''There are
about a half-dozen hard core netKKKop supporters here.''


Name them, Putz.

SV

I assume some ISPs have different TOS (lines to
cross).


"Yes, but the abuse@ address is not the newsgroup babysitter. "


And neither is a bunch of ''flonkers''.

Why burn down the house to kill a few ants?

Scotty

I can't think of a single person on this newsgroup who either supports or is
a netcop in the terms that these bozos have described, except for Neal who
has proclaimed over and over again his abuse reports.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scotty" wrote in message
oups.com...
''There are
about a half-dozen hard core netKKKop supporters here.''


Name them, Putz.

SV

He must be one of those net nazi's.I hope he don't rat us out to the
man.

Joe

Wally wrote:
Soque (Enjoque) Pupette wrote:

I exercise my responsibility by staying withing the bounds of
my provider's AUP/TOS and the law; however, I refuse to be
constrained by some nutcase on a power trip.

What if you were to transgress your provider's TOS, and some nutcase on a
power trip got you booted? Would you accept responsibility for your
transgression, or would you assert that the power-tripping nutcase is the
only person to blame?

If I travel outside the bounds of my provider's TOS I *should* get
booted -- regardless who reports me or if my provider notices it
himself. But, *I* don't have to worry about it as *I* won't go there.


What if you transgressed the TOS of a series of providers, there being a
series because you were regularly booted? What if this happened for five
years, and you then deliberately transgressed your provider's TOS, knowing
that the power-tripping nutcase would again get you booted?

Someone that gets booted from a series of providers for deliberate
abuse and/or TOS violations over the course of a five year flameware
is a nutcase, too. Net-abuse and/or TOS violations are *not* justified
by being on the right side of an argument.


Do you think it's right that an online community, which essentially has no
active part in this on-going feud, should get trashed as a way of attempting
to coerce the power tripper to accept the blame?

This is a fair question. I'm glad you brought it up.

I think such a community should be self policing. Meaning: They should
take a stand against the injustices by a rogue netkkkop in their midst,
thereby quelling the need for a loud and boisterous protest of those
injustices. If they don't, they're complicit in the injustice by
allowing it to fester.

It may look like a thrashing, it may be called a thrashing, it's
actually a protest by folks that oppose rogue netkkkoping.

Frankly, I've never been fond of the "We'll turn your group into a
smoking crater" troll. But, I realize it's a troll. It's designed to
provoke an emotional reaction by kicking the natural (and powerful)
instinct of self-preservation.

--
,,,
..oo
c
- Soque

Soque (Enjoque) Pupette wrote:

If I travel outside the bounds of my provider's TOS I *should* get
booted -- regardless who reports me or if my provider notices it
himself. ...

Someone that gets booted from a series of providers for deliberate
abuse and/or TOS violations over the course of a five year flameware
is a nutcase, too. Net-abuse and/or TOS violations are *not* justified
by being on the right side of an argument.

While I can see that there's an ethical or principled aspect to this, the
brass tacks of the matter are that there are enforcable rules which the user
can choose to abide by, or transgress. It's simply about accepting your
provider's TOS, and then choosing whether or not to abide by them.


I think such a community should be self policing. Meaning: They should
take a stand against the injustices by a rogue netkkkop in their
midst, ...

It seems to me that, complaints about supposed TOS transgressions can go one
of two ways...

If they're upheld, then the transgressor got what they deserved, insofar as
they accepted the provider's TOS when they signed up. While I might not
agree with netcopping, I don't see how a netcop in this situation could be
described as a 'rogue'.

If they aren't upheld, then there was no transgression, and the alleged
transgressor doesn't get booted. While the person who filed the complaint
might be described as a 'rogue netcop', their complaints don't actually have
any effect, so there's nothing to get annoyed about - no injustice.

In other words, there's no such thing as a 'rogue' netcop in the sense that
such a netcop can bring about an unjust booting. There are only netcops, and
people who pester service providers with frivolous complaints.


... thereby quelling the need for a loud and boisterous protest of
those injustices. If they don't, they're complicit in the injustice by
allowing it to fester.

I put it to you that there was no injustice. He either stepped over the mark
and got what was coming to him (by whatever facilitation), or he didn't step
over the mark and his account remained intact.

I don't subscribe to the view that not taking a stand means that those on
the sidelines are suddenly complicit. To argue that is to presuppose that
they have the same opinion on the matter as the noise-makers, and are
sufficiently motivated to take action. I see no evidence is support of those
presuppositions.


