On 07 Nov 2003 16:00:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But such a requirement involves rules, rules demand a judge, etc. If anybody
can report anybody else to an ISP for posts they aren't pleased with, I'd hate
to say it but the ISP's will be busy for weeks listening to people from
rec.boats whine about one another.

ISP's don't bother with Usenet squabbles. They really don't.

Joe Parsons

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:25:07 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On 07 Nov 2003 16:00:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But such a requirement involves rules, rules demand a judge, etc. If anybody
can report anybody else to an ISP for posts they aren't pleased with, I'd hate
to say it but the ISP's will be busy for weeks listening to people from
rec.boats whine about one another.

ISP's don't bother with Usenet squabbles. They really don't.

Joe Parsons

Yes they do, Joe.
Regards,
noah

To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah.
....as you were. )

On 14 Nov 2003 20:09:13 -0600, noah wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:25:07 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On 07 Nov 2003 16:00:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But such a requirement involves rules, rules demand a judge, etc. If anybody
can report anybody else to an ISP for posts they aren't pleased with, I'd hate
to say it but the ISP's will be busy for weeks listening to people from
rec.boats whine about one another.

ISP's don't bother with Usenet squabbles. They really don't.

Joe Parsons

Yes they do, Joe.

That has never been my experience.

There are many Usenet service providers, for example, that have essentially NO
Terms of Service. Altopia is a good example of this. Teranews is another.

By and large, what I have observed is that--especially in unmoderated
newsgroups--ISPs don't have the time or inclination to deal with their users who
might be chronically nasty, or who post off-topic (or who chronically post
off-topic in a nasty manner).

I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative,
emotionally charged and polarizing articles. And since, for the most part, the
people posting them seem to have some modicum of intelligence, I have to believe
they know exactly what they're doing it--but choose to indulge their destructive
whims out of pure selfishness.

They certainly are not doing it with an eye toward convincing anyone of
anything.

Joe Parsons

Regards,
noah

To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah.
...as you were. )

Joe Parsons wrote:

On 14 Nov 2003 20:09:13 -0600, noah wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:25:07 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On 07 Nov 2003 16:00:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But such a requirement involves rules, rules demand a judge, etc. If anybody
can report anybody else to an ISP for posts they aren't pleased with, I'd hate
to say it but the ISP's will be busy for weeks listening to people from
rec.boats whine about one another.

ISP's don't bother with Usenet squabbles. They really don't.

Joe Parsons

Yes they do, Joe.

That has never been my experience.

There are many Usenet service providers, for example, that have essentially NO
Terms of Service. Altopia is a good example of this. Teranews is another.

By and large, what I have observed is that--especially in unmoderated
newsgroups--ISPs don't have the time or inclination to deal with their users who
might be chronically nasty, or who post off-topic (or who chronically post
off-topic in a nasty manner).

Besides, it's becomes subjective when trying to determine who is
"nasty", and at what point someone goes over the line. Trying to
determine this opens up all sorts of censorship cries, and 1st amendment
issues.


I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

On an unmoderated newsgroup, there is generally little recourse. Even
idiots have a right to be idiots.


I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

Maybe there can be no "gentleman's agreement" because the concept of
being a gentleman has escaped many people? The ideal of disagreeing
without being disagreeable?


There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative,
emotionally charged and polarizing articles.

For some, it's "therapy". It soothes and re-enforces their overly
inflated idea of self-worth.


And since, for the most part, the
people posting them seem to have some modicum of intelligence, I have to believe
they know exactly what they're doing it--but choose to indulge their destructive
whims out of pure selfishness.

Now you're catching on.


They certainly are not doing it with an eye toward convincing anyone of
anything.

That much is true.

Dave

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:35:13 GMT, Dave Hall wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:

On 14 Nov 2003 20:09:13 -0600, noah wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:25:07 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On 07 Nov 2003 16:00:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But such a requirement involves rules, rules demand a judge, etc. If anybody
can report anybody else to an ISP for posts they aren't pleased with, I'd hate
to say it but the ISP's will be busy for weeks listening to people from
rec.boats whine about one another.

ISP's don't bother with Usenet squabbles. They really don't.

Joe Parsons

Yes they do, Joe.

That has never been my experience.

There are many Usenet service providers, for example, that have essentially NO
Terms of Service. Altopia is a good example of this. Teranews is another.

By and large, what I have observed is that--especially in unmoderated
newsgroups--ISPs don't have the time or inclination to deal with their users who
might be chronically nasty, or who post off-topic (or who chronically post
off-topic in a nasty manner).

Besides, it's becomes subjective when trying to determine who is
"nasty", and at what point someone goes over the line. Trying to
determine this opens up all sorts of censorship cries, and 1st amendment
issues.

Which part of "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press" do you believe applies to a privately-owned ISP's right to pull
the plug on a customer?

I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

On an unmoderated newsgroup, there is generally little recourse. Even
idiots have a right to be idiots.

Res ipsa loquitur.

I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

Maybe there can be no "gentleman's agreement" because the concept of
being a gentleman has escaped many people? The ideal of disagreeing
without being disagreeable?

While there are clearly people here whose conduct is (to put it charitably)
ungentlemanly, if a few were to help create a sort of group ethos, that could
leaven the rest. Peer pressure is a powerful force.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative,
emotionally charged and polarizing articles.

For some, it's "therapy". It soothes and re-enforces their overly
inflated idea of self-worth.

You may be right.

And since, for the most part, the
people posting them seem to have some modicum of intelligence, I have to believe
they know exactly what they're doing it--but choose to indulge their destructive
whims out of pure selfishness.

Now you're catching on.

What gives you the idea that I am only now "catching on?"

Joe Parsons

They certainly are not doing it with an eye toward convincing anyone of
anything.

That much is true.

Dave

Joe Parsons wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:35:13 GMT, Dave Hall wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:

On 14 Nov 2003 20:09:13 -0600, noah wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:25:07 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On 07 Nov 2003 16:00:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But such a requirement involves rules, rules demand a judge, etc. If anybody
can report anybody else to an ISP for posts they aren't pleased with, I'd hate
to say it but the ISP's will be busy for weeks listening to people from
rec.boats whine about one another.

ISP's don't bother with Usenet squabbles. They really don't.

Joe Parsons

Yes they do, Joe.

That has never been my experience.

There are many Usenet service providers, for example, that have essentially NO
Terms of Service. Altopia is a good example of this. Teranews is another.

By and large, what I have observed is that--especially in unmoderated
newsgroups--ISPs don't have the time or inclination to deal with their users who
might be chronically nasty, or who post off-topic (or who chronically post
off-topic in a nasty manner).

Besides, it's becomes subjective when trying to determine who is
"nasty", and at what point someone goes over the line. Trying to
determine this opens up all sorts of censorship cries, and 1st amendment
issues.

Which part of "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press" do you believe applies to a privately-owned ISP's right to pull
the plug on a customer?

The rights of people to express themselves in public (within limts) is
guaranteed. However a private company can set rules to restrict certain
behaviors. Thus begins the tug of war between the right to express an
opinion in a public place (a newgroup forum), and the private company
who provides the access right to set limitations. That doesn't stop the
endless debates on the subjectivity used in determining when someone
"crosses the line".



I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

On an unmoderated newsgroup, there is generally little recourse. Even
idiots have a right to be idiots.

Res ipsa loquitur.

I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

Maybe there can be no "gentleman's agreement" because the concept of
being a gentleman has escaped many people? The ideal of disagreeing
without being disagreeable?

While there are clearly people here whose conduct is (to put it charitably)
ungentlemanly, if a few were to help create a sort of group ethos, that could
leaven the rest. Peer pressure is a powerful force.

Like I've always said, it takes two to tango. If someone put up an
inflammatory OT post, and no one responded to it, it would wither and
die. We need to collectively exersise more self control when we respond
to, and unwittingly perpetuate these OT posts, which usually degenerate
into name-calling sessions.



There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative,
emotionally charged and polarizing articles.

For some, it's "therapy". It soothes and re-enforces their overly
inflated idea of self-worth.

You may be right.

And since, for the most part, the
people posting them seem to have some modicum of intelligence, I have to believe
they know exactly what they're doing it--but choose to indulge their destructive
whims out of pure selfishness.

Now you're catching on.

What gives you the idea that I am only now "catching on?"


Based on the position where the thought came forth in your post.

Dave

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:39:44 GMT, Dave Hall wrote:

[snip]

Which part of "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press" do you believe applies to a privately-owned ISP's right to pull
the plug on a customer?

The rights of people to express themselves in public (within limts) is
guaranteed. However a private company can set rules to restrict certain
behaviors. Thus begins the tug of war between the right to express an
opinion in a public place (a newgroup forum), and the private company
who provides the access right to set limitations. That doesn't stop the
endless debates on the subjectivity used in determining when someone
"crosses the line".

I agree: it's not likely to stop the "debate;" but just because a "debate"
exists does not mean it is a valid one.

I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

On an unmoderated newsgroup, there is generally little recourse. Even
idiots have a right to be idiots.

Res ipsa loquitur.

I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

Maybe there can be no "gentleman's agreement" because the concept of
being a gentleman has escaped many people? The ideal of disagreeing
without being disagreeable?

While there are clearly people here whose conduct is (to put it charitably)
ungentlemanly, if a few were to help create a sort of group ethos, that could
leaven the rest. Peer pressure is a powerful force.

Like I've always said, it takes two to tango. If someone put up an
inflammatory OT post, and no one responded to it, it would wither and
die. We need to collectively exersise more self control when we respond
to, and unwittingly perpetuate these OT posts, which usually degenerate
into name-calling sessions.

No argument there.

Joe Parsons