 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well?
(It's not showing up and has been removed from the avail. newsgroups on this
server).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlu couk> wrote in message news:3a49b723@news.povray.org...
> Well?
>
> (It's not showing up and has been removed from the avail. newsgroups on this
> server).
off-topic was removed due to consistent abuse.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris C wrote:
>
> "Tom Melly" wrote:
> > Well?
> >
> > (It's not showing up and has been removed from the avail.
> > newsgroups on this server).
>
> off-topic was removed due to consistent abuse.
Good thing, too. I was getting distracted from working on Rusty!
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:32:18 -0000, Tom Melly wrote:
>Well?
>
>(It's not showing up and has been removed from the avail. newsgroups on this
>server).
I've got the last four months worth on disk. That'll be an antique now.
It's sad that a very small minority spoiled it for everyone.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
1:04pm up 9 days, 25 min, 3 users, load average: 1.12, 1.04, 1.01
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
>
> Chris C wrote:
> >
> > "Tom Melly" wrote:
> > > Well?
> > >
> > > (It's not showing up and has been removed from the avail.
> > > newsgroups on this server).
> >
> > off-topic was removed due to consistent abuse.
>
> Good thing, too. I was getting distracted from working on Rusty!
That's a very valid reason (and probably the only one) for removing
p.o-t. from this server!
--
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
flabreque | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir? You realize it
@ | actually means changing the bulb!"
videotron.ca
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Steve" <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote :
>
> It's sad that a very small minority spoiled it for everyone.
That's what happens when a few people complain loudly and insistently
instead of just killfiling what they don't like to read.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris C wrote:
>
> off-topic was removed due to consistent abuse.
Wouldn't it have been better to warn users of off-topic group before
removing it and only if this didn't help, then close that group? (Sorry,
if this was done already, I quit reading off-topic group couple of month
ago and don't know, what happened there).
My only concern with this group removing is the possible increase of
off-topic messages in other groups now. Hopefully TAG and POV-Ray team
members will follow new administration rules and avoid this...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
wonderful tactic, remove the whole group just to silence one individual who
you allowed to get up your nose - because that's what he does given half the
chance.
lets all take a moment to remember why p-ot was deemed necessary in the
first place, and then remember how the group had become almost a focal point
for the many in this little online community. It wasn't just POV'ers sharing
there knowledge anymore, it was POV'ers enjoying a real sense of belonging
in a group where almost no subject was taboo.
Sure your bound to get inflammatory statements, trolls, flame wars,
religion,
politics and all the rest, but better in p-ot than in p.g!, you didn't have
to read it. if people didn't care for a particular thread they could just
ignore it (exactly what I did through the whole trig wars), and to top it
off a 14 day spool.
nice one guys, just great.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My only concern with this group removing is the possible increase of
> off-topic messages in other groups now. Hopefully TAG and POV-Ray team
> members will follow new administration rules and avoid this...
There is no doubt that it will, and it will be very difficult to police, as
most off-topic's start as a result of comments in a perfectly legit post.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am sad and glad to see it go. When it started it was a very good idea, and I
enjoyed it. As of late it has been abused. I hope that after a cooling off
period Chris Cason will consider bringing it back.
Tom Melly wrote:
> Well?
>
> (It's not showing up and has been removed from the avail. newsgroups on this
> server).
--
Josh English -- Lexiphanic Lethomaniac
eng### [at] spiritonecom
The POV-Ray Cyclopedia http://www.spiritone.com/~english/cyclopedia/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Dewitt wrote:
>
> "Steve" <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote :
> >
> > It's sad that a very small minority spoiled it for everyone.
>
> That's what happens when a few people complain loudly and insistently
> instead of just killfiling what they don't like to read.
Are you saying the rights of the abusive few out weigh the rights of
the many ? That is ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination and
not even worthy of discussion !
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > That's what happens when a few people complain loudly and
insistently
> > instead of just killfiling what they don't like to read.
>
> Are you saying the rights of the abusive few out weigh the rights of
> the many ? That is ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination and
> not even worthy of discussion !
but isn't it equally ridiculous to punish the many for the few abusers......
