🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
-- 
"Mankind was born free, and is everywhere in chainstores."
Doklands Mafia | http://www.fluxus.freeserve.co.uk