NGM is: Real Names vs. User Names

"Eugene Miya" wrote in message
news:4465132e$1@darkstar...

Read Vernor Vinge's True Names.

I wil take a pass on it as I am not that interested. I have got my name and
if others want stupid names then they are welcome to them.

In article ,
Edward Dolan wrote:
I know relatively little (next to nothing really) about how computers
work,
but I can see that is not the case with Eugene. Nevertheless, it has been
my
experience that the worst scofflaws on Usenet are those who use user names
as opposed to those using their real names. Anonymity really does breed
incivility.

Anonmity was built into the ARPAnet before I ever got on in 1973
(sometime between '69-'73)..

However, I also believe there is no real anonymity on the Internet. An
expert investigator will be able to trace anything to anyone. Therefore,
it behooves us all to keep a civil tongue in our heads.

It's not merely a matter of one's tongue but also one's ears.
Let them make jerks of themselves. Use a smart read and learn about
Killfiles. These are all features placed into protocols for people to
get along and coexist in cyberspace.

I do not care about getting along with anyone and it would never occur to me
to kill file anyone. Words can never hurt me. Besides, I like a good verbal
fight!

I have traced people. People have traced me. I know professional
tracers.

This is not merely an issue of computers but also computer networks and
software. The alt.* groups were specifically set up for a maximum of
free speech ( I know Gilmore well, I took his DES cracking book at his
request into the halls of the NSA; he wanted assurances that they had
his book: he wants them to sell it in their gift shop, but they have
other investments ).

I guess I really don't understand how the alt. groups differ from any of the
other newsgroups.

It's the smart ear which is more important.

I am very good at listening, but I return with interest anything that does
not strike my fancy. Others have accused me of abusing the protocols of
Usenet, but I do not think I ever do that. I am merely contentious and I
like to argue. Surely that is what Usenet is all about, is it not?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

In article ,
Edward Dolan wrote:
I am very good at listening, but I return with interest anything that does
not strike my fancy. Others have accused me of abusing the protocols of
Usenet, but I do not think I ever do that. I am merely contentious and I
like to argue. Surely that is what Usenet is all about, is it not?

Usenet, NNTP, is merely a low priority communication protocol.
It is somewhat superior to mailing lists when scaling is an issue, and
somewhat under appreciated by web newbies. It is monitored by people in
the know. The main problems are its text base and the learning curve
for setting up the right mix between moderated and un-moderated groups.

If you want pure argument, you want talk.politics.*.

--

"Eugene Miya" wrote in message
news:4468afc1$1@darkstar...

Alt. newsgroup (ARBR) restored.

In article ,
Edward Dolan wrote:
I am very good at listening, but I return with interest anything that does
not strike my fancy. Others have accused me of abusing the protocols of
Usenet, but I do not think I ever do that. I am merely contentious and I
like to argue. Surely that is what Usenet is all about, is it not?

Usenet, NNTP, is merely a low priority communication protocol.
It is somewhat superior to mailing lists when scaling is an issue, and
somewhat under appreciated by web newbies. It is monitored by people in
the know. The main problems are its text base and the learning curve
for setting up the right mix between moderated and un-moderated groups.

I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet.
Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic
pictures. Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated,
but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be
moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup
called "rec.bicycles.off-road."

If you want pure argument, you want talk.politics.*.

Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim if
that is all one is doing.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

In article ,
says...

I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet.
Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic
pictures.

That's what the alt.binaries.pictures.* groups are for.

Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated,
but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be
moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup
called "rec.bicycles.off-road."

It wasn't originally moderated, but it came under repeated attack by
a net-kook who would repeatedly flood it with huge, inflammatory
postings, cross-posted to other groups to add controversy to the
replies. (He did the same thing to certain bicycle-related email
lists, too, crashing some of them and losing himself various email
accounts in the process. He'd actually been at it before the
original rec.bicycles group was split into the many bicycle groups we
have today, though he wasn't exclusively targeting mountain bikes at
first -- he also attacked fast commuters, racers, recreational
riders, and bicycle manufacturers who made anything other than old-
fashioned sit-up-and-beg roadsters.)