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris C wrote:
> off-topic was removed due to consistent abuse.
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) ?
One characteristic of flame wars is that posters keep pressing the send key. Setting a
limit would perhaps oblige the heavy posters to look twice at what they write. I don't
think it would a problem for most people, since reading p.o-t (or the other
newsgroups) was never a matter of life and death. One could still contact people
directly in case of emergency.
Of course people could switch identities to keep posting, but that would mean a direct
violation of the rule and a solid ground for banning.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
> >
> > That's what happens when a few people complain loudly and
insistently
> > instead of just killfiling what they don't like to read.
>
> Are you saying the rights of the abusive few out weigh the rights of
> the many ? That is ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination and
> not even worthy of discussion !
No, I said nothing of the sort. This is how abusive threads start, by
someone taking offense at something that was -not- said. I said, and I
repeat, that it was those who loudly and insistently complained that caused
the problem, as evidenced by the fact that much more inflammatory subjects
were discussed earlier without the group being shut down.
The "problem" under discussion BTW, is not inflammatory threads, it is
the unwarranted and arbitrary shut down of the OT group.
As for who's rights are being outweighed, I suggest that the "rights" of
those who use the group for entertainment and community are being abused by
those who use the group for advancement of their hate. Those people should
not be listened to if they can't be polite. I know who those people are
because several of them have emailed me and attempted to continue their
agenda of hate and insult since the OT group was shut down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:3A4A1250.FE40F0B9@inapg.inra.fr...
> Chris C wrote:
>
> > off-topic was removed due to consistent abuse.
>
> 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.
Either would stop most of my posts, which is really the plan anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Dewitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote :
>
> I know who those people are
> because several of them have emailed me and attempted to continue their
> agenda of hate and insult since the OT group was shut down.
Some of whom continue to write me after I have asked them not to...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vahur Krouverk <vah### [at] aetecee> wrote:
: Wouldn't it have been better to warn users of off-topic group before
: removing it and only if this didn't help, then close that group?
Several warnings were posted (eg. in the form of the acceptable server use
policy). They didn't help.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Dewitt wrote:
> This is how abusive threads start,
Then I will offer you some friendly advice. Let it drop.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick [Kitty5] <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
: wonderful tactic, remove the whole group just to silence one individual who
: you allowed to get up your nose - because that's what he does given half the
: chance.
I don't think that responding with a troll is the best way to go...
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> : wonderful tactic, remove the whole group just to silence one individual
who
> : you allowed to get up your nose - because that's what he does given half
the
> : chance.
>
> I don't think that responding with a troll is the best way to go...
wasn't intended as such, but that's the fact of it, you get a person who
enjoys nothing more than winding people up, getting wound up is as good as
an invite for more.
an outright ban would have been much better received, and served as a
warning to others, that once warned, take notice.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Even I considered asking Chris to stop this. Two reasons why did not do it:
1. Chris time is much valueable to be wasted with this rubbish.
2. Even if it's rubbish I hold the right of free speech quite high.
This would allow only two things:
a. Keep it going without censorship and risk more and more rubbish or
b. shut it down completely
Looks like Chris decided for option b and I can't say that I'm too unhappy
with that.
Marc
--
The right of free speech is not like free beer. You've got to work for it!
M. Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Josh English wrote:
> I am sad and glad to see it go. When it started it was a very good idea, and I
> enjoyed it. As of late it has been abused. I hope that after a cooling off
> period Chris Cason will consider bringing it back.
I agree.
When it was first formed I was very happy with it, and visited all the time. It
was a friendly community, and an enjoyable place to visit.
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.
It was a great idea, but perhaps the time had come to put it out of it's misery. I
can only hope that after a few weeks or months of cooling off time that it can be
reinstated in some form. I don't know how, though. I'm afraid the damage done may
be to much to ever repair.
Simon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>
> Chris C wrote:
> >
> > off-topic was removed due to consistent abuse.
>
> Wouldn't it have been better to warn users of off-topic group before
> removing it and only if this didn't help, then close that group? (Sorry,
> if this was done already, I quit reading off-topic group couple of month
> ago and don't know, what happened there).
