Activism Change

Epilogue (was how useful is usenet+… proposal)

Question:

To avoid a lot of legal problems there are probably also simpler ways to accomplish an "less polluted usenet environment". To enforce it within

Yes: go away, and take the rest of the sniveling government bureaucrats with you.  Try Prodigy, for instance – the censorship comes free. Flippant?  Possibly, but still the perfect solution.  Usenet obviously doesn’t fit your criteria, and seems reluctant to adopt your mania for regulation.  You’re upset that a site let a user choose their own name, and even more upset that they don’t try to censor them. Perhaps you’d be happier in a less dangerously active environment. — The military particularly like Prodigy because the censorship came for free.   — Intel chairman Andrew Grove

Response:

news.admin.misc,alt.activism,alt.censorship Flippant?  Possibly, but still the perfect solution.  Usenet obviously doesn’t fit your criteria, and seems reluctant to adopt your mania for regulation.  

No one is reluctant to adopt his mania… it’s just that he did not follow proper procedure as outlined in the guidelines for the nets and news involved…  Much like you must follow the Constitution to change it, you must follow the RFC’s (etc) to change them… Try putting a little effort forth and writing up an RFD as per the RFCs and submit them to the net in the proper forum for such RFDs. -nasty-evil-grin-

Response:

Sigh, this is a long response to a long posting, hit ‘n’ if you want to skip it… I still think that it could be legal to prevent abuse of any network, and to not allow certain users to access the network.

I believe that most service and network providers have "acceptable use" policies, and customers who violate those risk various penalities.  In cases where you think the acceptable use policy is being broken, you take it up with their sysadmin or network provider.  Simple as that. The thing a network company like Nexus could say is that freedom of speech, in this case to post whatever hate mail by a client, may be regarded as a limitation of the pursuit of happiness of all other network users.

Woa there, you still haven’t given *any* proof that there was any "hate mail" involved, whilst Turmoil has apparently been quite open about what mail has been sent. In fact, you may argue that one abuser scares off at least a 10 to 100 fold of goodwilling clients and that the network-company is suffering from it.

So they are effectively being punished for it.  Is there any reason then to go searching for some elusive Usenet Death Penalty when surely his service provider will come down on him like a ton of bricks as soon as he realises all that precious money is going elsewhere ? And you all know of course that one man’s right can not be in the way of a natural right (for the latter there may be a better expression, it is meant to explain a right one is born with).

Hmm..  I don’t quite follow that, do you mean his right to free speech ends where your right not to feel put out by what he says starts ? That’s kind of a dangerous precedent to set..  Now if he was inciting violence against you it would be a different matter (*IF* you could prove it), but implying that you want to be a BOFH isn’t that… Try once to yell fire in a crowed cinema while there are no flames; are you still surprised that it is against the law? If that is against the law, then why wouldn’t it be on usenet? False and misleading information to a large public to deliberately cause panic is punishable by law as far as I know.

How about ‘cos *most* people have more sense than to panic over a lot of what gets posted to Usenet ? That argument rates almost a microLenat for it self-evident bogosity…  :-)   /* Oops – geeked out there.. */ To avoid a lot of legal problems there are probably also simpler ways to accomplish an "less polluted usenet environment".  To enforce it within reasonable means allowing abusers a second change may be a nightmare.  A possible way to scare off abusers is simply to raise their contribution (rate charge by a network company) proportional to the trouble caused.

All this talk of abusers raises a question, *who* gets to decide what constitutes abuse ? The government with obscenity laws and (for us in the UK) secrets acts ? The network/service provider with it’s acceptable use policy ? The sites who feed the sites of "abusers" ? You ? [chomp] In other words, probably all clients at @halcyon.com have to pay for Mr turmoil since poor Ralph had to make overtime to convince the rest of the world it was all ok what NW Nexus Inc. did.

CRAP.   [Cite References And Proof] Quite likely that company is within reasonable legal limits as far as I can see, I’ve also never said that it was not.  The only thing i’ve said so far is that the network company apparently doesn’t see a reason to stop him despite all the trouble he has caused.

The trouble he has caused *you*.  Halcyon asked him to stop mailing you, he claims he didn’t start it in the first place, but he would be happy to comply anyway.  Seems fair enough to me.  Please don’t try to fudge the slight he has caused you onto the rest of us.. [chomp] There is even a movie called Skokie that perfectly portraits what neo-Nazi’s can cause in a suburb of New York.  To mention another movie, I think the blues brothers had an excellent solution to the neo-Nazi problem.

