For all you people sick to death of these religious posts or something else
that has absolutely nothing to do with rec.woodworking, here's a suggestion.
Reply to them quoting one or two lines of text with some answer like "You're
wrong", remove rec.woodworking from the news group list and send them on
their way.
Responses and rebuttals will be off in the net somewhere, free the rec from
this crap.
For you BLITHERING IDIOTS who are part of this newsgroup that are answering
these posts, GET THE DILDO OUT OF YOUR ASS AND GET A LIFE.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The only ideal option is for
>people to agree to adhere mostly to a newsgroup subject.
And what do you propose to do about the ones who *don't* agree?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>When a problem exists that: (a) isn't harming you in any way, (b) can easily
>be ignored without harm to you or anyone else, AND (c) canNOT be solved by
>your efforts no matter what you do... it doesn't make a lot of sense to expend
>oneself in a futile effort to solve it.
Should you be looking in the mirror when you type that?
Or come to think of it, should I when I type this? <G>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
In article <[email protected]>, Edwin
Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> But like a gathering in your home, some respect for your rules and lifestyle
> go a long way. I'm as guilty as the next for participating on OT
> discussions, but I don't cross post to other groups or intentionally start
> flame wars. If a visitor to your home became overly boisterous, you'd ask
> that he leave wouldn't you?
This is usenet, not someone's home.
The ONLY effective options are to filter and/or ignore.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Filtering is limited because after a point, you're going to filter
> something out that you wanted to read, such as someone wanting ideas for
> church pews. As for ignoring, with the amount of messages in this
> newsgroup,
> it's easy to miss something that is on topic. The only ideal option is
> for
> people to agree to adhere mostly to a newsgroup subject.
To be honest, I don't worry about missing something. There are millions
of posts on usenet on tens of thousands of forums. There are millions
and millions of web sites. Any of these could have information I may
find interesting. So what? Life's too short to be concerned about it. I
filter rigorously, and ignore very, very many posts, threads and people
on the two dozen or so forums I follow with any regularity.
> General consensus, if it is wide enough is sufficient to control what
> appears here. It's the people with the opinion that usenet is their own
> personal playground (like you perhaps?) that are the greatest problem.
??? Can you provide any evidence that I've behaved as you suggest in
this or other forums?
And really, if you or others think rec.woodworkign is somehow out of
control or overrun by off-topic posts and trolls, you show a woeful
ingnorance about usenet in general.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
<[email protected]> wrote:
> To me, it sounds like you're suggesting that it's a waste of time trying to
> control the swarf, so why bother?
That is precisely what I'm saying.
The evidence that I'm right is plentiful. Check the archives, and see
how many net-nannies have ever been successful.
djb
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <100720051225006636%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > To me, it sounds like you're suggesting that it's a waste of time trying to
> > control the swarf, so why bother?
>
> That is precisely what I'm saying.
Let me correct myself. What I'm saying is that filtering and ignoring
is the only effective way to "control the swarf".
If the ignorant and the trolls get no response, they go away.
Nothing else works.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So you're content to sit back and ignore the problem. Maybe you're content
> to live your life like that, but I'm not.
You don't understand. Ignoring the trolls and off-topic posts isn't
ignoring the problem, it is in fact the best of solving the problem.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:57:40 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote the following in rec.woodworking:
>For all you people sick to death of these religious posts or something else
>that has absolutely nothing to do with rec.woodworking, here's a suggestion.
>
>Reply to them quoting one or two lines of text with some answer like "You're
>wrong", remove rec.woodworking from the news group list and send them on
>their way.
>
>Responses and rebuttals will be off in the net somewhere, free the rec from
>this crap.
>
>For you BLITHERING IDIOTS who are part of this newsgroup that are answering
>these posts, GET THE DILDO OUT OF YOUR ASS AND GET A LIFE.
You're wrong
---
Official Junior Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
AFA-B Vote Rustlers Union Local 102
"Subashuka Footoo Dave Swyden, let us hear your questions. I'm a stranger to this planet myself, but we are here since 6.5 million years .."
"N.B.: We use to call ourselves Plejarer/ Pleiadiens"
~ Charles D. Bohne (a few hours after his medications wore off)
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:22:48 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) wrote:
> Wrong or not, folks DO have the right (although it is eroding
>away) to speak fairly freely about topics they find important to them.
>Since this is NOT a moderated group, it is more
>like a cocktail party than a college lecture - The topics may well
>circle around the stated focus of interest, but, can wander.
Rubbish! If you don't have the sense to see that, then there's no
sense wasting time trying to convince you, but I'll try. "Not
moderated" shouldn't imply total anarchy, but should include normal
adult common decency. "Freedom" does not mean "absolute freedom."
