🚀 go-pugleaf

Wayne W. McDougall wrote:
> Nathan Schmidt <schmidt@civl.canterbury.ac.nz> writes: 
> > Wayne W. McDougall wrote:
> > > Nathan Schmidt <schmidt@civl.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:

> > Please, Wayne, show me where I asked you to publish an activity report.  This
> > is the second time you've put words in my mouth. 
> Again, I thought that was clear from your statements. But if that was
> not your intent, I apologise for putting words into your mouth.Not a problem, just don't do it anymore.  Twice is more than enough. Starts to piss 
me off.

> > Anybody reading a properly threaded newsfeed or with a reasonable short term
> > memory should not have had any problem with this.  Especially someone with th
> > usenet skills and experience of yourself. 
> I see you've cut out the actual thread so people could judge for themselves.
> So far, out of three people, two didn't recognise it as an apology.
> I challenge you to say what it was an apology for.

If you're such an idiot you could't realise it, you're beyond hope.  I think most
people had a clue.
 
> > > > I've seen your recently posted missive on, among other things, where mess

> > > the "recently" is not accepted, in case you want to make a point of it
> > > later.

> > Huh?  Perhaps it's been posted before, however the post I refer to was dated
> > 10 February 1997.  Seems recent enough, at least recent enough for you to
> > recall your own guidelines so you don't violate them.  Interesting how in
> 
> My concern that your unnecessary use of the word "recent" was to imply that
> it was something new  and recently on the scenes, as opposed to being
> over 15 years old.

recent = something people might rememeber.  Thanks.  A decade is a bit past that.
 
> > private email, where I questioned why you posted other people's email, you
> > evaded the accusation by stating that it was *your* email, though it containe
> > quotes from a multitude of others, myself included.  Pretty weak, dude. 
> Well, that was just one of my comments. I accept your point.

Yeah, well, you accepted it in a pretty fuckin' unacceptable fashion.  When are
you going to apologise and cancel it?    
 
> > This sounds like me as advice to make *your* post more visible, not to reduce
> > the clutter in general.  Doesn't make any judgment on the clutter.
> 
> I don't see this going anywhere, so I just leave it to stand, in view of
> below...

Hey, *I* don't feel compelled to follow your rules;  I just thought since you 
reference them that you might.
 
> > > You seem to be picking up on a descriptive comment and treating it as
> > > prescriptive.

> > And *you* are the one that pointed people to this comment as something they
> > should read before posting.  Kind of sets the tone for them, huh? 
> Duoh! As I have said, it has changed. And it is descriptive. You didn't
> quote the prescriptive section.

Has it changed since you referenced them? I'd have thought a pedant like you
would be up to date on them.

> > > Let's take a simple case where we can get a YES/NO, nice
> > > boolean answer: do you believe that this FAQ as it stands, accepts that
> > > commercial for sale messages are acceptable in nz.general?

> > Of course not - they piss me off as much as anyone else.  The FAQ directs
> > commercial posts to an appropriate newsgroup.  It seems, though, that 
> And here you are being inconsistent. Gotcha!

Excuse me?  When have I ever said that I played by your rules?  I would have
just hoped that *you* followed them.  When did *I* post a commercial post?
 
> You can't one the one hand say the description for nz.general says it is
> a wide ranging sewer, and criticise me for directing people to other more
> appropriate newsgroups for their post
> and then on the other hand, arbitrarily use other sections to justify
> why commercial posts should not go in nz.general. 
> > commercial posts are a small portion of what you've chosen to censor.  I 
> 1. They are not censored. You've already conceded that argument by your
> total fail to respond to it. Feel free to take it up again. I'd suggest
> you first accept my definition of censorship, or offer an alternative, and
> we can take it from there.

I think someone else has posted an acceptable definition of censorship.  You
might not agree with it, but *any* cancellation is censorship by my definition.

> 2. Commercial posts would be the second most common reason for offering
> guidance to posters. 
> > would object to your cancelling of them, though.  Complain to their ISP, 
> Oh yes. And I get criticised for setting reply-tos to postmasters, and now
> you want me to complain to ISPs. I find:

Send an email to their postmaster.  CC it to your alleged offender.  Don't be
a fuckwit and play games with them.
 
> a) a simple explanation to the poster has invariably (to date) been welcomed
> (when I get feedback) - most aren't aware of nz.biz.misc
> b) the cancellation ensures that copy-cats don't mislearn by emulation 
> > get yourself elected moderator, or set up some sort of bot (after following
> > proper procedures). 
> As I've said before, BOTs lack the human touch and discretion. I have no
> desire to be moderator. If don't validate everything. I only focus on the
> undeniable, over-the-top, blatant, unquestionable breeches.

Bots also, as I suggested, have the acceptance of the readers of the newsgroup,
if an appropriate set of steps is followed.

If you have no desire to be moderator, FUCK OFF.  Complaining to moderators or
postmasters is the proper response for you.
 
> > > It is very simple: show me which of these precepts isn't accepted by the
> > > usenet community (let's take 85% as a target level of acceptability).
> > > Stop waffling about vague generalities, and get down to specifics.
> > > If you can.

> > Cancelling other people's posts without the explicit authority of the
> > portion of the community in question is something I would think is unacceptab
> > to just about all of the usenet community.

> Converesely, posting messages in violation of the charter agreed by the
> community is also unacceptable. an two wrongs make a right? Well I think it
> can help.

Wayne, just admit that you have *no* mandate to cancel posts and stop doing
it. 
 
> > > > You played a clever trick, and some of them fell for it.  Take a bow, Way
> > > > you're *so* smart.

> > > You still didn't respond to any of my points. Nice snipping. What mail
> > > posting software doesn't show you the sender?

> > Mine does.  That's why I redirected my response to your postmaster.  No reply
> > from him or her, either.  I wonder if you might occupy that position? 
> Yup, and I did reply.

Heil Wayne.  
 
> > Have you been elected moderator? 
> No.

That's the second or third time you've admitted this.  Why not accept that you're
out of line?
 
> > I see several recent posts from regular, reputable posters which are in line
> > with my assertion.

>   [that Wayne McDougall is making a mockery of nz.general] 
> Really?  Care to quote them?

Lessee... So far Simon Lyall, Geoff McCaughan, Stephen Judd, Brian Harmer, Scooter,
Jeremy Taylor, David Mcloughlin and Steve@actrix.gen.nz have all spoken out against
your unilateral cancelling of posts.  You can read their posts yourself.