🚀 go-pugleaf

Doktor Pete wrote:

> Mark Tarka <markZERO@mcn.net> wrote <3980C4ED.5A9@mcn.net>:
> 
> >S. Livesay King wrote:
> >> Mark Tarka wrote:
> >> > No User wrote:
> >> > > Mark Tarka wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> > If a person "signs up" for a particular newsgroup, they are called
> >> > ______________ (fill in your favorite word; more points for presenting
> >> > some official evidence for the use of that word).
> >> 
> >> Readers and posters.
> >
> >No problem with that.  OTOH, "member" is one who belongs to a group
> >or organization.  Then "belong" is "to be part of or in natural
> >association with something."
> 
> Despite the similarity in terminology, newsfroups are not "groups or
> organisations".  Think membership list, think subscription fees, think
> publically accessible forum.
> 
> >[snip]
> >> > > UPA is not DOS. Unauthorized canceling of messages is DOS. Flooding a group
> >> > > with spam is DOS (see above). A supersedes attack is DOS. Some people find
> >> > > UPA annoying. Some people find you annoying. Neither are DOS.
> >> >
> >> > And to date no one has claimed that there has been a denial of service.
> >> 
> >> Uncle Al, the continuous canadian forger of Hormel Corporation's domain
> >> made just such a bogus claim.
> >
> >Your failure to present concrete evidence is duly noted :-)  At
> >best, there was a suggestion of a denial of service, but not
> >via any Hormel domain.
> > 
> >> >
> >> > > UPA is not off topic. Why? The FAQ itself says that 'sci.chem is an
> >> > > unmoderated discussion group inhabited by a diverse range of humanity' and
> >> > > 'discussion often drifts away from the narrow focus of the science of
> >> > > chemistry'. A bit. Furthermore, there is no authority to decide what is on
> >> > > or off topic. The Cabal (TINC) is too busy cancelling spam and there is
> >> > > insufficient slack involved to interest SPUTUM. Finally, this group
> >> > > dispenses technical information therefore the quality of that information,
> >> > > the intellectual prowess of the dispenser of that information, or the
> >> > > overall quality of the group are all on topic. Thus a response of 'idiot'
> >> > > to a detailed treatise on magic angle spinning with a 1500 word appendix on
> >> > > adiabatic demagnetization is rude but on topic. Also on topic are a post
> >> > > with the single word 'splunge' or a 500 line 'elements that start with T'
> >> > > cascade, which might be interpreted as a general comment on the level of
> >> > > discourse in the group. You want a moderated group? Try RFDing
> >> > > sci.chem.research. That idea didn't go over too well when somebody floated
> >> > > it a few years back, but maybe the UPA has changed the picture.
> >> >
> >> > Well, you've said little that is new.  Of course, you're arguing that
> >> > personal attack is on-topic according to the FAQ.
> >> 
> >> It is.  Uncle Al uses it all the time.
> >
> >No evidence, buddy.  Move along.
> > 
> >[snip]
> >> Do you deny Dr. Plutonium's right to post whatever he pleases in this
> >> unmoderated group?
> >
> >This is it?  The Plutonium thing?
> >
> >First off, we are not required to accept bad science.  Plutonium
> >was on the fringe, AFAIK, and his troubles are part of the
> >system here in the science venue.  This process is what it takes
> >to rid the discipline of frauds or get to the root of a new concept.
> >A general consensus is required for science to move forward.  This
> >is our "fantasy", one that can withstand close scrutiny.  The fantasy
> >of the bungmunchers, for example, is not so immune from close
> >examination (fake names, addresses, etc.).  
> >
> >Secondly, are you arguing that any topic can be introduced in any
> >news group?  If so, you're a Usenet criminal.
> >
> >
> >  Mark (Please respond...with rational comments, of course)
> 
> Archie is a valuable Usenet resource, bringing joy and life into the hearts
> of many.  Everything I know about cutting holes in shoes I have learned from
> Archimedes Plutonium.

Dr. Plutonium has imparted much nuclear physics knowledge to me.