What’s that got to do with the price of fish ? To call somebody a Nazi like turmoil does all the time is a form of extremely bad taste.  It was for me a reason to contact his system manager.

Fair enough, that’s the way it should be rather than to impose some UDP on Turmoil or Halcyon. To go back to the original topic of moderation of usenet, yes I still agree with that idea and could imagine various commonly acceptable forms of it that render usenet into something more acceptable for larger groups of, what I would call, normal users.

So what about the rest of us, who would disagree with what you call normal ? How do *you* define normal ? Apart from which, moderation of Usenet in it’s present form is completely unworkable !  How on earth would you propose to impliment it ? Silently cancel the messages of those who offend you ? Change every newsgroup to be moderated ? If so, moderated by whom ? It’d never get past an RFD in news.groups. For the time being I rely on the Author Kill option in xrn.

Ahhh…. some good sense.. [chomp] Disclaimers at the end of a mail messages are toys that don’t give you any rights or protection, even if you claim to speak for yourself. That’s why I normally don’t use them.

Who cares about the protection, it just makes your position clearer. Mind you, I’m one to talk, I’ve not got one either.. It’s a good idea to treat any posting on Usenet as being "personal opinion" anyway, unless it explicitly states otherwise.. Just my 2 penneth…  [Mea maxima culpa and all that] Chris — Christopher Samuel, Computer Unit, U.W Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth, WALES "Some say the gods are a myth,                     – The Waterboys  but guess who I’ve been dancing with."             "The Return of Pan"

Response:

I still think that it could be legal to prevent abuse of any network,

Agreed … perhaps difficult, but wire fraud is certainly already illegal (in the U.S.), and would certainly qualify as an abuse of a network. However, defining "an abuse of the net" is a rather tricky task since the network exists in an international context.  In addition there is no "existance" to Usenet, in the sense of any central authority or corporation to whom one would go to report abuses. At the moment abuses are reported to the admin at the system (if any) that can be identified as the origin point of the disturbance … as you have done … but do not be surprised if not everyone considers the same things that you do to be "abuses".  In general the things widely acknowledged as abuses are along the lines of excessive use of resources (e.g. individually posting the same long message to every single newsgroup), and harassment ("mail-bombings" and the like). What you have so far described does not even qualify under most people’s definition of "mild harassment". Try once to yell fire in a crowed cinema while there are no flames; are you still surprised that it is against the law? If that is against the law, then why wouldn’t it be on usenet? False and misleading information to a large public to deliberately cause panic is punishable by law as far as I know.

Interesting you brought this up … so far it seems that you have been the one yelling "fire" where there is not even smoke…. To avoid a lot of legal problems there are probably also simpler ways to accomplish an "less polluted usenet environment". To enforce it within

Now we get to some interesting terminology … a "less polluted usenet environment"?  Who judges what (who) is a pollutant? reasonable means allowing abusers a second change may be a nightmare. A possible way to scare off abusers is simply to raise their contribution (rate charge by a network company) proportional to the trouble caused.

Do you have a "trouble rating scale" that could be used for this? Is one "MAKE MONEY FAST" to all newsgroups equivilant to dozens of zuma robopostings to a few soc.* newsgroups? In other words, probably all clients at @halcyon.com have to pay for Mr turmoil since poor Ralph had to make overtime to convince the rest of the world it was all ok what NW Nexus Inc. did.

I have not heard any indication of this.  Nor, for that matter, did the "rest of the world" seem to be in need of any convincing…  Did _you_ read any of the postings that addressed your charges? The only thing i’ve said so far is that the network company apparently doesn’t see a reason to stop him despite all the trouble he has caused.

All what< trouble?!?! Something else that has come up in all these discussions is that I’m sort of representing the government since I must have taken an oath or things of a similar nature.

It was originally a question about whether you were an employee of the government (USGS?), and if you were if you had taken such an oath. Since somewhere buried in all this verbiage you mentioned that you are just a contractor, the answer is "no" … but you never bothered to answer the question when it was asked, and thus that part of the thread ran a bit wild w/ speculation. I have certain reservations against the first Amendment as is. Consider that too as a form of freedom of speech/press and etc. Am I the only one with such reservations? No, I’m not. There are many people on this planet, US and non-US who believe that the first Amendment may allow strange things.

