Wonderfully funny Inquirer Intel FUD presentation

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:06:39 -0400, Keith wrote:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:44:56 +0000, max wrote:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:40:18 -0400, Keith wrote:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:55:45 +0000, max wrote:

On 20 Apr 2006 16:07:25 -0700, "Isaac W."
wrote:

I would rather have a
reasonable conversation about these subjects.

Some things aren't possible on this NG...

...and you're here, umm, why?

umm, because there are some informative, balanced posters who take a
rational, reasonable look at the issues before the threads devolve
into tailchasing?

But you implied that such things aren't possible here.

I corrected my hyperbolic phrasing in another post, however, a few
rational posts in a thread don't necessarily make for a reasonable
conversation, as I stated above. S/N and all that...

because I enjoy reading the flamefests, just like reading Roddy Speed
on the storage NG?

Ah, another troll, IOW.

If you mean him, I consider him more of a zealot - every active NG has
a few of them. If you mean me, I'm afraid my trolling history is a
bit weak here. Reading the flamefests is a bit different from
starting or fanning them.

because I feel like it?

because I like to see how far people go to get the last word in?

Shoot.

I'm patient, but not very obsessive, so I always lose this one.

max

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips max wrote in part:
I figure discussions leave the realm of reasonable when the
name-calling starts,

Once, I would have agreed with you. Now, I'm not so sure.
How does one keep order in a newsgroup? Prevent
misinformation from being spread? Should inpoliteness
always be answered by tolerance? Whatever my answer,
others are entitled to answer for themselves.

It does seem to be a predictable pattern across usenet.

Then perhaps it is necessary for survival. There have been
some very severe conflicts. Those groups without some sense
of discipline died.

-- Robert

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:35:18 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips max wrote in part:
I figure discussions leave the realm of reasonable when the
name-calling starts,

Once, I would have agreed with you. Now, I'm not so sure.
How does one keep order in a newsgroup? Prevent
misinformation from being spread? Should inpoliteness
always be answered by tolerance? Whatever my answer,
others are entitled to answer for themselves.

You really can't keep order on an unmoderated NG in the face of
external influences. Many once-decent NGs have died when they came to
the attention of trolls and cross-posters.

The things that work for me are to ignore the obvious trolls, post
corrections when I see misinformation (but avoid getting into ad
hominem battles with posters) and quit posting once I start having to
repeat myself or when the name-calling starts. Tolerance first, then
ignore them, and don't worry about having the last word.

Personally, I see usenet's influence waning anyway, with the increase
in specialized forums and the fact that it's a somewhat specialized
area.

I believe the vast majority of today's internet users don't even know
what usenet is, and the volume on most non-binary groups has been
dropping steadily for some years now, with a few exceptions. This
group is a good example.

It's a shame, really - the passing of an era - but somewhat
inevitable.

It does seem to be a predictable pattern across usenet.

Then perhaps it is necessary for survival. There have been
some very severe conflicts. Those groups without some sense
of discipline died.

The best NG I know of is the tirelessly moderated rec.guns, where the
moderator is very tolerant of anything remotely on-topic, but
completely intolerant of trollery and flame wars. It's a great
resource, if you swing that way, but is definitely losing influence to
forums.

max

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips max wrote in part:
You really can't keep order on an unmoderated NG in the
face of external influences. Many once-decent NGs have died
when they came to the attention of trolls and cross-posters.

Quite so. However, csiphc has had it's share of these,
and dispatched them. Others groups have too. The common
denominator seems to be a willingness to fight (rudely if
need be) rather than give up.

The things that work for me are to ignore the obvious trolls,
post corrections when I see misinformation (but avoid getting
into ad hominem battles with posters) and quit posting once I
start having to repeat myself or when the name-calling starts.
Tolerance first, then ignore them, and don't worry about having
the last word.

However polite this is, it also brings no downside for the
disruptors. Being politely corrected is a troll's reward.
Predators will not quit when there is no downside for them.

Personally, I see usenet's influence waning anyway, with
the increase in specialized forums and the fact that it's
a somewhat specialized area.

I'm sure concentrated [corporate/govt/NGO] interests would like
to see USENET disappear. It is uncontrollable, pseudo-anonymous,
push media, and well archived. Your "specialised forums" are
usually websites which are very easily shut-down.

