Taking the pledge

On 4 Mar 2007 05:45:32 -0800, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com:


Take a few deep breaths, and realize you have only two legitimate
choices on Usenet: whether to read an article or not, and whether to
post an article or not. That's it. Nothing more.

Well put, Larry. For once, we are in total agreement.

That's because it's difficult to refute the truth.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:00:39 -0500, "Morgans" wrote in :

http://home.att.net/~marjie1/Cancels.htm

Lordy, I didn't know such an animal existed!

... Marty, you know about this stuff, don't you?

Sort of.

I'm on the "Big-8 Management Board," which is
responsible for managing the canonical lists
of the eight hierarchies (see my signature).

"Cancel wars" have been going on ever since
cancels were invented--long before my time.

Tim Skirvin, chair of the b8mb, uses PGP Moose
to cancel phony posts to the group he moderates
and to recreate posts that have been cancelled
by others. So, in a sense, I can't say that
cancelling messages is intrinsically evil.

Cancelbots are running all the time to try to
limit spam. They aren't as effective as Clean
Feed, which is a set of anti-spam measures taken
at the server level (I think).

I am personally opposed to trying to cancel
posts on the basis of hating a troll. Whatever
tool you use to make the troll's life miserable
can be used against you.

I heartily endorse killfiles, pledges, positive
posting, and patience. Reward those whose posts
you enjoy by replying to them early and often.
Ignore those whose posts you don't enjoy.

I'm speaking just for myself in this post, not
for the board. I've been reading r.a.p since
the spring of 1996. I didn't join the board
until fall of 2005. I like this group a lot
and I hope people can learn to filter out
what they don't like and enjoy what they do
like.

Marty

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" wrote in message
...

Has anyone thought about using a program that looks a certain
individuals name and immediatly issues a usenet message cancel based
upon said users name and the newly posted subject?

As a form of censorship, it would be quite effective if it worked. I
wondered briefly about the cancel-bot messages that've been popping up more
and more frequently.

I vote a resounding "No!" to any form of censorship, especially removing
others's posts from a public forum. Taken to it's logical conclusion, after
removing all messages that any one of us finds offensive will leave us with
exactly nothing left. We'll end up huddled in our darkened homes, talking
only to ourselves. I can already do that without destroying a communication
infrastructure.

Retroactive tagging on subject lines already goes too far as it is, IMO. I
hesitate to say anything at all, simply because it is still your right to
express your opinion in what you post. This is different from defacing or
removing what someone else writes. Just the same, it still reeks of our
impending death as a society. God help us all.

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:03:27 GMT, "Mike Young"
wrote in
:

Taken to it's logical conclusion, after
removing all messages that any one of us finds offensive will leave us with
exactly nothing left.

At last a Netizen who's reason triumphs over his emotions. Thank you
for lighting the lamp for these newbies who would destroy Usenet.

In a previous article, Mike 'Flyin'8' said:
Has anyone thought about using a program that looks a certain
individuals name and immediatly issues a usenet message cancel based
upon said users name and the newly posted subject?

http://home.att.net/~marjie1/Cancels.htm

I've been a Usenet news administrator since before Geoff Peck championed
the split of rec.aviation, and I have a couple of things to say:

- Any decent Usenet administrator who finds people doing content based
third party cancels on his system will remove the person doing the
content based cancels. Censorship will not be tolerated on a system I
run.
- Because so few news sites are run by decent Usenet administrators,
however, and because people like you are ****ing idiots and have abused
the cancel system, many major sites ignore all cancels, so you can't
even cancel your own messages off those sites, never mind legitimate
spam cancelling. If your newsgroups are drowning in spam, you have only
the idiots who think they can cancel people they disagree with to blame.

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
"The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it
is a complete substitute for life." --Andrew Brown

Jay Honeck wrote:
All in favor, say "aye"...
--

Yeah, but his latest post is seeking info on freakin' 747
autothrottles. You know the answer; I know the answer.
Don't we just gots to help? :-)

F--

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
3. I will not vandalize MX's website.

All in favor, say "aye"...

aye

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

Okay, folks, enough is enough. We've got good, long-term, high
quality pilots seriously discussing vandalizing someone's website,
because of said someone's troll-dom.

In the past, I have defended said troll, and lambasted said vandals,
but have now come to realize that this troll is obviously so divisive
and upsetting to some that this issue risks tearing apart the very
fabric of rec.aviation.

I personally find this amazing (he truly doesn't bother me that much)
but, in the interest of keeping this newsgroup intact and (relatively)
harmonious, I hereby publically make the following pledges, and urge
others to join me he

1. I will not respond to MX's posts.
2. I will not lambaste MX on these newsgroups.
3. I will not vandalize MX's website.

All in favor, say "aye"...

I think that more practical suggestions have already been made. For
example, one recent suggestion was to answer legitimate questions and
correct inaccurate information regardless of the originator, and avoid
arguing with those that just want to disrupt. Much easier, more civil,
covers more than just mx's posts and keeps the traffic on topic.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote

I think that more practical suggestions have already been made. For
example, one recent suggestion was to answer legitimate questions and
correct inaccurate information regardless of the originator, and avoid
arguing with those that just want to disrupt. Much easier, more civil,
covers more than just mx's posts and keeps the traffic on topic.

Could you go along with this proposal, if it is the wishes of the majority
of the group?
--
Jim in NC

I think that more practical suggestions have already been made. For
example, one recent suggestion was to answer legitimate questions and
correct inaccurate information regardless of the originator, and avoid
arguing with those that just want to disrupt. Much easier, more civil,
covers more than just mx's posts and keeps the traffic on topic.

I am personally in favor of your suggestion, Neil, but I am apparently
in the minority.

Therefore, before we lose any more quality members, I am suggesting
taking "The Pledge" simply as a way of maintaining some group
cohesion.

I tried answering MX's legitimate questions, and watched in horror as
the group descended into flames. I think it's better, at this point,
to simply ignore his threads, and see where this goes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"