Using your definition, people can even post porn and you'd find that
acceptable, if that's their "focus of interest.".
Rubbish! This is a "woodworking" conference for anyone who can read
and who has even a modicum of decency, and who knows anything about
the subject. I am in other newsgroups where people have something to
offer, and stick to the topic, and they are sheer pleasure after
sorting through the crap found here among the few gems.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:57:40 -0400, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> For you BLITHERING IDIOTS who are part of this newsgroup that are answering
> these posts, GET THE DILDO OUT OF YOUR ASS AND GET A LIFE.
You seem...stressed...
What works for me is blocking any posts crossposted to 3 or more groups.
Look for 2 commas in the newsgroups line, and don't display 'em.
Problem solved, at least client-side.
Dave Hinz
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:40:40 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> To be honest, I don't worry about missing something. There are millions
> of posts on usenet on tens of thousands of forums. There are millions
> and millions of web sites. Any of these could have information I may
> find interesting. So what? Life's too short to be concerned about it.
Right. It's all about signal:noise ratios. You're gonna miss some
signal by filtering, but as long as you took out more noise, you're
still ahead of the game.
Greetings and Salutations...
(Yes, I know this is a troll...)
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:57:40 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>For all you people sick to death of these religious posts or something else
>that has absolutely nothing to do with rec.woodworking, here's a suggestion.
>
First off..the "standard" is to preface the off topic posting
with the string "OT:" to allow easier sorting. Hum...I note that
*YOU* did not do this...Well...maybe next time.
>Reply to them quoting one or two lines of text with some answer like "You're
>wrong", remove rec.woodworking from the news group list and send them on
>their way.
>
>Responses and rebuttals will be off in the net somewhere, free the rec from
>this crap.
>
Wrong or not, folks DO have the right (although it is eroding
away) to speak fairly freely about topics they find important to them.
Since this is NOT a moderated group, it is more
like a cocktail party than a college lecture - The topics may well
circle around the stated focus of interest, but, can wander. Although
the religious posts are not to my taste, the Bible DOES say go and
teach all nations...and some folks take that very seriously.
Now, as for your suggested course of action...This will do
NOTHING to help the problem you perceive, but, will ensure that more
off-topic posting show up in OTHER newsgroups. Perhaps the only
appropriate newsgroups would be one of the ones dealing purely in
religious and philosophical discussion.
I would suggest that a BETTER course of action is to recall
that it takes at least two people to have an argument (or flamewar
on the Net). So...since all adequate newsreaders have the ability
it mark a thread to be ignored, I would suggest using THAT on
the threads you do not care to read. One click...and you never
see any more of it. Better news readers have the ability to
filter out messages by content or other criteria. You could
spend a few minutes setting up rules that would ensure that
you never even SEE the unappreciated posts. Of course, the
simplist filter is the one that looks for "OT:" at the start
of the subject line...but, then, folks do not always respect
that standard...
>For you BLITHERING IDIOTS who are part of this newsgroup that are answering
>these posts, GET THE DILDO OUT OF YOUR ASS AND GET A LIFE.
>
>
While it can be frustrating, I would suggest that you step
back from the computer, go get a nice, tall, cold drink, and, sit on
the porch for a while, chilling out and enjoying nature to calm down.
There is no profit in getting your blood pressure pumped up over
this. The fact of the matter is that the postings here are not
important in any real sense, so, it is just not worth getting
worked up over them.
Regards
dave mundt
Upscale wrote:
>For all you people sick to death of these religious posts or something else
>that has absolutely nothing to do with rec.woodworking, here's a suggestion.
>
>Reply to them quoting one or two lines of text with some answer like "You're
>wrong", remove rec.woodworking from the news group list and send them on
>their way.
>
>Responses and rebuttals will be off in the net somewhere, free the rec from
>this crap.
>
>For you BLITHERING IDIOTS who are part of this newsgroup that are answering
>these posts, GET THE DILDO OUT OF YOUR ASS AND GET A LIFE.
>
>
>
>
There are some people that download this on dial-up. As a courtesy to
them, use OT so they don't have to download it!
Just my $0.02
Frank
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>> ??? Can you provide any evidence that I've behaved as you suggest in
>>> this or other forums?
>>
>>I was responding to your statements:
>> "This is usenet, not someone's home.
>> The ONLY effective options are to filter and/or ignore."
>>To me, it sounds like you're suggesting that it's a waste of time trying to
>>control the swarf, so why bother?
>
>It *is* a waste of time. No amount of hectoring is going to stop those who
>want to post OT and don't care who they bother, from doing so. You can filter
>them out; you can ignore them; or you can get upset. Take your pick. :-)
Well said.
I've made my choice.
Upscale has made his.
BTW, thanks for your work on the newsproxy filters. I don't know what
all of this fuss is about, but maybe that's because they work!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
>> ??? Can you provide any evidence that I've behaved as you suggest in
>> this or other forums?
>
>I was responding to your statements:
> "This is usenet, not someone's home.
> The ONLY effective options are to filter and/or ignore."
>To me, it sounds like you're suggesting that it's a waste of time trying to
>control the swarf, so why bother?
It *is* a waste of time. No amount of hectoring is going to stop those who
want to post OT and don't care who they bother, from doing so. You can filter
them out; you can ignore them; or you can get upset. Take your pick. :-)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
>
> The ONLY effective options are to filter and/or ignore.
Bull! Filtering is limited because after a point, you're going to filter
something out that you wanted to read, such as someone wanting ideas for
church pews. As for ignoring, with the amount of messages in this newsgroup,
it's easy to miss something that is on topic. The only ideal option is for
people to agree to adhere mostly to a newsgroup subject.
General consensus, if it is wide enough is sufficient to control what
appears here. It's the people with the opinion that usenet is their own
personal playground (like you perhaps?) that are the greatest problem.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I have better ways to spend my time, and more important things to get
> worked up about (e.g. the recent US Supreme Court decision regarding eminent
> domain, but that's a whole 'nother issue).
>
Amen. No more private property. That's what it amounts to.
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:ABuAe.347
>
> It *is* a waste of time. No amount of hectoring is going to stop those who
> want to post OT and don't care who they bother, from doing so. You can
filter
> them out; you can ignore them; or you can get upset. Take your pick. :-)
So you're content to sit back and ignore the problem. Maybe you're content
to live your life like that, but I'm not.
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:12:34 +0930, tcleek <[email protected]> wrote:
>Upscale wrote:
>
>> For you BLITHERING IDIOTS who are part of this newsgroup that are answering
>> these posts, GET THE DILDO OUT OF YOUR ASS AND GET A LIFE.
>
>I find this more offensive than the religious posts!
Well, there you have it.
In a nutshell, I'd say.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
I love the Lord very much too and have been saved!!!!!!!!!!, but I
subscribed to this NG to learn about woodworking and get advice. If you
folks want to talk about Baptism and other scripture topics, why don't you
all startup your own newsgroup and have at it?? I would be interested in
accessing it occasionally.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:40:40 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> > To be honest, I don't worry about missing something. There are millions
> > of posts on usenet on tens of thousands of forums. There are millions
> > and millions of web sites. Any of these could have information I may
> > find interesting. So what? Life's too short to be concerned about it.
>
> Right. It's all about signal:noise ratios. You're gonna miss some
> signal by filtering, but as long as you took out more noise, you're
> still ahead of the game.
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:%zuAe.346
>> >The only ideal option is for
>> >people to agree to adhere mostly to a newsgroup subject.
>>
>> And what do you propose to do about the ones who *don't* agree?
>
>Didn't say that I had any definitive solutions, but for a start I'd suggest
>you don't reply to them
IOW -- ignore them -- advice you had previously rejected. :-)
>or reply to them with the post redirected to another newsgroup.
Oh, THAT'S a good idea. Kind of like dumping your garbage in someone else's
yard.
>If enough newsgroup members adhere take steps to control the
>problem, it will get fixed. Of course there's always going to be the
>occasional marauding trolls, but they're controllable with enough support.
And the best way to do that is to ignore them. Or filter them, which is really
nothing more than an automated way of ignoring them.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:22:48 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) wrote:
> Greetings and Salutations...
> (Yes, I know this is a troll...)
>
>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:57:40 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>For all you people sick to death of these religious posts or something else
>>that has absolutely nothing to do with rec.woodworking, here's a suggestion.
>>
> First off..the "standard" is to preface the off topic posting
>with the string "OT:" to allow easier sorting. Hum...I note that
>*YOU* did not do this...Well...maybe next time.
>
>>Reply to them quoting one or two lines of text with some answer like "You're
>>wrong", remove rec.woodworking from the news group list and send them on
>>their way.
>>
>>Responses and rebuttals will be off in the net somewhere, free the rec from
>>this crap.
>>
> Wrong or not, folks DO have the right (although it is eroding
>away) to speak fairly freely about topics they find important to them.
>Since this is NOT a moderated group, it is more
>like a cocktail party than a college lecture - The topics may well
>circle around the stated focus of interest, but, can wander. Although
>the religious posts are not to my taste, the Bible DOES say go and
>teach all nations...and some folks take that very seriously.
