 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Dewitt wrote:
> No. His use of the word "Dimocrat" seems to be the triggering event, but
> the purported offence was his sigs which had been pretty much ignored for
> months before.
The sigs were never ignored. The intolerance towards them grew until they
could not be ignored any longer. I would go as far as to say the news admin.
has shown extrodinary tolerance and patience in the last two years.
> > Flame wars cannot and do not turn in infernos without someone
> > feeding or fanning the flames.
>
> POT has -never- had a flame war. Nothing even close.
Mostly true but things have been said that would better have been left
unsaid. Personal insults and bigotry being at the top of the list. You
don't need a flame war to act in a socially unacceptable manner.
I feel it is prudent to mention that p.o-t is not likely to return
until this topic fizzles out here in .general. We would really like
to get this behind us and move on.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...TO get it shut down?
Pardon me asking, but I've been taking off a lot of computer time to listen
and work on music, etc etc, and so far it's paid off :-)
I also got a job, which (the first few days) were long and hard and left me
worn out, so I couldn't get much computer time in. So, that added to my
week long disappearance.
So, an explanation would be appreciated. Chris C's comment about "constant
abuse" seems to fit well considering what was happening the last time I took
a peak...
The biggest problem with p.o.t being gone is that you can no longer post
"followups to p.o.t". Everything would build up here or on another of the
POV/Moray groups...
-Ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwe (and NOT David Fontaine) wrote:
> Australian law considers it a felony to criticize Israel.
Oh yeah?
Well, I hereby criticize Israel:
It should snow more in Israel.
Israelis love their children too much.
The trains don't run on time.
There. The cops can arrest me the next time I'm in Oz.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 02:21:03 -0500 Ian Burgmyer wrote:
>...TO get it shut down?
Hi, Ian. Please read Ken's post, message-ID:
<3A52B9EC.577C3B2E@pacbell.net> in this thread.
>The biggest problem with p.o.t being gone is that you can no longer post
>"followups to p.o.t". Everything would build up here or on another of the
>POV/Moray groups...
We can all help to maintain p.general and other on-topic groups by
*not* posting off-topic material. Guidelines for on-topic groups are
posted in the p.a.frequently-asked-questions group in "Welcome To the
POV-Ray News Groups". Thanks.
--
Alan - ako### [at] povray org - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Bill Dewitt wrote:
>
> > No. His use of the word "Dimocrat" seems to be the triggering event, but
> > the purported offence was his sigs which had been pretty much ignored for
> > months before.
>
> The sigs were never ignored. The intolerance towards them grew until they
> could not be ignored any longer. I would go as far as to say the news admin.
> has shown extrodinary tolerance and patience in the last two years.
>
> > > Flame wars cannot and do not turn in infernos without someone
> > > feeding or fanning the flames.
> >
> > POT has -never- had a flame war. Nothing even close.
>
> Mostly true but things have been said that would better have been left
> unsaid. Personal insults and bigotry being at the top of the list. You
> don't need a flame war to act in a socially unacceptable manner.
>
> I feel it is prudent to mention that p.o-t is not likely to return
> until this topic fizzles out here in .general. We would really like
> to get this behind us and move on.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
I hesitate to step in, but I've got a bit to add.
Saying things in pot weren't really as bad as some people say doesn't alter the
fact that a lot of people started avoiding the whole newsgroup. For me
personally the things going on there really gave me a bad taste. I've tried to
ignore it or try to make a joke on it, or try to find some other sensible way to
react, but in the end I just skipped the whole group. The point is, that the
negative feelings from pot rubbed off on POV-Ray as a whole. This may seem
childish or over-sensitive but pot alone made POV-Ray seem something I'd rather
not be associated with. Off course this has nothing to do with the program
itself (just with, what is supposed to be "the community") and even though I
gave Blender a swirl too I still stick to my favorite 3D-program even though it
may not be the most logical choice for the job.
Naturally this is just my personal experience, but I've seen others announce
fleeing from pot and i guess others decided to drop it without announcing. If a
community exists merely by a bunch of people who decide to drop most of their
inhibitons and leave the 'oversensitive whiners' behind that's not really a
community I'd choose to be a part of and in fact I'd hardly call that a
community at all.
If, then, the owner of the server decides to put a stop to it, in whatever way,
for whatever reason, that's simply his right and just the thing you may expect.
I'd hope pot could return in some form or another, with everyone participating
in a somewhat more responsible manner. Perhaps (and here's my constructive
input) it'd be possible to have an active moderator who can jump in when
discussions go the wrong direction or even when they start of on the wrong foot.
Kind regards and best wishes for a new year,
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a52785b@news.povray.org>, "Scott Hill"
<sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote:
>2, Why such a draconian approach ? Warn anyone the abuses the groups
>and then ban them if necessary, but penalising everyone for one or two
>peoples bad behaviour just pisses everyone off and merely shifts the
>problem.
More importantly, if one or two people can shut down the discussion, the
group can never succeed. The world is a pretty big place; if it only
takes one person for something on-line to fail, that something is too
flawed to succeed. There's always one person.
>Reply directly, email the poster or just ignore the lot - it's your
>choice and that's the only way a community like this can operate -
>only you, yourself, can effectively police what you read here and
>no-one is forcing you to reply, however when you do decide to reply to
>a post, remember,
I already posted here once how I think "kill files" should be renamed
"interests and disinterests" to make people more willing to use them.
But yeah, unless the reader takes responsibility for what they read in
some manner, a single poster can bring the system down.
I never had any problem in p.o.t. The so-called "flamewars" (they
weren't) never took more than two or three lines in my newsreader unless
I specifically chose to read them.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 08:19:52 -0800, Jerry wrote:
>I already posted here once how I think "kill files" should be renamed
>"interests and disinterests" to make people more willing to use them.
>But yeah, unless the reader takes responsibility for what they read in
>some manner, a single poster can bring the system down.
You are deliberately missing the point. Our concern is not those of you
who know how to use killfiles, it is those of you who haven't been reading
povray.off-topic since the beginning and don't have appropriate killfiles
yet. Yes, maybe most members of the community aren't reading the flamewars[1]
but the most critical members of the community - the new ones - were being
exposed to all of the unadulterated sewage that passed for discussion in
povray.off-topic.
[1] and yes, they are flamewars. If you're one of the few people Matt never
called stupid or a liar, you obviously never tried reasoning with him.
--
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] povrayorg> wrote :
>
> [1] and yes, they are flamewars. If you're one of the few people Matt
never
> called stupid or a liar, you obviously never tried reasoning with him.
I can point you to some flame wars if you need to learn the difference.
Pointing out that someone may have said something the writer considers
stupid is not a flame war. Two or more people slamming each other with every
name in the book with no attempt to discuss a subject at all is a flame war.
We have had vigorous discussions that sometimes descended into an insult
or two... and one guy who cannot see that his sigs are out of line... Big
Diff.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:17:51 -0500, Bill Dewitt wrote:
> I can point you to some flame wars if you need to learn the difference.
Now see, that's what I'm talking about. Rather than say "what you think
is a flamewar doesn't compare to some I've seen" you insult my intelligence
and/or education instead. Thanks for the example, though.
>Pointing out that someone may have said something the writer considers
>stupid is not a flame war. Two or more people slamming each other with every
There's a huge difference between saying "what you are saying is stupid, and
here's why" and "you are stupid and/or a liar because you refuse to agree
with me or I've chosen to ignore what you said in favor of what I wish you'd
said."
One is rational discussion. The other is mindless flaming. Just because
nobody in off-topic was particularly creative with their flames doesn't make
them not flames.
--
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] povrayorg> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] fwicom...
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:17:51 -0500, Bill Dewitt wrote:
> > I can point you to some flame wars if you need to learn the
difference.
>
> Now see, that's what I'm talking about. Rather than say "what you think
> is a flamewar doesn't compare to some I've seen" you insult my
intelligence
> and/or education instead. Thanks for the example, though.
Your interpretation of my statement is more insulting than any
reasonable interpetation can possibly imply. -That- is how people get their
feelings out of joint, making up insults where none exist. I repeat, if you
need to see what flame wars -really- are, and what a -real- insult is like,
let me know. If you have to squeeze an insult out of what I said, you might
be surprised what is available. BTW, calling my statement an insult to your
intelligence means you have answered the question of "-if- you need to learn
the difference" in the positive, then got insulted by the results
of -your-own- answer. You might want to practice up before you go looking
for some flamewars.
> nobody in off-topic was particularly creative
See? I can squeeze an insult out of your statements too... Next lesson,
what happens when you don't try to get the last word with someone who
insists on being insulted by every imaginary slight.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