Once r.b.o-r was moderated, its volume dropped tremendously,
especially during various moderation difficulties. alt.mountain-bike
took over much of the discussion volume, while the troll moved on to
other rec.bicycles. targets, notably rec.bicycles.soc, which he
continues to plague to this day.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html

Usenet, NNTP, is merely a low priority communication protocol.
It is somewhat superior to mailing lists when scaling is an issue, and
somewhat under appreciated by web newbies. It is monitored by people in
the know. The main problems are its text base and the learning curve
for setting up the right mix between moderated and un-moderated groups.

In article ,
Edward Dolan wrote:
I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet.
Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic
pictures.

The first point is something I argue with AI researcher friends about.
There is more to information than text.
Usenet was set up in a time of text. Binaries, specifically photos,
are nicely dealt with in alt.binaries.* None of these has been
overwhelmed by porn. Regular unmoderated groups have not either.
Again, this is why full feeds are coveted. Good binary programs,
sound, and images go to the alt.binaries groups.

The porn argument on the whole internet is overrated.
Far more serious problems exist at this time.

Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated,
but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be
moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup
called "rec.bicycles.off-road."

I moderate a group, comp.parallel.
The history of moderated groups began with a sub hierarchy of mod.*.
Then groups got reorganized. The issue has always been to balance
signal to noise. Moderation is a feature. It has helped out with a
slew of groups from rec.hunting, sci.military.moderated, the *.annouce
groups, etc. More groups should be moderated. Sci.environment should
have been moderated. Talk.environment should be fine. The talk.*
hierarchy as a whole deserves more respect. Now the world has blogs.

If you want pure argument, you want talk.politics.*.

Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim if
that is all one is doing.

Then change the paradigm.

--

"Joshua Putnam" wrote in message
.net...
In article ,
says...

I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet.
Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic
pictures.

That's what the alt.binaries.pictures.* groups are for.

I have no doubt of that!

Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated,
but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be
moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup
called "rec.bicycles.off-road."

It wasn't originally moderated, but it came under repeated attack by
a net-kook who would repeatedly flood it with huge, inflammatory
postings, cross-posted to other groups to add controversy to the
replies. (He did the same thing to certain bicycle-related email
lists, too, crashing some of them and losing himself various email
accounts in the process. He'd actually been at it before the
original rec.bicycles group was split into the many bicycle groups we
have today, though he wasn't exclusively targeting mountain bikes at
first -- he also attacked fast commuters, racers, recreational
riders, and bicycle manufacturers who made anything other than old-
fashioned sit-up-and-beg roadsters.)

You are pretty much descrbing what took place on ARBR. ARBR was a small
recumbent bicycle group and everyone got fed up with the criminal vandal
troll and left. When a newsgroup is small, it is very easy for a criminal
vandal troll to destroy it.

Once r.b.o-r was moderated, its volume dropped tremendously,
especially during various moderation difficulties. alt.mountain-bike
took over much of the discussion volume, while the troll moved on to
other rec.bicycles. targets, notably rec.bicycles.soc, which he
continues to plague to this day.

I am surprised that RBS is not bigger than it is as this would seem to be
the heart and soul of cycling. Some of the other cycling newsgroups are way
too technically oriented to have much appeal to the general cyclist.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Eugene Miya" wrote in message
news:446a6bf3$1@darkstar...
Usenet, NNTP, is merely a low priority communication protocol.
It is somewhat superior to mailing lists when scaling is an issue, and
somewhat under appreciated by web newbies. It is monitored by people in
the know. The main problems are its text base and the learning curve
for setting up the right mix between moderated and un-moderated groups.

In article ,
Edward Dolan wrote:
I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet.
Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic
pictures.

The first point is something I argue with AI researcher friends about.
There is more to information than text.
Usenet was set up in a time of text. Binaries, specifically photos,
are nicely dealt with in alt.binaries.* None of these has been
overwhelmed by porn. Regular unmoderated groups have not either.
Again, this is why full feeds are coveted. Good binary programs,
sound, and images go to the alt.binaries groups.