... snip
It is rather interesting to see the furor arising out of what started as
one single thread with a very easily identifiable title that would lead
anyone to recognize that it was most likely religious in nature (a single
click on the first posting would have confirmed that). The expansion of
the thread to other threads (such as this one) was initiated by those most
strident in denouncing the existence of that single religious thread. In
general, when one observes rec.ww it has always been a free-ranging set of
discussions, most often centered around woodworking topics, but sometimes
straying into areas of interest to the woodworkers having those
discussions. Depending upon the topic, woodworkers have always had the
choice of ignoring or participating -- nobody participates, the thread
dies. What is really surprising is the vehemence of those who decry the
religious postings vs. for example political or other types of postings.
It almost as if the very topic of religion causes these people either deep
angst or fear, to the point of theophobia, such that the very mention of
religion or anything religious causes such deep-seated anxiety that they
shrink from the very thought of *any* religious discussions occuring
anywhere near their presence. It seems to belie the thought that maybe if
the subject isn't mentioned, the ramifications of rejection won't have to
be dealt with.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:ABuAe.347
>>
>> It *is* a waste of time. No amount of hectoring is going to stop those who
>> want to post OT and don't care who they bother, from doing so. You can
>filter
>> them out; you can ignore them; or you can get upset. Take your pick. :-)
>
>So you're content to sit back and ignore the problem. Maybe you're content
>to live your life like that, but I'm not.
What problem? Thanks to judicious use of filters and killfiles, I rarely see
any of the garbage. It seems that you would prefer to see it, and complain
about it, than to not see it.
When a problem exists that: (a) isn't harming you in any way, (b) can easily
be ignored without harm to you or anyone else, AND (c) canNOT be solved by
your efforts no matter what you do... it doesn't make a lot of sense to expend
oneself in a futile effort to solve it. If you prefer to live your life
tilting at windmills and building up your blood pressure, you're welcome to
it. I have better ways to spend my time, and more important things to get
worked up about (e.g. the recent US Supreme Court decision regarding eminent
domain, but that's a whole 'nother issue).
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:41:01 GMT, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I love the Lord very much too and have been saved!!!!!!!!!!, but I
>subscribed to this NG to learn about woodworking and get advice. If you
>folks want to talk about Baptism and other scripture topics,
1. That's not why they do it.
> why don't you
>all startup your own newsgroup and have at it?? I would be interested in
>accessing it occasionally.
2. They're far too stupid to know how, and besides, again, that's not
why they do it.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:57:40 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>For you BLITHERING IDIOTS who are part of this newsgroup that are answering
>these posts, GET THE DILDO OUT OF YOUR ASS AND GET A LIFE.
>
Well, of course I would take the opportunity to exclude those whom you
reference, so that I might have the chance to enjoy the pure form of
your own particular expression.
Certainly, canceling they, so that I might hear thee, would add
immeasurably to my life.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
"Dave Mundt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
> Wrong or not, folks DO have the right (although it is eroding
> away) to speak fairly freely about topics they find important to them.
> Since this is NOT a moderated group, it is more
> like a cocktail party than a college lecture - The topics may well
> circle around the stated focus of interest, but, can wander.
But like a gathering in your home, some respect for your rules and lifestyle
go a long way. I'm as guilty as the next for participating on OT
discussions, but I don't cross post to other groups or intentionally start
flame wars. If a visitor to your home became overly boisterous, you'd ask
that he leave wouldn't you? .
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:%zuAe.346
> >The only ideal option is for
> >people to agree to adhere mostly to a newsgroup subject.
>
> And what do you propose to do about the ones who *don't* agree?
Didn't say that I had any definitive solutions, but for a start I'd suggest
you don't reply to them or reply to them with the post redirected to another
newsgroup. If enough newsgroup members adhere take steps to control the
problem, it will get fixed. Of course there's always going to be the
occasional marauding trolls, but they're controllable with enough support.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
> ??? Can you provide any evidence that I've behaved as you suggest in
> this or other forums?
I was responding to your statements:
"This is usenet, not someone's home.
The ONLY effective options are to filter and/or ignore."
To me, it sounds like you're suggesting that it's a waste of time trying to
control the swarf, so why bother?
> And really, if you or others think rec.woodworking is somehow out of
> control or overrun by off-topic posts and trolls, you show a woeful
> ingnorance about usenet in general.
The rec is not out of control otherwise there would be far fewer woodworkers
here than there are. However, that doesn't mean for one second that anyone
should become complacent or not continually attempt to try to clean some
things up.