🚀 go-pugleaf

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."

[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)