🚀 go-pugleaf

CNOTM Nominee Mark Tarka wrote:

> 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.

Haven't you noticed his blatant forgeries?
  
> > >
> > > > 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.

Read his posts.  Evidence abounds.
  
> [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)