It may look like a thrashing, it may be called a thrashing, it's
actually a protest by folks that oppose rogue netkkkoping.

It's a brow-beating - an attempt to coerce people to carry out certain
actions by making so much noise that their normal activities within the
group are curtailed. Those who undertake this might fervently believe that
they're in the right, but those on the receiving end will never do what they
ask - precisely *because* they're being brow-beaten into doing so.

The epistolary equivalent of fascism doesn't convince, but cogent argument
and solid evidence might. That said, I think you'll find that most people in
here simply don't give a **** about whether Neal managed to get himself
netcopped. He looks after his vessel, and the sailors here respect him for
that. He starts a lot of sailing debate, which others may agree or disagree
with, but most will give him credit for doing so. He's also a distasteful
troll who, amongst other things, has posted very thinly veiled implications
that he's a paedophile. Watching him get booted, most people will see the
latter being hoisted by his own petard - not surprised, no sympathy, got
what he asked for, etc.


Frankly, I've never been fond of the "We'll turn your group into a
smoking crater" troll. But, I realize it's a troll. It's designed to
provoke an emotional reaction by kicking the natural (and powerful)
instinct of self-preservation.

Quite. However, there's a rather large difference between preserving
oneself, and preserving some newsgroup where a bunch of sailors get together
to have a laugh and shoot the breeze.

One has to appreciate that self-preservation is part and parcel of the very
activity that sailors undertake. By and large, sailing is a safe activity -
provided you don't make mistakes. If you do make a mistake, it can become
dangerous, sometimes to the point where your entire modus operandi is geared
around keeping yourself alive. Every sailor knows that, when it all goes
pear-shaped, you can't step out of the boat and walk home.

To suppose that noising up the bar is going to invoke some sort of instinct
for 'self preservation', to the extent that the incumbents will bay for the
blood of one half of what amounts to some petty feud, is so wide of the
mark, it's not even in the same regatta.

Nobody cares about Neal getting booted, either recently, or in the past, and
nobody cares whether Katy netcopped him for his latest infraction, or for
any of his previous ones. It's their petty little feud. It's just another
sideshow in the on-going ****-takes, debates, and arguments that make up the
mileu of this group. Just a pair of regulars having yet another stupid spat
in a corner of the bar. Nobody cares about it, other than the protagonists
themselves and a bunch of noise-makers who think they've got a campaign to
fight.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Wally, excellent post. However, I believe there are some rogue netcops out
there. Typically, at least in the past, they took actions such as mass
cancelling, even for pretty minor stuff, such as top posting.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" wrote in message
k...
Soque (Enjoque) Pupette wrote:

If I travel outside the bounds of my provider's TOS I *should* get
booted -- regardless who reports me or if my provider notices it
himself. ...

Someone that gets booted from a series of providers for deliberate
abuse and/or TOS violations over the course of a five year flameware
is a nutcase, too. Net-abuse and/or TOS violations are *not* justified
by being on the right side of an argument.

While I can see that there's an ethical or principled aspect to this, the
brass tacks of the matter are that there are enforcable rules which the
user
can choose to abide by, or transgress. It's simply about accepting your
provider's TOS, and then choosing whether or not to abide by them.


I think such a community should be self policing. Meaning: They should
take a stand against the injustices by a rogue netkkkop in their
midst, ...

It seems to me that, complaints about supposed TOS transgressions can go
one
of two ways...

If they're upheld, then the transgressor got what they deserved, insofar
as
they accepted the provider's TOS when they signed up. While I might not
agree with netcopping, I don't see how a netcop in this situation could be
described as a 'rogue'.

If they aren't upheld, then there was no transgression, and the alleged
transgressor doesn't get booted. While the person who filed the complaint
might be described as a 'rogue netcop', their complaints don't actually
have
any effect, so there's nothing to get annoyed about - no injustice.

In other words, there's no such thing as a 'rogue' netcop in the sense
that
such a netcop can bring about an unjust booting. There are only netcops,
and
people who pester service providers with frivolous complaints.


... thereby quelling the need for a loud and boisterous protest of
those injustices. If they don't, they're complicit in the injustice by
allowing it to fester.

I put it to you that there was no injustice. He either stepped over the
mark
and got what was coming to him (by whatever facilitation), or he didn't
step
over the mark and his account remained intact.