True enough … but most of those who believe that the first amendement may "allow strange things" also believe that it is nonetheless necessary, and that those "strange things" are the price we must pay for the benefits it offers. To call somebody a Nazi like turmoil does all the time is a form of extremely bad taste.

I actually believe that it in more than just poor taste.  I believe that lightly throwing the term "Nazi" around is an insult to all the people that died in WWII, and diminishes the monstrosity of actual Nazis.  When someone who wants to stop you from crossing the street against the lights can be labeled a "nazi", what can you call those who ran Auschwitz? So far the only problem I have w/ turmoil is that he has been a bit imprudent in his use of the language. It was for me a reason to contact his system manager.

A personal choice.  More power to you.  I do not think that anything you have yet said was worth your original posting though. To go back to the original topic of moderation of usenet, yes I still agree with that idea and could imagine various commonly acceptable forms of it that render usenet into something more acceptable for larger groups of, what I would call, normal users.

Oh goody, Mr. Schrama has volunteered to be the moderator for all currently unmoderated newsgroups.  (I hope you have a lot of time on your hands…) For the time being I rely on the Author Kill option in xrn.

The best option currently available to you.  You may also wish to refrain from sending mail to people you don’t want replies from.                 -Richard Hartman I am just a figment of your imagination…                         …what does that say about *your* mental health?

Response:

) )Eh? Have you ever heard of the words "hypothetical" and "thought" and )especially the logical combination of them in a sentence or a story.   1)  The post of yours I responded to did not use the word "hypothetical"   2)  Your references to the incident with turmoil were written as if       he actually had done some real, non-hypothetical offense.  How       else should we interpret "despite all the trouble he has caused"? )Try it once, use a little bit of your imagination Imagination has its place.  Your imagination, for example, leads you to believe that turmoil has been harassing you, and that my logic is flawed because I respond to what you write, rather than what you are thinking. I’d suggest you try looking into reality instead; any competent psychiatrist would be able to point you in the right direction. P.S.  I’ll use a sig without "geek codes" in deference to your prejudices. — And here we are.  We’re the princes of the universe. Here we belong, fighting for survival. We’ve come to be the rulers of your world.      (Queen, 1986)

Response:

Ernst, you’re living in a dream world.  NO ONE but yourself thinks turmoil has caused any trouble.  What was this overtime work Ralph did?  And what was this "convincing the rest of the world"? Your immature reaction to a bit of justified criticism has damaged your own reputation incredibly.  Even if your original proposal had merit, it will now be ignored, as very few people will take you seriously.

Eh? Have you ever heard of the words "hypothetical" and "thought" and especially the logical combination of them in a sentence or a story. Try it once, use a little bit of your imagination and maybe something wonderful will happen (or maybe not in your case). In german they have the expression "Aha-Erlebnis" which is comparable to something like a "brain-wave". It could happen in your case, theoretically of course. P.S. your geek codes told me already enough about your background.

Response:

) In other words, )probably all clients at @halcyon.com have to pay for Mr turmoil since )poor Ralph had to make overtime to convince the rest of the world it was )all ok what NW Nexus Inc. did. )[...]apparently doesn’t see a reason to stop him despite all the trouble )he has caused. Ernst, you’re living in a dream world.  NO ONE but yourself thinks turmoil has caused any trouble.  What was this overtime work Ralph did?  And what was this "convincing the rest of the world"? Your immature reaction to a bit of justified criticism has damaged your own reputation incredibly.  Even if your original proposal had merit, it will now be ignored, as very few people will take you seriously. —  "The use of unnecessary violence in apprehending the Blues Brothers   has been approved." GEEK CODES: GCS d? -p+ c+++ l+ u+ e+ m+ s+/+ !n h+ f- g+ w+ t+(++) r(+) y+*

Response:

Karl finally came down to the point what it is all about. Please remember that it was all under the heading of a proposal. In fact every sentence could begin with what if, or something of a similar nature. I was never violating anyones constitutional rights. If you think so then present me the evidence which I don’t believe is there since none of the proposed sanctions were enforced by me. It is also highly disputable if one would violate such rights in case of an enforcement. Mr. Turmoil and other flame artists on usenet: please READ the following and think about it before you start to send your replies. I know that this is difficult, try it once. I still think that it could be legal to prevent abuse of any network, and to not allow certain users to access the network. The thing a network company like Nexus could say is that freedom of speech, in this case to post whatever hate mail by a client, may be regarded as a limitation of the pursuit of happiness of all other network users. In fact, you may argue that one abuser scares off at least a 10 to 100 fold of goodwilling clients and that the network-company is suffering from it. And you all know of course that one man’s right can not be in the way of a natural right (for the latter there may be a better expression, it is meant to explain a right one is born with). Try once to yell fire in a crowed cinema while there are no flames; are you still surprised that it is against the law? If that is against the law, then why wouldn’t it be on usenet? False and misleading information to a large public to deliberately cause panic is punishable by law as far as I know. To avoid a lot of legal problems there are probably also simpler ways to accomplish an "less polluted usenet environment". To enforce it within reasonable means allowing abusers a second change may be a nightmare. A possible way to scare off abusers is simply to raise their contribution (rate charge by a network company) proportional to the trouble caused. See it as a Ross Perot who wants to buy prime-time on a commercial network. In the end you won’t be able to stop him but in the meanwhile you’re in the position to silently hold him back. Do you violate the Constitution in this way? The answer is probably not. I’m not sure about this since there may be such a thing as an anti-discrimination law based on income. But, hey, don’t worry, a cable operator could always increase the contribution for all its clients in order to be able to "repair the damage of one of its dubious clients who happens to claim that he acted within reasonable limits under the famous, but oh so controversial, first Amendment." In other words, probably all clients at @halcyon.com have to pay for Mr turmoil since poor Ralph had to make overtime to convince the rest of the world it was all ok what NW Nexus Inc. did. Quite likely that company is within reasonable legal limits as far as I can see, I’ve also never said that it was not. The only thing i’ve said so far is that the network company apparently doesn’t see a reason to stop him despite all the trouble he has caused. Something else that has come up in all these discussions is that I’m sort of representing the government since I must have taken an oath or things of a similar nature. Guys, someone who is posting from a *.gov host is not necessarily part of the US government nor is he supposed to hold up the US constitution. Yet another unsuccessful "turmoil" attempt by our well known flame artist at halcyon.com. (I begin to wonder how much tax money has been wasted on this guy in all attempts to provide him with education and so on.) Let me make you clear that I never took an oath. I’m not even a US citizen and find all this chit chat about freedom of speech extremely far fetched. Civil servants take an oath I believe, contractors don’t and also don’t need to be a US citizen. Believe me, as a foreigner you don’t need to hold up/defend or know anything about the US constitution. Does this mean that I can freely act against it, the answer is no, there are immigration laws. Again, where is the evidence that I acted against the constitution? Also: I do believe in the 5th Amendment so good luck in finding the evidence. The country where I come from allows the government to stop certain extreme forms of insulting and especially racist speech. That country was occupied in world war II by a neighboring country and its people are so clever to adopt certain rules that prevent extremists to for instance march or display certain undesired symbols like what happens in certain US cities once per year under the protection of the first Amendment. Again, I have certain reservations against the first Amendment as is. Consider that too as a form of freedom of speech/press and etc. Am I the only one with such reservations? No, I’m not. There are many people on this planet, US and non-US who believe that the first Amendment may allow strange things. There is even a movie called Skokie that perfectly portraits what neo-Nazi’s can cause in a suburb of New York. To mention another movie, I think the blues brothers had an excellent solution to the neo-Nazi problem. To call somebody a Nazi like turmoil does all the time is a form of extremely bad taste. It was for me a reason to contact his system manager. To go back to the original topic of moderation of usenet, yes I still agree with that idea and could imagine various commonly acceptable forms of it that render usenet into something more acceptable for larger groups of, what I would call, normal users. For the time being I rely on the Author Kill option in xrn. Ernst, (now trying to behave as grown up as possible) Disclaimers at the end of a mail messages are toys that don’t give you any rights or protection, even if you claim to speak for yourself. That’s why I normally don’t use them.

Response:

Filed under: Activism

Related Posts

• Activism against myth of Free Will
• activism ???
• A Great New Activism Site.
• Please stop making fun of the learning disabled, Davis.
• New Activism
• The Decline of America: The "Education" President
• Bad Seller Warning
• 6/9/72 Florida adoption
• RESULT: misc.activism.general passed 756: 323
• Draft?