 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 08:12:10 -0500, Bill Dewitt wrote:
> Well, I guess some people couldn't help attacking Matt's personal
>beliefs, it's an illness of some sort.
And he couldn't help putting them out there to be attacked. Not that that
forgives the attackers, but if someone had a signature I found offensive I
would probably have something to say about it too.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povray org> wrote :
>
> And he couldn't help putting them out there to be attacked.
That's true. And he clearly puts them there to be offensive.
I object to his distortions and slant. I can see that this is a reason
to shut down all discussion. The policy clearly states that if someone posts
offensive and inflammatory messages that the whole group will be punished.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a4b51de$1@news.povray.org>, "Bill Dewitt"
<bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
> I can see that this is a reason to shut down all discussion. The
> policy clearly states that if someone posts offensive and
> inflammatory messages that the whole group will be punished.
Giwer (or "Giwe", now) was a large part of the problem, but
povray.off-topic has been largely flame wars and arguments for a while
now. Giwer's behavior was simply the last straw.
It hasn't been removed permanently, it will be reinstated after a
"cooling off" period. I'm sure you understand that we don't want
newcomers to this server to find one of the most popular groups full of
flame threads.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Dewitt wrote:
>
> "Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote :
> >
> > And he couldn't help putting them out there to be attacked.
>
> That's true. And he clearly puts them there to be offensive.
>
> I object to his distortions and slant. I can see that this is a reason
> to shut down all discussion. The policy clearly states that if someone posts
> offensive and inflammatory messages that the whole group will be punished.
Attempts made for a peaceful resolution were ignored. A clear message has
now been sent that is impossible to ignore. While people may disagree with
that action it has happened and history cannot be changed. Peoples actions
and willingness to accept the AUP will now dictate the future of that group.
The hurt people feel now will diminish, peace will be restored, and the
community will continue to grow in a favorable manner.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A4AC8C7.B376463A@istar.ca>, sde### [at] istarca wrote:
>Slowly it devolved into more and more arguments. At first they were
>entertaining, or funny. Eventually they got tiresome. Then I left
>entirely for about a month or so, and I didn't really miss it. I came
>back a couple of days ago to see what was happening, and was very
>surprised at what it had become.
The usefulness of an off-topic group in a community such as this one
will never work unless people learn to use killfiles. I think part of
the problem is with their name. "Killfile" sounds so eeevvviiilllll.
I've seen them called "penalty box" on other systems, but even that
holds too much judgement. Maybe the "play nice file", but that's also
showing an emotional judgement. The "not interested right now" file
perhaps.
In an off-topic group lots of things will be discussed. A killfile
should be viewed as no more than a useful tool for determining
interests. Some people will often post things that other people are
uninterested in or don't want to see. It only takes two people to make a
long-running thread, sometimes only one, and asking everyone to not post
if they think their statements will be controversial anywhere else in
the world is completely the wrong way of doing things. It only takes one
person to break such a system. But if everyone takes responsibility for
their own interests and dislikes, the problem that you describe goes
away.
Jerry
--
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you've
depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
(http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/Murder/)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a4ac99b@news.povray.org>, "Mark Wagner"
<mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>Personally, I'm not surprised that it got removed. I last reset the
>newsgroup less than two months ago. Since then, there have been over
>fifteen hundred messages that have met the criteria for either my killfile
>or my ignore list.
See, I think this is part of the problem. In an off-topic discussion,
why should this be considered a bad thing? Off-topic doesn't have a
topic. There *should* be a lot of things you aren't interested in seeing
or actively don't want to spend the time seeing in an off-topic
newsgroup. If there isn't, the newsgroup is dead or dying.
Jerry
--
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you've
depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
(http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/Murder/)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry wrote in message ...
>
>See, I think this is part of the problem. In an off-topic discussion,
>why should this be considered a bad thing? Off-topic doesn't have a
>topic. There *should* be a lot of things you aren't interested in seeing
>or actively don't want to spend the time seeing in an off-topic
>newsgroup. If there isn't, the newsgroup is dead or dying.
Actually, I think it is part of the problem. That's 1500 messages out of
3700, 1050 of which are due to my killfile, and I only have one person in my
killfile.
--
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually, I think it is part of the problem. That's 1500 messages out of
> 3700, 1050 of which are due to my killfile, and I only have one person in
my
> killfile.
I personally dont killfile anyone, i just dont read the posts i dont want
to......
--
Rick
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://povray.co.uk
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwe wrote:
> Australian law considers it a felony to criticize Israel
?
ugh
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Dewitt wrote:
> > Just an idea, but is it possible to limit the number of messages from the
> same person
> > to, for example, 4 per 24 hours (Team and TAG members excepted) ?
>
> Although I disagree with the intent (that of regulating free
> conversation), if this is the result that is wanted it is not a bad idea.
> But I would suggest a KB limit rather than a post limit. Reason being that
> there are a couple of kids here that offend no one by posting several dozen
> small posts a night about a video game or whatever. The post limit would
> stop that sort of friendly chat, but a KB limit would stop the single large
> diatribe that offends more people.
And a KB limit wouldn't have a workaround of quoting several posts and replying
once.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