I believe the vast majority of today's internet users don't
even know what usenet is, and the volume on most non-binary
groups has been dropping steadily for some years now,
with a few exceptions. This group is a good example.

Unfortunately true, on all counts.

It's a shame, really - the passing of an era - but somewhat
inevitable.

I do not see it as inevitable. The real problem is ignorance:
most users simply don't know what a useful resource USENET is.
Or can't cope with noise.

The best NG I know of is the tirelessly moderated rec.guns,

"best" presupposed a given set of values, therefore must be
expected to vary. Personally, I believe in _optimizing_
S/N, not maximizing it. A high volume channel will not
be noise-free. Moderation has the problems of delay and
single/few source dependance.

-- Robert

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:30:47 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips max wrote in part:
You really can't keep order on an unmoderated NG in the
face of external influences. Many once-decent NGs have died
when they came to the attention of trolls and cross-posters.

Quite so. However, csiphc has had it's share of these,
and dispatched them. Others groups have too. The common
denominator seems to be a willingness to fight (rudely if
need be) rather than give up.

Yes, and there needs to be a band of old-timers that refuse to give up the
ship to the trolls. Dispatch them, mock them, or ignore them; as long as
there is a core of interested regulars that sees the greater good the
group will survive. Ten years here has shown that it's a rare day that
interlopers are interesting.

The things that work for me are to ignore the obvious trolls, post
corrections when I see misinformation (but avoid getting into ad
hominem battles with posters) and quit posting once I start having to
repeat myself or when the name-calling starts. Tolerance first, then
ignore them, and don't worry about having the last word.

However polite this is, it also brings no downside for the disruptors.
Being politely corrected is a troll's reward. Predators will not quit
when there is no downside for them.

Switch that around a bit and one gets "being politically correct is a
troll's reward". Political correctness will kill us all.

Personally, I see usenet's influence waning anyway, with the increase
in specialized forums and the fact that it's a somewhat specialized
area.

I'm sure concentrated [corporate/govt/NGO] interests would like to see
USENET disappear. It is uncontrollable, pseudo-anonymous, push media,
and well archived. Your "specialised forums" are usually websites which
are very easily shut-down.

Not to mention with a UI that is unusable enough to bore a male pig.

I believe the vast majority of today's internet users don't even know
what usenet is, and the volume on most non-binary groups has been
dropping steadily for some years now, with a few exceptions. This
group is a good example.

Unfortunately true, on all counts.

....so we give up? Sorry, I'm not quite ready for the grave yard.

It's a shame, really - the passing of an era - but somewhat inevitable.

I do not see it as inevitable. The real problem is ignorance: most
users simply don't know what a useful resource USENET is. Or can't cope
with noise.

'N' works. Filters work. One needn't read *everything*.

The best NG I know of is the tirelessly moderated rec.guns,

sci.military.moderated is pretty good too, though I haven't dropped by
there in a while.

"best" presupposed a given set of values, therefore must be expected to
vary. Personally, I believe in _optimizing_ S/N, not maximizing it. A
high volume channel will not be noise-free. Moderation has the problems
of delay and single/few source dependance.

AIUI, moderated groups can be post-moderated, but I don't understand all
the details. The real issue is whether trolls should be allowed to shut
down the medium without a fight. Certainly ISPs no longer see NNTP as
a profitable offering. Fortunately there are cheap alternatives.

--
Keith

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Keith wrote in part:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:30:47 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
However polite this is, it also brings no downside for the
disruptors. Being politely corrected is a troll's reward.
Predators will not quit when there is no downside for them.

Switch that around a bit and one gets "being politically correct
is a troll's reward". Political correctness will kill us all.

Yes, in the sense of prior-restraint or paranoia of causing offense.
PC is essentially an ad-hominem over form which neglects substance.
But it has no strength.

...so we give up? Sorry, I'm not quite ready for the grave yard.

Certainly not! However, it is important to recognize the
overall climate and adjust tactics accordingly. So anytime
an ISP mentions dropping news, we should reply: "So you are
not a full-service ISP?" I think this is what keeps news alive.

