🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <719058360.F00055@monly.wlink.nl.wlink.nl>,
Tim.Pierce@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.112510@mccall.com> tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
>>Which part of this do you reject?
>
>That alt has no arbiter of right and wrong, even by popular consensus.

But that was alt's whole rationale for existence. It was created as a reaction
against the "guidelines" used in the big 7 usenet groups. There is no control
mechanism other than peer pressure.

>There is an understanding (granted, a very general and loosely defined
>one) among news administrators regarding which alt groups are
>"properly" created and which ones are not.  

Maybe among some admins, but my understanding (and apparently at least a few
others) is that there is no such thing as an improper alt group, by definition.
Such has been my understanding since alt was created. There are certainly
annoying groups, but not invalid ones. Becker and I part company in that he
tries to enforce this on others. I think the idea of enforcing anything in alt
is also contrary to its concept. 

One might wish that alt was a _little_ bit saner, but it is hard to change
something that is explicitly an anarchy, especially when it was created as a
reaction to the evolved usenet, which started out like alt, and evolved much the
way many of us would like to see alt go. If alt evolves into another usenet,
we'll have 2 usenets, which is useless, and someone will create another alt in
reaction to that. I think the proper solution if you don't like how alt works is
to try to get the groups that interest you into a different structure, not to
change the structure of alt.

Bottom line (IMHO, of course) is that (ignoring the issue of posting forgeries),
what Becker and Poskanzer do is not wrong, it's just rude and annoying. I wish
they'd quit, but I accuse neither of them of violating any "rules". If they did
it in usenet, it would be wrong. Other than the forgery issue, there's no real
difference between Becker's and Poskanzer's actions. Neither is wrong, neither
is right (though both think they are right, of course). This has about as much
chance of being resolved rationally as a an argument between a priest and a
rabbi over whether Jesus was the messiah.

>"anyone can create an alt group at any
>time."  The attitude of apathy, I think, is self-defeating.

Much as you (and I) may dislike it, this is true simply by the definition of alt
when it was created. It isn't a matter of apathy at all. Alt was intended to be
free of all restrictions.

>>You are both guilty of sending out
>>messages that annoy large numbers of news admins with no consideration for
>our
>>feelings in the matter.
>
>Whine.  

Granted.

>Jef *could* put "becker" in the Path message for his rmgroup
>messages to hide their existence from the guilty party, presumably
>resulting in the lack of a following newgroup.  

Presumably Becker would then go to a weekly schedule the way Poskanzer has done
if this were to occur. He could put mccall in the Path line to shut me up, but
he'd have a mighty long path line if he honored all such requests. :-)

>Nevertheless, this is
>really out of proportion with the situation we're talking about.

Not really. Some of us have hit our annoyance threshold, so we bitched (whined
if you prefer). We get to get it all off our chest. Out of proportion would be
if someone started sending hate mail to the respective site admins and feeds
trying to get them thrown off the net.

>Imminent death of alt.graphics predicted, film at 11 ....

We can all wish.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA

In article <1992Oct15.090408@mccall.com> tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:

>In article <719058360.F00055@monly.wlink.nl.wlink.nl>,
>Tim.Pierce@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>There is an understanding (granted, a very general and loosely defined
>>one) among news administrators regarding which alt groups are
>>"properly" created and which ones are not.  
>
>Maybe among some admins, but my understanding (and apparently at least a few
>others) is that there is no such thing as an improper alt group, by definition.

I'm happy to point to alt.music.enya.puke.puke.pukeSender: though that
is an extreme example (and I think not what you're discussing).

My point is that *total* anarchy makes alt close to unusable.  One of
the reasons I remain so strong on this issue is that I perceive a
tremendous amount of potential good in the concept of the altnet, but
few people seem to take alt seriously.  That seems to be largely
because of the tremendous number of "joke" groups, which give people
the impression of "nobody cares about alt."  People don't carry alt
because it's a "cesspool."  And that, I think, is a crying shame.

Does alt need to turn into another Usenet in order to reverse that
situation?  I don't think so.  I have created every group previously
discussed in alt.config without strenuous objections.  I think that a
large number of those are either poorly conceived or misleadingly
named, but so be it.  It's not for me to decide.  I *do*, however,
categorically reject newgroups that come in without a prior
announcement in alt.config.  I need *some* yardstick for deciding
which groups to consider "proper," and this seems like a pretty
accurate way to measure it.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham

In article <Bw6s19.Kur@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
writes:
>My point is that *total* anarchy makes alt close to unusable.  

That was not the feeling when alt was created. They didn't ask my opinion,
either, as I'd have agreed with you, but there it is. 

>One of
>the reasons I remain so strong on this issue is that I perceive a
>tremendous amount of potential good in the concept of the altnet, but

But that concept is total anarchy, which you reject. So in effect, you are
trying to reform altnet, which I personally think is impossible. You can't make
anything "stick". Poskanzer and Becker are good illustrations of this. There's
nothing "wrong" about what they are doing. How can you change that fact, when
there is nobody to say what is right and wrong.

>Does alt need to turn into another Usenet in order to reverse that
>situation?  I don't think so.  I have created every group previously
>discussed in alt.config without strenuous objections.  I think that a
>large number of those are either poorly conceived or misleadingly
>named, but so be it.  It's not for me to decide.  I *do*, however,
>categorically reject newgroups that come in without a prior
>announcement in alt.config.  

A reasonable policy to apply at your site.

>I need *some* yardstick for deciding
>which groups to consider "proper," and this seems like a pretty
>accurate way to measure it.

Some people obviously disagree. The point is you are no more or less correct
than anyone else. The flip side of "anyone can create any group at any time" is
that "nobody has to carry it if they don't want to". Unfortunately, anyone can
also send a rmgroup, and that isn't "wrong" either.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA