Re: Oracle Report Generator - SPAMMERS needed

Joel Garry wrote:
> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<40947182$0$442$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
[snip]

> Well, Jonathan abuses his .sig, but that's ok, since few in the group
> are .sig nazis. It is long established usenet practice going back to
> before the commercialization of the net that having a bit of
> commercial in a .sig was acceptable. At that time, there _were_ .sig
> nazis who would throw a flaming dogpile on .sigs over four lines. It
> made a little more sense at that time since most newsreaders
> automatically appended a .sig, so it was generally was a static thing
> that would be on every post.

Again, you say it's "abuse" of a sig, but you've got to pretty anally up-tight to read it that way. Which is why, fortunately, most people don't seem to.

>>He's not offering a job, or charging us for the privilege of being beta
>>testers, and I don't therefore think this falls under the category of
>>"marketing", where .marketplace would indeed be the appropriate venue.
>
>
> You might want to google my postings on this, in summary I think the
> charter simply isn't clear enough. Although I think Daniel's position
> is extreme, I think it is both understandable and useful.

I think it's the "extremity" I have difficulty with.

[snip]

> Here I disagree, and it is exactly why I support Daniel in his netcop
> efforts. Unmoderated groups can go downhill amazingly fast, and
> policing is _necessary_.

That is an oxymoron. If policing is necessary, then it should be a moderated group. Moderating *is* policing, after all. By definition, an unmoderated group is neither policed, nor wants to be policed (otherwise it would have set itself up as moderated in the first place). There's a difference, I think, between wanting on-topic material that helps and wanting a netcop.

>We need to not only support those who are
> willing to do it,

I disagree. I don't support anyone clogging up the airwaves with statements I could have thought about myself, or which didn't need to be stated in the first place.

> we need to agree on clear and consistent guidelines.
> TINC is an old joke on usenet, but somehow we need to interpret the
> charter and the feelings of the group in a manner to head off problems
> as quickly as possible. That is what a newsgroup FAQ is for.

We've been here before, though. Polish a FAQ as you would, post it as often as you dare, and people will still ignore it.

ISTM that the best filter for these things lies between one's ears, is grey and pink, and slightly squishy. For anything else, there's private email.

>>>Please pay attention to usenet rules and stop spamming. Just because
>>>you can spell the name of a usenet group does not mean posting to it
>>>is appropriate.
>
>
> There's always http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=37a785d0.1128228777%40newsfeed.sexzilla.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
> Meow.

Which kind of says it all, really, doesn't it!? What causes a group to be the subject of a miaowing campaign? "bitching about off-topic crossposts in your newsgroup. Furthermore, your indoctrination into the Empire will be speeded if you threaten mailbombing, post flooding, netcopping, legal action..."

Somethings, in other words, are best left unsaid. And 'you are off-topic' seems to me to be one of them.

Regards
HJR Received on Mon May 03 2004 - 20:09:16 CDT