🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Tarka wrote:

> No User wrote:
> > Mark Tarka wrote:
> [snip]
> > >I've twice had the recent experience of searching (probably
> > >Dogpile) Usenet for specific messages by those claiming to be
> > >UPAs, and not finding what I know had been posted.
> > >
> > >Would anyone know if the archivists have taken to filtering
> > >out posts from certain names/sites?  It'd be great to learn
> > >that our visitors have a net-reputation worth exploiting.
> > >
> > >
> > >  Mark (Yeah...I know...don't feed the trolls...Sorry)
> > 
> > It's well beyond troll feeding time. The entertainment value of your posts
> > up to now will sustain them for weeks. Your cluelessness about Usenet is
> 
> Won't...they have no long-term memory.
> 
> > seemingly boundless. Some of the more obvious things that you should
> > realize are
> > 
> > sci.chem does not have 'members'. Messages contain 'sci.chem' in the
> > header or they do not. That is it.
> 
> You're not off to a good start, but I'll see what I can do
> to help you along.
> 
> 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.
 
> > UPA is not spam. Spam is the same message posted to many groups or
> > crossposted to many groups (look up BI, n.b. it doesn't mean Bungmunch
> > Index). You do not have to worry about spam, the Cabal (TINC) will cancel
> > it.
> 
> I believe at the last we were discussing "denial of service", not spam.
>  
> > 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.

>  
> > 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.
  
> > The surprising thing about the UPA is that it didn't happen sooner. Maybe
> > its a Bad Thing for Chemistry that the crackpots would rather flock to
> > sci.physics to try out their crazy theories and maybe learn something or
> > teach by bad example. Although I never cared much for APs posts (except for
> > the one where he described riding his mountain bike through the grocery
> > store to test the headlight), I always sort of thought of him as a canary
> > in the sci.* coal mine. Thus I was only mildly surprised last weekend when
> > he came back. If this group can't treat all with some minimum level of
> > respect, perhaps it needs a good object lesson in the bad side of 'this
> > group is mine and you can't have it.' Either way, welcome to Usenet.
> 
> Here it is, "No User" -- do a little more homework and produce some
> examples where all comers have not been treated with some minimum level
> of respect.  The FAQ should have told you already that we don't do home-
> work or complete tests for people, nor do we help with clandestine
> drug syntheses.  As far as I can tell, there are several members
> of this group who're pretty good at spotting ringers.  And should you
> hold up some high-profile issue, such as Archie P, then be prepared to
> explain what level of respect he should have gotten (perhaps we failed
> to ask whether the headlight was satisfactory).

Do you deny Dr. Plutonium's right to post whatever he pleases in this
unmoderated group?