> My only concern with this group removing is the possible increase of
> off-topic messages in other groups now. Hopefully TAG and POV-Ray team
> members will follow new administration rules and avoid this...
It was removed the instant he discovered his email had been made
public.
--
Convicting the criminal is not the same as
preventing the crime.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 82
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:32:18 -0000, Tom Melly wrote:
> >Well?
> >
> >(It's not showing up and has been removed from the avail. newsgroups on this
> >server).
>
> I've got the last four months worth on disk. That'll be an antique now.
>
> It's sad that a very small minority spoiled it for everyone.
That was the intention of those who spend hours every day perfecting
their "I am outraged!" routine. If they can't control it they want it
stopped.
--
Now it all depends upon what the meaning of "count" is.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 353
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Dewitt wrote:
>
> "Bill Dewitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote :
> >
> > I know who those people are
> > because several of them have emailed me and attempted to continue their
> > agenda of hate and insult since the OT group was shut down.
>
> Some of whom continue to write me after I have asked them not to...
Copies of that request to abu### [at] ispcom usually works instantly.
--
The lesser of two evils remains an evil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 292
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
>
> > : wonderful tactic, remove the whole group just to silence one individual
> who
> > : you allowed to get up your nose - because that's what he does given half
> the
> > : chance.
> >
> > I don't think that responding with a troll is the best way to go...
>
> wasn't intended as such, but that's the fact of it, you get a person who
> enjoys nothing more than winding people up, getting wound up is as good as
> an invite for more.
It is also a path of enlightenment should they ever ask why they view
something emotionally rather than intellectually.
Emotion has no place in reason. So an emotional response is prima facia
evidence of the response not befitting a member of a rational species.
--
Live fast, love well, and have a glorious website.
<a href="http://www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/">
The rest of Matt Giwer's World</a>
-- The Iron Webmaster, 61
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Everyone's talking about the abuse of pot, but it looks like I didn't really
check that group very often... What kind of abuse? I don't really
understand how a newsgroup, designed to talk about *any* subject, can be
abused?
Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> schreef in berichtnieuws
3a49b723@news.povray.org...
> Well?
>
> (It's not showing up and has been removed from the avail. newsgroups on
this
> server).
--
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> Everyone's talking about the abuse of pot, but it looks like I didn't
really
> check that group very often... What kind of abuse? I don't really
> understand how a newsgroup, designed to talk about *any* subject, can be
> abused?
It wasn't designed to discuss any subject, it was designed to move off topic
conversation out of the main groups. Just because it's called off-topic is
no excuse for personal attacks, flamewars and abusive behaviour with respect
to the beliefs of others.
By the way, I won't reply to any posts made in response to this one; I
believe it's a waste of server space and bandwidth discussing this here.
The choice was made by the owner of the server, and since he's kindly
supplying us with this forum for POV-Ray, let's not abuse that privilege.
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Lance Birch" <-> wrote :
>
> Just because it's called off-topic is
> no excuse for personal attacks, flamewars and abusive behaviour with
respect
> to the beliefs of others.
Well, I guess some people couldn't help attacking Matt's personal
beliefs, it's an illness of some sort.
> By the way, I won't reply to any posts made in response to this one;
<chuckle> You always say that and you never follow it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwe wrote:
> Emotion has no place in reason. So an emotional response is prima facia
> evidence of the response not befitting a member of a rational species.
So if the response is neither, what does that mean?
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Matt Giwe" <jul### [at] ijnet> wrote in message
news:3A4ADC1D.4CCC6083@ij.net...
<snip>
> It is also a path of enlightenment should they ever ask why they view
> something emotionally rather than intellectually.
>
> Emotion has no place in reason. So an emotional response is prima facia
> evidence of the response not befitting a member of a rational species.
blah blah blah blah blah.
Hey, you're out of off topic now!
Just behave like ~everyone~ else does in here for goodness sake :( (well,
~did~ before you turned up).
I really don't think you're getting much support here like this, and I'm
sure I'm not the only one who's getting kinda fed up of it and/or you!
Matt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Matthew Bennett" <the### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote in message
news:3a4deb90$1@news.povray.org...