The porn argument on the whole internet is overrated.
Far more serious problems exist at this time.

There was a group of cyclists from the Chicago area (Monkey Island) that set
up a blog site and it consisted of nothing but obscene and porn attacks on
other cyclists and other groups. No thank you. I want text only when it
comes to Usenet. I am even very leery of links and will almost never go to
them unless I really trust the poster.

Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated,
but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be
moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup
called "rec.bicycles.off-road."

I moderate a group, comp.parallel.
The history of moderated groups began with a sub hierarchy of mod.*.
Then groups got reorganized. The issue has always been to balance
signal to noise. Moderation is a feature. It has helped out with a
slew of groups from rec.hunting, sci.military.moderated, the *.annouce
groups, etc. More groups should be moderated. Sci.environment should
have been moderated. Talk.environment should be fine. The talk.*
hierarchy as a whole deserves more respect. Now the world has blogs.

Yes, I think only moderated groups will work. An unmoderated group will be
chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human
nature.

But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can
get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the
subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. I
think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little
fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group.

If you want pure argument, you want talk.politics.*.

Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim if
that is all one is doing.

Then change the paradigm.

My paradigm is perfect for unmoderated newsgroups. I assure you I would know
how to pass muster on a moderated newsgroup. But there are just too many
idiots on unmoderated newsgroups and they need to be dealt with by the likes
of Ed Dolan the Great.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

In article ,
Edward Dolan wrote:
There was a group of cyclists from the Chicago area (Monkey Island) that set
up a blog site and it consisted of nothing but obscene and porn attacks on
other cyclists and other groups. No thank you. I want text only when it
comes to Usenet. I am even very leery of links and will almost never go to
them unless I really trust the poster.

So?
Reading a web site, blog or news group is a choice.

I know some of the various guys who came up with links.

This is a weak argument for text (one site? you are wasting my time).


Yes, I think only moderated groups will work. An unmoderated group will be
I thought you said you didn't know much about computers.
chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human
nature.

Human nature appears more complex than this.
You can say it varies across religious background values.
If you are unfamiliar with usenet, news protocols, this diminishes
your comment.

But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can
get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the
subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. I
think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little
fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group.

It depends on the composition of the group.
We might as well give up all telecommunication technologies were what
you say is the case.


talk.politics.*.
Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim if
that is all one is doing.
Then change the paradigm.

My paradigm is perfect for unmoderated newsgroups. I assure you I would know
how to pass muster on a moderated newsgroup. But there are just too many
idiots on unmoderated newsgroups and they need to be dealt with by the likes

Well impress us.

--

"Eugene Miya" wrote in message
news:446b8b8e$1@darkstar...

[newsgroups restored]

This idiot continues to keep messing around with the newsgroups. Apparently,
it is my karma to be forever stuck with idiots.

In article ,
Edward Dolan wrote:
There was a group of cyclists from the Chicago area (Monkey Island) that
set
up a blog site and it consisted of nothing but obscene and porn attacks on
other cyclists and other groups. No thank you. I want text only when it
comes to Usenet. I am even very leery of links and will almost never go to
them unless I really trust the poster.

So?
Reading a web site, blog or news group is a choice.

I have already explained to you that it is very easy for a criminal vandal
troll to destroy a newsgroup with text only. It is even easier if pictures
are permitted. What is there about this that you do not understand?

I know some of the various guys who came up with links.

This is a weak argument for text (one site? you are wasting my time).

That one site was being linked by various posters on several cycling
newsgroups. And then the blog ended up being extensively discussed by some
few, much to the dismay of the majority of the group. If you had been the
moderator , you would never have allowed any of that crap to ever appear on
your forum, that is for god damn sure!

Yes, I think only moderated groups will work. An unmoderated group will be
I thought you said you didn't know much about computers.
chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human
nature.

