C
Chadwick Stone
Guest
X-No-Archive: YES
Aratzio [a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com] has entered into testimony
n6noi252u9iisr36iou4p9tq7u8o24fpde@4ax.com
<snip>
>>>>> As the Offishul Lits Whore of AUK, I must most strenuously
>>>>> disagree. However, Marty Moleski has you on a lits as undecided.
>>>>
>>>> Heh heh heh... a LITS of potential candidates for killfiling? Gee
>>>> whiz, don't those guys have better things to do such as getting new
>>>> wickets for the next round of RFDs?
>>>
>>> No, you are undecided as to whether the moderated version of the
>>> Team Calvin Playhouse (news.groups.moderated) starring TIMMAY! and
>>> the Rubber Stampers(tm) is a good idea.
>>>
>>> Marty had me in the Against and I had never typed a character for or
>>> against. You and I are the undecided vote at this point. I could go
>>> either way. I doubt my fun decreases either way.
>>
>> Apparently those guys are still rubbing a stinging welt... I unsubbed
>> from news.groups when the SMM2 debacle concluded. Why do they care
>> what I think, anyway?
>
> You were in some cross posts recently. Someone may have inadvertantly
> added AUK to the froups line, Dante.
>
> Wonder if MArty realizes you are Dante Soch?
That soch was so holey from teh get-go. You, Bob, Sharon, anyone with a
clue knew from the moment Dante appeared that he was as bogus as a nine
dollar bill... well, everyone except for... well, you know
>> I could make arguments for or against, it really
>> doesn't matter. The B8MB should consider the usability of an ngm,
>> rather than what their perceived friends and foes might desire.
>
> Nope not even part of the discussion.
I see... well, thats what I get for assuming.
> It is all about how they can eliminate dissent and get on with their
> important work of patting each others backs for jobs well done.
I wouldn't have such a problem with that if they could show that they've
done a job that merits gladhanding. smm & sra certainly don't bear such
merit, although my information about those groups is second hand... I
just haven't seen anything positive said about either by anyone whose
opinion has weight with me.
>> Timmay
>> has a habit of imposing all sorts of silly moderation requirements
>> and I doubt many people are going to jump through hoops just to get
>> their posts by whatever modbot is deployed.
>
> Actually there are those that like the structure of moderated groups.
> I feel sorry for them. The really funny post was the original RFD with
> the B8MB proposed as the moderators. The really funny part was, they
> were serious and did not have a clue why it would be perceived as a
> slight conflict of interest.
Then I'm sure they won't mind if the cop walking the beat in front of
their homes was convicted of ADW... or the payroll accountant at their
$DAYJOB was fired from his last $DAYJOB for questionable entries
discovered during reconciliation... etc.
>> Rather than play Calvinball, it
>> would be much simpler to send a CMSG or even defect to a PHP web
>> forum.
>
> They have the private forum on their web shite.
They actually have a private web forum? Smacks of hypocrisy that teh
self-professed saviors of Usenet who allegedly want to keep Usenet in
use, would resort to a non-Usenet medium.
>> The end result is that Usenetters either circumvent the system or
>> give up on it altogether; a huge irony mine for Timmay who in the
>> past has remarked that interest in Usenet needs to be reinvigorated
>> to keep it viable... (or something along those lines.)
>
> An interesting dichotomy is that they have been creating groups based
> upon "attracting new users" and then the groups once created, if they
> have posters, are not populated by new posters. Yet they keep
> espousing that same vision .
Perhaps they confused "new users" with "new nyms or sockpuppets." I
guess I could be blamed for one of those new sochs but that still
doesn't show an influx of "new users" by any reasonable definition of
the phrase.
--
COOSN-266-06-70683
Skepticult
Aratzio [a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com] has entered into testimony
n6noi252u9iisr36iou4p9tq7u8o24fpde@4ax.com
<snip>
>>>>> As the Offishul Lits Whore of AUK, I must most strenuously
>>>>> disagree. However, Marty Moleski has you on a lits as undecided.
>>>>
>>>> Heh heh heh... a LITS of potential candidates for killfiling? Gee
>>>> whiz, don't those guys have better things to do such as getting new
>>>> wickets for the next round of RFDs?
>>>
>>> No, you are undecided as to whether the moderated version of the
>>> Team Calvin Playhouse (news.groups.moderated) starring TIMMAY! and
>>> the Rubber Stampers(tm) is a good idea.
>>>
>>> Marty had me in the Against and I had never typed a character for or
>>> against. You and I are the undecided vote at this point. I could go
>>> either way. I doubt my fun decreases either way.
>>
>> Apparently those guys are still rubbing a stinging welt... I unsubbed
>> from news.groups when the SMM2 debacle concluded. Why do they care
>> what I think, anyway?
>
> You were in some cross posts recently. Someone may have inadvertantly
> added AUK to the froups line, Dante.
>
> Wonder if MArty realizes you are Dante Soch?
That soch was so holey from teh get-go. You, Bob, Sharon, anyone with a
clue knew from the moment Dante appeared that he was as bogus as a nine
dollar bill... well, everyone except for... well, you know
>> I could make arguments for or against, it really
>> doesn't matter. The B8MB should consider the usability of an ngm,
>> rather than what their perceived friends and foes might desire.
>
> Nope not even part of the discussion.
I see... well, thats what I get for assuming.
> It is all about how they can eliminate dissent and get on with their
> important work of patting each others backs for jobs well done.
I wouldn't have such a problem with that if they could show that they've
done a job that merits gladhanding. smm & sra certainly don't bear such
merit, although my information about those groups is second hand... I
just haven't seen anything positive said about either by anyone whose
opinion has weight with me.
>> Timmay
>> has a habit of imposing all sorts of silly moderation requirements
>> and I doubt many people are going to jump through hoops just to get
>> their posts by whatever modbot is deployed.
>
> Actually there are those that like the structure of moderated groups.
> I feel sorry for them. The really funny post was the original RFD with
> the B8MB proposed as the moderators. The really funny part was, they
> were serious and did not have a clue why it would be perceived as a
> slight conflict of interest.
Then I'm sure they won't mind if the cop walking the beat in front of
their homes was convicted of ADW... or the payroll accountant at their
$DAYJOB was fired from his last $DAYJOB for questionable entries
discovered during reconciliation... etc.
>> Rather than play Calvinball, it
>> would be much simpler to send a CMSG or even defect to a PHP web
>> forum.
>
> They have the private forum on their web shite.
They actually have a private web forum? Smacks of hypocrisy that teh
self-professed saviors of Usenet who allegedly want to keep Usenet in
use, would resort to a non-Usenet medium.
>> The end result is that Usenetters either circumvent the system or
>> give up on it altogether; a huge irony mine for Timmay who in the
>> past has remarked that interest in Usenet needs to be reinvigorated
>> to keep it viable... (or something along those lines.)
>
> An interesting dichotomy is that they have been creating groups based
> upon "attracting new users" and then the groups once created, if they
> have posters, are not populated by new posters. Yet they keep
> espousing that same vision .
Perhaps they confused "new users" with "new nyms or sockpuppets." I
guess I could be blamed for one of those new sochs but that still
doesn't show an influx of "new users" by any reasonable definition of
the phrase.
--
COOSN-266-06-70683
Skepticult