🚀 go-pugleaf

Nathan Schmidt <schmidt@civl.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:

> And you miss out on their gratitude!  Just out of interest, how many of 
> those who actually replied to you expressed thanks, and not apologies
> prompted by their net provider?

No one has apologised in a reply to me. Why should they? They haven't
done anything against me. And no one has contacted me as a result of a
prompt from a net provider.

So of those who have replied 12 have expressed thanks, or as a percentage:
80%. That is, people who take the trouble to read and reply to my email
address as opposed to hitting reply.

> > Person acts for guidance on using usenet
> > =>postmaster doing what they should have done in the first place
> 
> Haven't you already seen to this in your initial email?  Why trouble their
> postmaster with it?

No, I just point out specific breech(es). I don't offer (unless asked) a
full positive list of suggestions.

> Sure.  Poke it with a stick and then run away.
>  
> > Person doesn't exist/has invalid address
> > => postmaster finds out about forgeries/abuse of their system 
> Of course, most forged posts change the domain name, so neither your e-mail
> nor any followup would ever get to their postmaster, right?

Yup, I get a few bounced back. 
>
> > Person wants to talk to me, but doesn't figure out what they are doing
> > => probably too busy swinging through trees, grunting, and picking fleas
> >    off colleagues to offer a worthwhile discussion
> 
> Here we see some of Wayne's true colours.  Don't offer constructive advice
> to a newbie - they're obviously too stupid to be here and should have their
> accounts pulled immediately.  I especially like the way you cancelled the

Not at all. But whenever I start something new I try and educate myself
to avoid looking like an idiot. I have taken the limited steps available
to make information available to newbies. Educational sessions by email
is not a service I feel I need to provide.

> *apology* of that one fellow, after which he posted another apology to
> nz.general only, seemingly prompted by his service provider.  Asshole.

As noted, "Sorry, I was tired" completely out of any context wasn't
recognisable as an apology to me. He was emailed; he had the option to
reply again with more clarity, and he did. Where is the problem?

> > Now I don't have a problem with any of the above outcomes. Of course, there
> > is also the "postmaster never checks or reviews email", but that isn't my
> > responsibility.
> 
> Of course.  Your only responsibility is to cancel any postings which you
> personally feel do not follow the nz.general charter.  Nobody else gets any

1. It is not just "personal". As near as can be, I try and make it
objective. I only target the most blatant breaches. Feel free to point out
any example where you think I have erred. I'm happy to recalibrate my
target levels.
2. I don't just cancel the posts. I also email each person (for the first
offence at least), explaining why, and what they should do as an
alternative.

> say.  Wayne knows best.  Wayne also likes to play with newbies, tricking
> them into complaining about themselves to their own service providers, while
> claiming that *he* didn't tell their postmaster.  Infantile.  Self-important.

Well I *didn't* tell their postmaster. Think about it. The only thing
anyone tells their postmaster (and we've yet to see any evidence that anyone
has), is what they choose to say. If they choose to rant and rave about
their right to post in any newsgroup they like and no one can stop them,
well I think that they bring it on their own heads. We will probably have
to just agree to disagree on this one.

> But aren't you the infallible Wayne W. McDougall, sole arbiter of what 
> constitutes a valid post to nz.general?  Surely your judgment extends 
> further to allow you this capability.  If it does not *Don't cancel other
> people's posts*.  Simple as that.

Now you are just getting silly.

Here's a suggestion: instead of dribbling at the mouth over the generalities
why not focus on some specifics.

And I can't see any login in your "if...then..." construct. Too simple for
me I'm afraid. Feel free to elaborate.

> > As we discussed, it is not just your post, but the followups it incites.

> I let other people decide which newsgroups to follow up to.  I don't play
> little games with them, like posting the original post in this thread to
> nz.general but then removing that newsgroup from the followups list.  Any
> particular reason for that?

Yes, of course. I don't believe this discussion belongs in nz.general.
I believe it belongs in nz.net.admin and aus.net.news (the latter I'm told).
So I set follow-ups accordingly. The first post was to nz.general to let
people know it was there; I don't know how many people read nz.net.admin
on a regular basis.

So you deliberately overrode a follow-up, ignoring the wishes of the poster,
for your own reasons. I'm not to impressed. Follow-ups have been reset
again.

> As I previously pointed out in private email, my motivation for not trimming
> the newsgroups was that the post I was replying to contained a notorious
> piece of misinformation, which regrettably, many people believe.  I made
> passing comment in my post to the range of newsgroups it was being posted
> to - I was aware of the crossposting.  I felt the need to post to all of those
> groups to follow up on a bit of misinformation which already existed there. I
> can assure you, I considered *not* doing this, but I felt that the need to
> correct the misinformation justified the crossposting.  Lazy has nothing to

And as I said to you, you can, and are still welcome to do that. Just
set the follow-ups so further discussions are limited to appropriate
newsgroups.

> mentions nz.general.  Just curious - how do you know which newsgroup people
> follow a thread in?  Or was this just a little white lie on your part?

You can see where people have posted/read before. Ian Riddler's post
hadn't come through at the time I corresponded with you.

> Maybe you can suggest a cancelbot like they're discussing on s.c.n-z.  But

No. One of the reasons I am making my little contribution is to try and
precent cancelbots being introduced. They lack the discretion of human
beings; there are some cases where cross-posting to nz.wanted and nz.general
is (currently) acceptable. I have pleaded with some people that
education is the answer, rather than automatic eliminations. Their response
was prove it. So I am trying.

> until you have the approval of the users of this newsgroup, butt out and let us
> choose what we want to read.

1. You can read whatever you like - I'd suggest you even go to the newsgroups
that have things you want to read.
2. People have chosen what they want to read, by choosing to read
nz.general. I'm educating people like you who violate their rights by
forcing on them things they have agreed they don't want to read.



--
system@codeworks.gen.nz  Wayne McDougall ICHTHUS <*> Impeach President Clark!!
        A U C K L A N D   D E B A T I N G   A S S O C I A T I O N   (Inc)
Interested in debating, public speaking or adjudicating in Auckland?
Send me email or write to President@ada.org.nz, or ADA, P O Box 3233, Auckland