I don't subscribe to the view that not taking a stand means that those on
the sidelines are suddenly complicit. To argue that is to presuppose that
they have the same opinion on the matter as the noise-makers, and are
sufficiently motivated to take action. I see no evidence is support of
those
presuppositions.


It may look like a thrashing, it may be called a thrashing, it's
actually a protest by folks that oppose rogue netkkkoping.

It's a brow-beating - an attempt to coerce people to carry out certain
actions by making so much noise that their normal activities within the
group are curtailed. Those who undertake this might fervently believe that
they're in the right, but those on the receiving end will never do what
they
ask - precisely *because* they're being brow-beaten into doing so.

The epistolary equivalent of fascism doesn't convince, but cogent argument
and solid evidence might. That said, I think you'll find that most people
in
here simply don't give a **** about whether Neal managed to get himself
netcopped. He looks after his vessel, and the sailors here respect him for
that. He starts a lot of sailing debate, which others may agree or
disagree
with, but most will give him credit for doing so. He's also a distasteful
troll who, amongst other things, has posted very thinly veiled
implications
that he's a paedophile. Watching him get booted, most people will see the
latter being hoisted by his own petard - not surprised, no sympathy, got
what he asked for, etc.


Frankly, I've never been fond of the "We'll turn your group into a
smoking crater" troll. But, I realize it's a troll. It's designed to
provoke an emotional reaction by kicking the natural (and powerful)
instinct of self-preservation.

Quite. However, there's a rather large difference between preserving
oneself, and preserving some newsgroup where a bunch of sailors get
together
to have a laugh and shoot the breeze.

One has to appreciate that self-preservation is part and parcel of the
very
activity that sailors undertake. By and large, sailing is a safe
activity -
provided you don't make mistakes. If you do make a mistake, it can become
dangerous, sometimes to the point where your entire modus operandi is
geared
around keeping yourself alive. Every sailor knows that, when it all goes
pear-shaped, you can't step out of the boat and walk home.

To suppose that noising up the bar is going to invoke some sort of
instinct
for 'self preservation', to the extent that the incumbents will bay for
the
blood of one half of what amounts to some petty feud, is so wide of the
mark, it's not even in the same regatta.

Nobody cares about Neal getting booted, either recently, or in the past,
and
nobody cares whether Katy netcopped him for his latest infraction, or for
any of his previous ones. It's their petty little feud. It's just another
sideshow in the on-going ****-takes, debates, and arguments that make up
the
mileu of this group. Just a pair of regulars having yet another stupid
spat
in a corner of the bar. Nobody cares about it, other than the protagonists
themselves and a bunch of noise-makers who think they've got a campaign to
fight.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

JG wrote:
Wally, excellent post. However, I believe there are some rogue
netcops out there. Typically, at least in the past, they took actions
such as mass cancelling, even for pretty minor stuff, such as top
posting.

Fair point, but that's a rather different context from the present one.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Soque (Enjoque) Pupette" wrote in message
...
Scotty wrote:
Soque (Enjoque) Pupette writed;

[...]

We can't have jerks yelling ''FIRE'' in a theatre. Agreed?

Yelling "FIRE!" in a newsgroup doesn't cause a panic and
rush to the exits where people get trampled and die.


Agreed. but constant swearing, vulgar abusive language, in an
established group of ''friendly sailors'' is disrubtive, to say the
least.

It's the fight that ensues when someone tries to appoint themselves
as the authority over what's allowed to be said that causes the
disruption. If folks just filtered/ignored it and continued their
normal conversations there wouldn't be a disruption. (there wouldn't
be a fight.)


You wouldn't want an older man talking dirty to a pre-teen girl.
Right?

A parent that allows a preteen girl to wander in an adult
environment is not fulfilling their duties as a parent.

You think letting one's daughter go to school is neglectful?

Huh?

There is no comparison between a school for preteens and Usenet.

Yeah, you're right. It's more like high school.

John Cairns



[...]

I assume some ISPs have different TOS (lines to
cross).

Yes, but the abuse@ address is not the newsgroup babysitter.

--
,,,
.oo
c
- Soque

Definitely different.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" wrote in message
k...
JG wrote:
Wally, excellent post. However, I believe there are some rogue
netcops out there. Typically, at least in the past, they took actions
such as mass cancelling, even for pretty minor stuff, such as top
posting.

Fair point, but that's a rather different context from the present one.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk