 
to be misquoted...can't blame him for that. I think he does need to pick his 
freinds better though! I am sure he will notice your dis of Austin.....



dotmatrix

Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>I am reopening the question, since my motives are now under question.
>Should crossposts be blanketly allowed to dfw.general?  Are enforcement
>actions, such as cancels, cease-and-desist requests, and complaints to
>ISPs, appropriate to preserve the meaning of the charter?  Or should
>the charter be treated more as suggestion than as law?

  No.

  Yes.

  No.  We have already seen the effect of "interpretation" of dfw.*
charters, and treating a charter as a set of suggestions would only
encourage more "interpretation."

>Until such time as the other DFW-area admins chime in with their
>recommendations, and some consensus is reached, I am suspending
>all my charter enforcement activities for dfw.general.  Perhaps
>during this moratorium, we will see evidence of how the group
>will read in the absence of any attempts to enforce the charter;
>if so, I suspect we will see opinions about enforcement swayed,
>one way or other.

  While I understand your suspension, I expect lack of enforcement
will lead to a noticable, probably substantial, rise in the number of
inappropriate articles in dfw.general.

>cb

  I'm not a newsgroup admin.  I run a BBS and a mail server, so I have
a limited amount of related experience.  I've been participating in
dfw.* newsgroups for quite some time, and participated in various
charter discussions and votes.

  I have some understanding of what running a news server requires,
and I appreciate the effort and talent, both technical and political,
needed to successfully run a server.  Thank you, Chris, for your work.

    Bob

P.S. This article is not crossposted.  8-)=
--
Bob Peterson              BBS Dialup:  972 403 9406 to 53333 (V.34/X2/V.90)
peterson@mail.zgnews.com  BBS Telnet:  bbs.zgnews.com    Web: www.zgnews.com

"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
news:TAps8.7755$JZ6.171208@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
>
> First of all, Juan, I didn't write the charter.  The charter
> was approved by vote of the community.  It declares the intent of
> the community with regard to dfw.general.

Chris, why do you insist on repeating the issue of the charter as
justification for the things you do? You just don't get it, do you?
Enforcement of ANYTHING doesn't fly with people in this country unless it is
completely uniform and consistent!

> I have read your posts here for a long time, Juan, and while I
> have not always agreed with your tactics, I have observed that
> you are very capable of a logical, reasoned response.  So, I am
> dismayed to see you here accusing me of being "a righteous netcop,"
> and of dismissing opinions contrary to mine out of hand, without
> your making much of an attempt to understand the issue here in
> its full context.

I understand what you are trying to claim as the issue. The problem is that
the issue goes much further than that.

> I admit that I have been impatient with you when you tried to
> turn this into a free speech issue, but that is because I've
> already been through those arguments about 1000 times, and the
> "free speach" argument collapsed every time.  I detest the idea
> of having to rehash all that stuff yet again, especially with
> someone who should know better.  (If you want to claim Hipcrime
> as your ally, maybe you should download a copy of NewsAgent and
> go all the way with it.  But I can't imagine that you'd really
> want to do that.)

I don't claim anyone as "ally's". I'm not defending a person, I am defending
an argument. When I decide to defend someone in specific, you'll know. :)

> One thing to keep in mind about all this is that regional
> newsgroups are not part of Usenet proper.  They are their
> own fiefdoms, with their own rules and their own enforcement
> mechanisms.

<chuckle> Funny, but you're talking about perceptions, not reality.

Juan