AIUI, moderated groups can be post-moderated, but I don't understand all
the details. The real issue is whether trolls should be allowed to shut
down the medium without a fight. Certainly ISPs no longer see NNTP as
a profitable offering. Fortunately there are cheap alternatives.

Yes, but this reduces the influx of new participants.
A lingering death.

-- Robert

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:29:03 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Keith wrote in part:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:30:47 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
However polite this is, it also brings no downside for the
disruptors. Being politely corrected is a troll's reward.
Predators will not quit when there is no downside for them.

Switch that around a bit and one gets "being politically correct
is a troll's reward". Political correctness will kill us all.

Yes, in the sense of prior-restraint or paranoia of causing offense.
PC is essentially an ad-hominem over form which neglects substance.
But it has no strength.

That depends on how you define "strength". I consider the power of law,
(i.e. "hate crimes") "strength". I consider the threat of loss of a job
for a wrongly worded phrase, "strength". I consider grading on colleges
by thought, "strength". Political Correctness has a *lot* of "strength".
Yes, it is prior restraint, but more insideous because it is not
officially santioned by government, thus doesn't fall under the first
amendment.

...so we give up? Sorry, I'm not quite ready for the grave yard.

Certainly not! However, it is important to recognize the overall
climate and adjust tactics accordingly. So anytime an ISP mentions
dropping news, we should reply: "So you are not a full-service ISP?" I
think this is what keeps news alive.

....and they reply, "what's news"? IS that 60minutes? We don't carry
that. I understand what you mean, but the idea of costing out every
minute of our life isn't useful either. MY employer is *looking* at a way
of providing a limited external news service, but one must justify the
need. ...kinda like the paranoia of the Usenet two decades ago. For
$12/year I'll not fill out the stupid forms, thanks.

AIUI, moderated groups can be post-moderated, but I don't understand
all the details. The real issue is whether trolls should be allowed to
shut down the medium without a fight. Certainly ISPs no longer see
NNTP as a profitable offering. Fortunately there are cheap
alternatives.

Yes, but this reduces the influx of new participants. A lingering death.

You may be right, but the infusion of AOLers and Googlies hasn't been
exactly a great thing either.

--
Keith

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Keith wrote in part:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:29:03 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
Yes, in the sense of prior-restraint or paranoia of
causing offense. PC is essentially an ad-hominem over
form which neglects substance. But it has no strength.

That depends on how you define "strength".

Yes, it does. I consider "strength" to be from inherent
attractiveness or logic. Something integral to the the thing
itself, not added on afterwards.

I consider the power of law, (i.e. "hate crimes") "strength".

OK. I consider the need to resort to law/rules to be an obvious
sign of weakness. BTW: I have no problems with "hate crimes" as
defined in the US (but big problems with the EU defn). In the US,
the hate element only increases punishments for existing crimes, it
doesn't create new ones. That's fair, because criminal punishments
should be to maintain some vision of social order.

I consider the threat of loss of a job for a wrongly worded
phrase, "strength".

That (and all the other event you list) can happen. They do happen,
but hardly on any statistically significant base. It is not
strength to worry excessively about low-probability consequences.

Ironically, it is PCesqe to whine about the injustices of PC!

In this specific instance, I fully expect to face consequences
for all my actions. Losing a job isn't the end of the world
(at least not in most parts of the US (but perhas worse in EU).
I didn't own the job.

I consider grading on colleges by thought, "strength".

This has happened from time immemorial. Any teacher who grades by
agreement rather than quality of work is incompetant. One should
always avoid incompetants, especially as teachers. But when you
make a mistake, take your medecin and don't whine about it.


Political Correctness has a *lot* of "strength". Yes,
it is prior restraint, but more insideous because it is
not officially santioned by government, thus doesn't fall
under the first amendment.

So? You cannot (and arguable should not) legislate rationality.

of providing a limited external news service, but one must justify
the need. ...kinda like the paranoia of the Usenet two decades
ago. For $12/year I'll not fill out the stupid forms, thanks.

Perhaps. But isn't this another way of giving into the trolls?

You may be right, but the infusion of AOLers and Googlies
hasn't been exactly a great thing either.

I think it has. Sure, there's lots of dross, but a few gems
arrive too. New blood is always needed.

-- Robert