In article <aZcgk.1588$W64.216@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Herr Krawdad" <c_l_s3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "ZeusJupiter" <umbras-72102@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
news:umbras-72102-67EA48.23023318072008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <vocgk.2297$8R1.182@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "Herr Krawdad" <c_l_s3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> I've noticed a rapid depopulation of usenet in the last year. I'm
not
> >> just
> >> talking about ARRMO --- I'm talking about all of the NG's I used to
check
> >> out. They're becoming like goldrush ghost towns. I suppose blogs
and
> >> other
> >> more sosphisticated interactive media are slowly killing the wild
west
> >> that
> >> was once usenet. ISP's are also becoming increasingly hostile to
usenet
> >> and
> >> the rise of sophisticated commercial spambots have made usenet life
> >> almost
> >> unbearable.
> >>
> >> Usenet was always a tough place to survive because it
> >> was.....well......ungated anarchy, and even many of the seemingly
strong
> >> amongst us eventually broke down and couldn't take it anymore (Sani,
> >> Tripps,
> >> Letters, occasionally Raddion, etc, etc). Of course, sophisticated
> >> bot-driven commercial spam and The Wereo were new life forms no one
was
> >> prepared for. Some of us quickly learned what others could not: a
guy
> >> like
> >> Scott is a lot like a vicious black bear: the sooner you play dead
and
> >> stop
> >> wiggling, the sooner he loses interest. I've barely read a post he's
> >> written in the last few years. Unfortunately, some people just
couldn't
> >> stop wiggling and it drove them to madness.
> >>
> >> I think we need to make the transition from usenet. I'd like to
create a
> >> web-based forum with an eye towards absolutely minimal moderation.
If
> >> you
> >> think about it, the registration process alone would filter out most
of
> >> the
> >> crap. Things like cross-posting across hundreds of NG's in the .alt
> >> hierarchy would become a thing of the past.
> >>
> >> I'd propose that only stuff like commercial spam or TeRRy's
ped-fueled
> >> hatespam (ie, when he created 100's of different addresses to bypass
> >> killfilters) be the object of outright censor****p. If you can't take
> >> annoying people in your life, you need to stay at home and turn off
the
> >> computer. I wouldn't ban Scott and I wouldn't ban TeRRy just for
being
> >> conversationally unpalatable. I'd practically pay Tommy to show up.
> >>
> >> The tension, the ill-will, the hatred, the mockery, the
insensitivity,
> >> the
> >> hurt feelings, the fits, the Magica reviews. the 30 day absences ----
all
> >> of
> >> these are threads in the big, messed up ball of twine that made ARRMO
> >> great.
> >> The NG would have been absolutely ****ing horrible with a traditional
> >> moderator. The things that were awful about usenet were the things
that
> >> were great about usenet.
> >>
> >> I think maybe the already-established arrmo.com could be turned into
a
> >> workable forum, but there's a few things I don't like about web-based
> >> message boards. I yearn for a simple, yet functional forum in which
a
> >> collection of weirdos can freely discuss the inanities of everyday
life,
> >> music, Georgia, bukkake, baphomets, etc, --- free of commercial spam
and
> >> with the nuclear option of banning people who go way beyond simply
being
> >> assholes.
> >>
> >> The first thing I don't like about message boards is the lack of a
> >> personal
> >> killfilter. The killfilter is great. If you didn't like Scott, you
> >> filtered his posts on usenet. If you liked Scott, you basked in the
> >> wereo.
> >> To each his own. I'd like to incor****ate such a function in any new
> >> forum
> >> we created.
> >>
> >> I also don't care for all the different forums on traditional
messsage
> >> boards. They're just ****ing annoying. I realize variety is the
spice
> >> of
> >> life, but a single forum would be infinitely more manageable and fun
for
> >> what we like to do: engage in aimless conversation for our own
enjoyment.
> >> Just like on usenet: if you want to start a topic, you start one.
You
> >> either post in that thread or skip to the next one.
> >>
> >> Another problem is that you just can't easily peruse a message board
like
> >> you can a NG. In a message board, there's only a few posts per page,
> >> they're cluttered with avatars and signatures, etc. Also, you don't
have
> >> the option of only viewing the unread messages. You can't just take
a
> >> quick
> >> bird's eye view of the day's developments and pick your spots to jump
in
> >> without wading through an assload of bull****.
> >>
> >> I don't think a traditional moderator would be needed, nor would I
want
> >> one.
> >> Censor****p is, quite frankly, for pussies. I would propose one
person
> >> who
> >> would have authority to ban an individual after some sort of vote
amongst
> >> the registered members. That person wouldn't have zero authority to
ban
> >> individual posts that offended his sensibilities, etc.
> >>
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> Anyway, I'm technologically retarded. I can only provide silly
ideas.
> >
> >
> > Filtering out various ASSHOLES is easily done if it is coded right.
But
> > retarded idiot assholes like u waste AWL ušr time posting IDIOTIC
> > NONSENSE rater than spending time learning how to create a board that
> > fits their needs....which is exactly what I did. Now it is so much
> > easier to go to MY board for FUN and come here for the pleasure of
> > ANNOYING u STUPID RETARDED ASSHOLES who are nothing but LESS THAN
> > USELESS in ušr every thought....and THAT is EXACTY y u are being
quickly
> > reduced to being INVISIBLE.
> >
> > http://www.diomessageboard.com
>
> What fun would that be? I'd be banned the second that I revealed this
> information:
>
> USA v. Terry Herzog
> U.S. District Court
> Southern District of Ohio
> 1:99-CR-00070-SJD-1
>
> COUNT 13 [which you pled guilty to on 2/14/00 and were sentenced on
> 9/29/00]:
>
> "On or about 8/10/94 and 10/23/94; did knowingly ***TRANS****T*** in
> interstate commerce, by computer, the production of which involved the
use
> of minors engaging in ***ually explicit conduct and which visual
depiction
> was of such conduct, to wit: graphic files depicting photographs of
> lascivious exhibition of the genitals and of males under the age of 18".
>
> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/08/06/loc_kiddie_****_case.html
>
> The indictment did not indicate why Mr. Herzog became a target, but
those
> familiar with the probe suggested he TRANSMITTED the images involved in
the
> indictment "to the wrong people." Whether recipients were federal agents
or
> kiddie **** aficionados who cooperated with prosecutors was unclear.
People get banned for inappropriate posting....how does incorrect
bull**** on ušr personal agenda contribute to posts of interest? Doesnšt!
--
PEDOTARD PIG FACE SAYS WHAT?
|
