the main (or real) problem as i see it is this:  the povray community
that frequents these newsgroups is as tightly knit as it can get over
the internet.  since you don't seem to like church, i'll use a swimming
pool as an analogy.  as new people have come in, they have all waded in,
politely testing the water to see not only what the written rules are
here but the unwritten as well.  they have all made the transition from
newbie in the newsgroups to regular user without much, if any, problem. 
so when you showed up one day (presumably without lurking for long) and
did a canon ball right where everyone was relaxing, people didn't
appreciate it.  these groups are here for community support.  personal
web pages are for showing off.  it is easy to get a ton of free space on
the web.  my brother has twelve geocities accounts, so lack of web space
is a pretty lame excuse to flood the newsgroups here.  i don't mean to
come off as condescending, so don't get me wrong.  we just do things
different from most newsgroups and we like it our way.  so we appreciate
it when newcomers conform.  as for why the 'heirarchy' as you call them
haven't come down on you yet, they are probably waiting to see whether
they have to or not.  most of the people that come through here are or
behave like adults and so we work out most of our problems ourselves. 
if enough people complain however, i'm sure something would be done. 
anyway, hope you don't feel i stepped on your toes.

IMBJR wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:27:06 -0400, "Greg M. Johnson"
> <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
> 
> >IMBJR wrote:
> >> Chris wrote:
> >>>     That *is* a problem...but it shouldn't be too difficult to get
> >>>     some space on some free provider.
> >>  It is easy, and I do have some, but it is taken up with other
> >>  material. However, as I have stated before I prefer Usenet
> >>  for exhibition.
> >>>> Mmm, it is because it works by the NTTP protocol - which makes it usenet.
> >
> >This ain't the usenet, it's not like the National Park Service or Central
> >Park.   It's more like a sheltered picnic table on a church's property, which is
> 
> Good, because the NPS seems to have little idea on how to conserve
> what it's got (way too much traffic, unlike my little spill) and
> Central Park ... has it still got a crime problem, or has Zero
> Tolerance stamped it out? If this place had Zero Tolerance, then I
> would not be able to continue this discussion.
> 
> >free for public use on weekdays, within certain guidelines. You come in and say
> >you want to store a few cases of canned goods on it, because your pantry is
> 
> I never treat Usenet as storage, just a pavement where I can prop up
> my work for a moment and let the good people going by have a look at
> it. Some of them even have constructive comments on the material they
> see. As for canned goods, well maybe they are, but they did start out
> fresh in the field.
> 
> >full.  Your main justification is that you can get away with it.  How incredibly
> 
> Bizarre! I don't recall saying that at all. If such "flooding" is a
> problem, then why hasn't the hierarchy come swooping down on me,
> either to ask me to cancel my posts (which I notice they, or their
> proxies, have asked some else to do), or just delete them themselves
> with a warning not to do it again or a complete lock-out. They seem to
> have no problem with the quantity. As I have said before, I have
> posted more than I did here in other places, and although there was
> the odd grumble, nothing happened like it has here, where the knives
> have come out and one person even decided to post a forgery of myself
> in my stomping ground (alt.binaries.slack). You really should not be
> so fragile about this.
> 
> >selfish.  You point to the lack of a lock on the door as justification, making
> >the church consider getting a lock.
> 
> Blimey! You would seriously retreat into some netherworld of closed
> doors and secret passwords just because the majority of Usenet users
> (or at least the ones I have encountered) do not think as you do? And
> by the way, as I have said before, this Church (strange you should
> liken it to one, suggesting that you are all somehow Special and
> Saved) does have very deep vaults. I've seen some quite old posts here
> that indicate that the place can well afford a little tide now and
> again - especially if, as someone suggested, the posts here are all
> archived for what I assume is perusal elsewhere.
> 
> >
> >> Yes, it is privately owned (like virtually all news servers: commercially,
> >> academically, or even as a hobby) - it is not private though. It still forms
> >> part of the general usenet community.
> >
> >A picnic table with no lock means it's Central Park, right ?
> 
> You have thrown me. First you say this is not Central Park, and now
> you are suggesting it is? Please clarify.
> 
> >
> >Do private servers---from usenet ones like Deja.com to non-usenet ones like
> >news.povray.org--- have the right to decide the terms of the public's free use
> >of their picnic tables?
> >
> They do have the right, but as I have stated above, I have not had my
> collar felt by the hierarchy. So I can assume one of the following:
> 
> 1. No such restrictions apply.
> 
> 2. Some have complained to the hierarchy and they were told to calm
> it.
> 
> 3. The hierarchy is asleep. A dangerous position for yourself: as I
> have previously stated elsewhere, this place could very easily become
> Spammer Armageddon*. If you suggest this place is self-policed then
> that is merely handing out wooden guns to the troops - no one has the
> real power to pull the plug on any abuser - only the Server Admin.
> 
> * Since the place is remarkably clean of Spam, I think the hierarchy
> is not asleep - either that or the spammers have not turned in this
> direction yet. Prey in your Church they do not.
> 
> PS. If you think space is a premium here then we are wasting it by
> this gainsaying, especially since this is a binaries group and not a
> place of talk (though I admit some do value the feedback here). If you
> reply to this message in this forum then I don't think I will be able
> to take you seriously from then on - stick to your principles and
> reply via e-mail. Of course if you do reply here, then so shall I as I
> have no qualms on that score.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Symmetry is wrong:
> http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message