Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #529398

Re: Editorial

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/30/2015 10:22 AM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 7:20:30 AM UTC-4, dvus wrote:
>> On 10/29/2015 5:52 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:49:37 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>> we should
>>>> contribute back to the community [with an Apple product]
>>
>> It's bad form to post-edit other people's words, especially with
>> commercial endorsements.
>
> That is a major hurdle to deal with one, of many, Usenet's
> failings. Nobody else should be allowed to edit any post they are
> responding to. Nobody's, not even one's own post should be alterable.

We all post subject to our provider's TOS. Beyond that, unless posting 
in a moderated group, Usenet is self-policing. Often, bringing 
unacceptable behavior to a poster's attention is all that's needed.

>>> Ha, ha, ha, ha!  I knew that the responses to this would include both
>>> pro and con.  Some will agree and some will disagree.  How wonderfully
>>> libertarian.
>>
>> ...and wonderfully Usenettian, to coin a word. Everyone is free to post
>> what they will in an unmoderated forum like s.p.
>
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Usenettian, so fairly new word.
> However, you can search for "Usenetian" or "Usenet Ian" getting many results.

Just proves that great minds think alike.

>>> The sad truth, however, is that a discussion group is not the place
>>> for news aggregation (if you want it there is plenty of cheap software
>>> for it).  Furthermore, the aggregation of debased, puerile, and sophomoric
>>> science news is especially inappropriate.
>>
>> Sounds like you'd like to moderate the posts in here according to what
>> you believe is appropriate.
>
> More likely Fabian would like to raise the quality of discussions.

Then he should post quality material instead of telling others what they 
should or should not post.

> Unmoderated NGs have always been quality controlled by their
> community. Sam would do well to start his own moderated NG.

Why? The group in its present form seems to be working fine. If there 
are those who wish to form a moderated group there's a process for that.

>>> Discussion involves a sincere and freeform inquiry as well as a spontaneous
>>> and unstructured exchange.  The prepackaged jabber of popular journalists
>>> does not qualify.
>
> I like that. All, however popular, journalism has always been about
> product placement or advertising specific institutions or promoting
> short-listed peer-reviewed approved authors. The prepackaged jabber
> just leads to dull and boring same-old homogenous literature. iApple!
>
>> Yet it sounds like you'd like to structure the postings according to
>> what you believe qualifies.
>
> Nettiquete. Read all about it. Did I make a typo? Again... darn.
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Nettiquete

I'm not a member of the grammar police so don't expect me to correct (or 
point out) yours. As long as I can extract the gist of your remarks I'm 
good to go.

That said, it seems you feel Wormley has committed a breach of 
Netiquette by posting excerpts from scientific sources in a scientific 
newsgroup. I don't agree, but that's the beauty of Usenet. We get to 
disagree without worrying the Usenet police will come for us in the 
middle of the night!

>> If a poster's contributions don't measure up to your standards you can
>> always kill-file him or her.
>
> I notice you dvus are very new to Usenet, like only four posts. Why?

Heh, you notice wrongly. But that's not important, on Usenet even 
beginners are welcome.

> Killfiles are rather a bad idea, in retrospect. Would you not want to
> correct abusive posters/trolls that would and do spread falsehoods
> about other people on Usenet? Anonymized Nym-shifting psychotic
> behaviour ought be prevented from happening. Repeated, routinely,
> deliberately editing others' content; effectively attributing words to
> someone else who never wrote them, is another major Usenet weakness.

I have no desire to prevent anyone from saying anything. If I don't like 
something someone posts I'll say so, but I'll defend to the end their 
right to post what they wish in an unmoderated group. Remember, group 
names and even charters of unmoderated groups are merely advisory. If 
someone doesn't like reading an author's words he can kill-file him.

> Usenet NNTP servers end up propagating Sam's count of unwelcomed
> bits. Perhaps bits are still not cheap for all those download NGs.
> For part of 2015 alone, here's Sam's count of posts:
> Jun     Jul     Aug     Sep     Oct
> 283	   890    618	 602     607
>
> Sam must be the most well read human on Earth, discussing ||0||!

Good for him! If I didn't like what he posted I'd simply make sure I 
never saw it again. As it happens, I peruse everything he posts. It's 
unfortunate I have to also read the cut-n-paste replies of that other 
whiner, but that's Usenet for you. You take the good with the bad.

> If Sam, or anyone, displayed his kind of behaviour in a physical
> discussion room, he would be hauled out of the building. Period.

Have you considered that if there were rules against what he posts he 
might not do it? Since there isn't there's no reason for him not to.

> Sam Worm Lie hounds this NG like there's no consequence of having a
> posting history. Sam claims that jimp waits for his daily cut and
> pastes. Seriously? Who in hell needs to wait?! What wait? Oye.

Heh, nice ad hominem there. AFAIC, whether jimp waits or not is irrelevant.

> Sam Wormley, the greatest hypocrite in this NG, of all time, projects
> he is providing a service by hogging all bandwidth without more than a
> single word of 'discussion' or his always poorly written one sentence
> responses. Sam is the psychology experiment of Unmoderated Gone Mad.

You're accusing Wormley of violating rules that don't exist. That's not 
nice!

> There are only a handful of readers and posters on any given NG. Sam
> bombarding them with copyright violating posts demonstrates a severe
> misunderstanding of the Usenet Charter, in any language. It's also
> very poor marketing. It's not even very good propoganda. Most of all,
> his contribution is not a discussion.

I'm aware of no rule that states one must include any original content 
in ones posts. If you know of such a rule please cite it.

> -- Mahipal "IPMM, wow I get four whole lines for a signature?!"
> In today's media -- paper or otherwise -- Comedians want for being
> Journalists while Journalism has become Comedy. Very JCJC or CJCJ...
>
BTW, you're using unconventional syntax in your .sig. The "-- " 
delineator should be on a line by itself in order to be properly read 
and acted upon by a reader's news client.

-- 
dvus

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Editorial Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 15:49 -0500
  Re: Editorial gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-29 16:21 -0500
  Re: Editorial jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-29 21:24 +0000
    Re: Editorial Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 18:59 -0500
      Re: Editorial jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 05:04 +0000
        Re: Editorial Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 08:25 -0500
          Re: Editorial jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 16:58 +0000
          Re: Editorial "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:14 -0800
  Re: Editorial Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-29 21:52 +0000
    Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-10-30 07:20 -0400
      Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 07:22 -0700
        Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-10-31 07:19 -0400
          Re: Editorial Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-31 18:14 +0000
            Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-10-31 17:15 -0400
          Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 11:13 -0700
            Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-10-31 17:14 -0400
              Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 16:28 -0700
                Re: Editorial xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-31 18:20 -0700
                Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 01:54 -0800
                Re: Editorial "Bobby Enriquez" <invalide@eyample.com> - 2015-11-01 06:36 -0800
                Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:35 -0800
                Re: Editorial "Mike Smith" <invalidd@example.com> - 2015-11-01 09:06 -0800
                Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 09:32 -0800
                Re: Editorial "Hank Hill" <invalidd@example.com> - 2015-11-01 11:03 -0800
                Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:25 -0800
                Re: Editorial gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-01 23:18 -0600
                Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 04:02 -0800
                Re: Editorial gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-02 08:41 -0600
                Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:34 -0800
                Re: Editorial "Maple Hall" <invalud@example.com> - 2015-11-02 07:01 -0800
                Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-01 10:36 -0500
                Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:55 -0800
  Re: Editorial Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-10-30 11:32 -0400
  Re: Editorial "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 13:18 -0700
    Re: Editorial jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 20:36 +0000
    Re: Editorial pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 15:18 -0700
      Re: Editorial "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 23:16 -0700
        Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-10-31 07:42 -0400
        Re: Editorial Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 18:54 -0500
  Re: Editorial Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 18:51 -0500
  Re: Editorial David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2015-11-01 18:59 -0500
    Re: Editorial Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 19:32 -0600
      Re: Editorial benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 01:06 -0500

csiph-web