On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:10:56 -0700, ryan constantine
<rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>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

Mm, I must admit that was a weak side to my reasoning!

>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.

Not at all, thanks for listening to me rant.

>
>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

----------------------------------------------------
Symmetry is wrong:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

> by Crosswinds. They state that I have unlimited webspace and I really want
> to test that!     ;)
Of course it can't be really unlimited, but I know someone who
uploaded more than 500MB there.

ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:15:17 -0400, "Greg M. Johnson"
> <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:

> >usenet posting encouraging people to tear down this group.  Pardon me not liking
that

> >attitude.
>
> I retracted that statement as being very foolish.

I stand corrected. I had been under the impression, however, that the "retraction" was
the
forgery you were complaining about.

Splash away!

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote in message <39ABC64B.736A19F4@my-dejanews.com>...
>IMBJR wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:15:17 -0400, "Greg M. Johnson"
>> <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
>
>> >usenet posting encouraging people to tear down this group.  Pardon me
not liking that
>
>> >attitude.
>>
>> I retracted that statement as being very foolish.
>
>I stand corrected. I had been under the impression, however, that the
"retraction" was the
>forgery you were complaining about.

I retracted the please-flood-POV-newserver part of my alt.binaries.slack
posting on alt.binaries.slack (the non-"Confession" post), the forgery was a
different matter all together. I think I now know who did it and have
contacted them twice about it in order to get an apology. If they don't then
I will post my evidence to pov.off-topic for that person's peers to judge
them.

>
>Splash away!
>

Post a reply to this message

Cannonball!!!!

Anyone get soaked?

Post a reply to this message

MikeH wrote in message <39AC2AE7.E0F2A9E7@aol.com>...
>Cannonball!!!!
>
>Anyone get soaked?

Some did, and some did not. Did you?

>

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote in message <39a8dbd2@news.povray.org>...

>I think it is quite possible that spammers are in fact harvesting e-mail
>addresses from these groups. The POV server will only see someone accessing
>the headers like the rest of us do. I think it is naive of you to believe
>you are safe from spam; if the spammers just got one sniff of this server
>they would have a field day.


I can assure you they aren't.  I've been posting here for over a year, and I
haven't gotten a single spam e-mail at the address I use.

Mark

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote in message <39a7e32d@news.povray.org>...
>This news server (news.povray.org) seems to have pretty deep pockets. I am
>currently downloading the entire contents of povray.binaries.images and I
>noted that the earliest post is from about July 1998. So even if I did
>release my material in staged intervals it would all still be available for
>download at some point, leaving the individual browser the option of
>downloading in staged intervals. Remember, no one is forcing you to
download
>these images.


This may be a little after the fact, but about three months ago, the server
ran out of space, forcing a number of posts from the povray.binaries.*
groups to be expired.

Mark

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000 02:39:54 -0400, "Mark Wagner"
<mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:

>
>IMBJR wrote in message <39a7e32d@news.povray.org>...
>>This news server (news.povray.org) seems to have pretty deep pockets. I am
>>currently downloading the entire contents of povray.binaries.images and I
>>noted that the earliest post is from about July 1998. So even if I did
>>release my material in staged intervals it would all still be available for
>>download at some point, leaving the individual browser the option of
>>downloading in staged intervals. Remember, no one is forcing you to
>download
>>these images.
>
>
>This may be a little after the fact, but about three months ago, the server
>ran out of space, forcing a number of posts from the povray.binaries.*
>groups to be expired.

Really? Strange, I could have sworn I have downloaded stuff from
fairly well back - in fact, just to test I am currently downloading
something in this group that was appearently posted 4/99 (Squeezer by
Andrew Cocker) ...

...yup, downloaded.

>
>Mark
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasting time since 1967:
http://www.imbjr.com
Vanity publishing:
http://www.cafepress.com/imbjr_001

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <imb### [at] imbjrcom> wrote in message
news:ei61uscoq5718n7jqj2538oqdql16lp0dm@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000 02:39:54 -0400, "Mark Wagner"
> <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>
> >
> >IMBJR wrote in message <39a7e32d@news.povray.org>...
> >>This news server (news.povray.org) seems to have pretty deep pockets. I
am
> >>currently downloading the entire contents of povray.binaries.images and
I
> >>noted that the earliest post is from about July 1998. So even if I did
> >>release my material in staged intervals it would all still be available
for
> >>download at some point, leaving the individual browser the option of
> >>downloading in staged intervals. Remember, no one is forcing you to
> >download
> >>these images.
> >
> >
> >This may be a little after the fact, but about three months ago, the
server
> >ran out of space, forcing a number of posts from the povray.binaries.*
> >groups to be expired.
>
> Really? Strange, I could have sworn I have downloaded stuff from
> fairly well back - in fact, just to test I am currently downloading
> something in this group that was appearently posted 4/99 (Squeezer by
> Andrew Cocker) ...
>
> ...yup, downloaded.

So? Note that Mark did not say -all- the posts prior to three months ago
were removed. He said that about three months ago, a -number- of posts were
expired. The articles still do go quite a ways back, but not as far back as
they used to. I think at least the oldest years worth were removed.

--
Paul Vanukoff

Post a reply to this message