Your interspersed remark in the middle of my statement marks you as an
idiot. Congratulations! That is how I shall treat you henceforth.

Human nature appears more complex than this.
You can say it varies across religious background values.
If you are unfamiliar with usenet, news protocols, this diminishes
your comment.

I know all I will ever have to know about human nature. That is why
newsgroups have to be moderated, but preferably not by a numskull like you.

But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can
get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the
subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. I
think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little
fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group.

It depends on the composition of the group.
We might as well give up all telecommunication technologies were what
you say is the case.

No, groups just need a moderator (an editor). I know what newsgroups are
worth and they are not worth anything.They are only good for fun and games.
Most moderated groups are dead and dying because they are so dull. In fact
they designed for dullards like you. What are you doing on Usenet if you do
not like some fireworks?

talk.politics.*.
Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim
if
that is all one is doing.
Then change the paradigm.

My paradigm is perfect for unmoderated newsgroups. I assure you I would
know
how to pass muster on a moderated newsgroup. But there are just too many
idiots on unmoderated newsgroups and they need to be dealt with by the
likes of me.

Well impress us.

I already have, but you are too stupid to comprehend anything. Jon Meinecke
was another idiot who was unable to appreciate my Greatness. He resorted to
a kill file like all cowards and scoundrels. Meinecke was made for a
moderated forum. He has no business ever being on Usenet. He is nothing but
a plodder - just like you are!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Wed, 17 May 2006 03:15:01 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"Eugene Miya" wrote in message
news:446a6bf3$1@darkstar...
Usenet, NNTP, is merely a low priority communication protocol.
It is somewhat superior to mailing lists when scaling is an issue, and
somewhat under appreciated by web newbies. It is monitored by people in
the know. The main problems are its text base and the learning curve
for setting up the right mix between moderated and un-moderated groups.

In article ,
Edward Dolan wrote:
I don't think you would ever want anything but pure text for Usenet.
Otherwise some would be posting all kinds of obscene and pornographic
pictures.

The first point is something I argue with AI researcher friends about.
There is more to information than text.
Usenet was set up in a time of text. Binaries, specifically photos,
are nicely dealt with in alt.binaries.* None of these has been
overwhelmed by porn. Regular unmoderated groups have not either.
Again, this is why full feeds are coveted. Good binary programs,
sound, and images go to the alt.binaries groups.

The porn argument on the whole internet is overrated.
Far more serious problems exist at this time.

There was a group of cyclists from the Chicago area (Monkey Island) that set
up a blog site and it consisted of nothing but obscene and porn attacks on
other cyclists and other groups. No thank you. I want text only when it
comes to Usenet. I am even very leery of links and will almost never go to
them unless I really trust the poster.

Also, it was my impression that all Usenet groups are unmoderated,
but there are a few newsgroups I have run across that do seem to be
moderated. Just why I can't figure out. I note in particular a newsgroup
called "rec.bicycles.off-road."

I moderate a group, comp.parallel.
The history of moderated groups began with a sub hierarchy of mod.*.
Then groups got reorganized. The issue has always been to balance
signal to noise. Moderation is a feature. It has helped out with a
slew of groups from rec.hunting, sci.military.moderated, the *.annouce
groups, etc. More groups should be moderated. Sci.environment should
have been moderated. Talk.environment should be fine. The talk.*
hierarchy as a whole deserves more respect. Now the world has blogs.

Yes, I think only moderated groups will work.

Like rec.bicycles.off-road. It's DEAD, thanks to mountain bikers' fear
of the truth!

An unmoderated group will be
chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human
nature.

But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can
get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the
subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. I
think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little
fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group.

If you want pure argument, you want talk.politics.*.

Well, I guess I really don't want pure argument. Life gets pretty grim if
that is all one is doing.

Then change the paradigm.

My paradigm is perfect for unmoderated newsgroups. I assure you I would know
how to pass muster on a moderated newsgroup. But there are just too many
idiots on unmoderated newsgroups and they need to be dealt with by the likes
of Ed Dolan the Great.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande