1: Push'd Porn; 2: Put in Place of Arrogant Net.dinosaur/administrator.nut 3: General Point about Proactivity

[Doug Tooley]

> While this is a spam, it's not a porn spam.  It's a spam that *mentions*
> a pornographic site (maybe -- unless you've visited the site, you don't
> really know).  There's a *crucial* difference.  

Excuse, me, its spam 'for porn'.  The distinction though is
meaningless.  Would you think it any different to give out free Penthouse
Copies at a school or to give out offers to subscribe for free?  The
rhetorical, albeit moderately inflamatory exageration, was a conscious
choice.

The rhetorical question asked in this post was whether there should be
stronger mechanisms than the SOP you ably documented.

> You will notice that no reply went back to john134 in the above example.
> You should never reply directly, but always to those who are likely
> to be in positions of authority over john134 and his ilk.  

Adminstrators never have 'authority over' any user.  They do have some
methods of recourse, but never 'authority over'.  Got it?

> I have another beef, which applies to nearly every posting I see these days,
> including those from old.net.hands who ought to know better.
> I am sick and bloody tired of seeing replies to postings quoting the whole
> damned thing they are replying to, as if all of our memories were so short
> ^^^^^^ ^^^^^
> that we needed that stuff, repeated again and again and again, preceded by
> ever-increasing strings of ">" ad nauseam.
> 
> Take note that replies to spam-mail to originators is about the only instance
> where quoting the whole message back could be regarded as appropriate and proper.
> Frankly, complaints *about* spam that quote the whole message being referred
> to as spam, sent to non-spammers, are spam themselves.  Don't recurse on spam!
> 
> Doug, in your posting, there were no less than 68 *empty* lines being
> quoted.  You *could* have taken the trouble to edit them out, but you chose
> not to, or just-as-bad, don't know how to.  Now what I want to know is why
> people should take your complaint seriously when you are such a netiquette
> violator yourself, whether wittingly or unwittingly.
> 
> Come on, you newbies, it's about time you got your Mail User Agents under
> control (Read the Manual, dammit!!!!!), so that when people see your posts,
> they don't immediately tag you as a net.tyro (or a net.old.hand that doesn't
> give a shit) and lower their index of respect accordingly.  Like..., *edit*
> on the reply (if you can't take time to do that, why should others take the
> time to read what you post?).  It takes up storage space and wastes bandwith,
> which I'm sure you are all acutely aware, is a *scarce* resource.
> 
> >[68 deleted empty lines... see? what you are looking at is a convention to
>   indicate elision, i. e. where material was deleted.  It's a good idea to
>   do this for the sake of Truthful Context, i. e. when somebody sees the
>   elided quote, they don't assume it's the whole thing.  When I'm not lecturing
>   newbies specifically (like right now), I often use the construction ">[...]"
>   to indicate that editing was done. ]

Sir the post was a short one, a total of two text lines.  For the benefit
of anyone who has bothered to page through your totally meaningless rant
it should be painfully obvious that the only thing you've got a proble
with Mr. Cockrum is yourself.  My sincere apologies for not attempting to
page past the apparent end of the message.
 > 

> With the advent of widespread net communications, you all had better get aware
> that you are all, rolled into one, authors, editors and publishers.  It's the
> middle role that is being slacked on.
> --kurt

Being an editor is important.  Consider yourself edited out Mr. Cockrum
till you can show the ability to deal with what is going on here and now
rather than whatever tragedies apparently befell, and froze, you some ten
plus years ago.

SCN needs to be proactive here on the net, and frankly the negative,
know-it-all attitude Mr.  Cockrum displays in this post is all too often
the norm on SCN. 

I happen to think that getting spam reffering to porn is obectionable,
actionable, and important to act upon.  'Pushing' porn ain't no different,
at many important levels, than pushing drugs, including alcohol,
especially when there are minors present.

Most importantly it was something that the discussion of I felt clearly to
be worth 'bandwidth', in part through continuing a thread seen on the list
previously.

Your reply, Mr. Cockrum, is the rambling rant of an incoherent loser -
truly a waste of 'bandwidth', as often is SCN.

Wake up dude! 


-Douglas Tooley
Net Aware since 1983
Reality Aware since Birth




* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END