> "Matt Giwe" <jul### [at] ijnet> wrote in message
> news:3A4ADC1D.4CCC6083@ij.net...
> <snip>
> > It is also a path of enlightenment should they ever ask why they view
> > something emotionally rather than intellectually.
> >
> > Emotion has no place in reason. So an emotional response is prima facia
> > evidence of the response not befitting a member of a rational species.
>
> blah blah blah blah blah.
> Hey, you're out of off topic now!
> Just behave like ~everyone~ else does in here for goodness sake :(
(well,
> ~did~ before you turned up).
> I really don't think you're getting much support here like this, and I'm
> sure I'm not the only one who's getting kinda fed up of it and/or you!
Well said!!
Andy Cocker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Now that there is no off-topic, I must post my new email address in the
general group. I never read off-topic anyway.
______
David McCabe
mcc### [at] yahoocom
http://homepage.mac.com/davidmccabe/
Jesus loves you!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andy Cocker" <big### [at] mariner9fsnetcouk> wrote :
>
> Well said!!
I swear you guys cannot live without him, you keep trying to get in the
last word when you know that it won't work.
I was ordered to "drop it" when I had an honest question about the
legitimacy of the process, where now are the marching orders for people who
gleefully encourage Matt to post off topic and offensive posts in p.g.?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andy Cocker wrote:
> "Matthew Bennett" <the### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote in message
> news:3a4deb90$1@news.povray.org...
> > "Matt Giwe" <jul### [at] ijnet> wrote in message
> > news:3A4ADC1D.4CCC6083@ij.net...
> > I really don't think you're getting much support here like this, and I'm
> > sure I'm not the only one who's getting kinda fed up of it and/or you!
>
> Well said!!
No, angrily said.
Emotions are a vital part of the human character. While I disagree with the
statement that emotion has no place in an "enlightened" society, at the same
time we are to control our emotions. When someone attempts to give someone
else "a piece of their mind", it is a sign that the emotions are controlling
the person, and not the other way around.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:05:33 -0000 Matthew Bennett wrote:
>Hey, you're out of off topic now!
...as is anyone who replies to this thread. The povray.general group
is not a replacement for p.off-topic so we ask that *all* visitors who
participate on this news server evaluate the relevance of their posts to
this group before posting. Guidelines may be found in the
p.announce.frequently-asked-questions group. Thanks in advance.
--
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Matthew Bennett" <the### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote in message
news:3a4deb90$1@news.povray.org...
> Hey, you're out of off topic now!
Apologies for my previous post, it was indeed hypocritical. Sorry in
particular to Alan Kong - in any other situation I'd have been very pleased
to have a reply to a posting from him :(
Matt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris C" <newsadmin[despam] at povray.org> wrote in message
news:3a49c73c@news.povray.org...
>
> "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3a49b723@news.povray.org...
> > Well?
> >
> > (It's not showing up and has been removed from the avail. newsgroups on
this
> > server).
>
> off-topic was removed due to consistent abuse.
>
Don't worry I'm not going to drag this on unnecessarily - I've only just
got round to visiting the news server after a couple of weeks break and, as
a regular poster in p.o-t (and after reading the rest of the thread), I just
wanted air a few thoughts.
1, I'd pretty much been ignoring the whole M.G. thing, did things in
really escalate _so far_ in p.o-t that it called for such draconian
measures?
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.
3, I'm glad to see that p.o-t is returning, a forum as popular and as
eclectic as ours needs somewhere like p.o-t for exactly the reasons that,
IIRC, the news admins stated when p.o-t was first set up - Threads going
'off-topic' is inevitable within this type of 'community forum', and they're
an important part of keeping such a forum alive, without p.o-t all the other
groups (particularly p.general) get clogged up with this banter.
4, How, on earth did it come to this ? It seems to me that the majority
of the users here are intelligent, mature, people (many of the younger
members of our community often appear far more mature than some of us older
ones) and we all seem to agree that out and out flame wars have no place on
this server. Flame wars cannot and do not turn in infernos without someone
feeding or fanning the flames. The big problem, and a trap I find myself too
easily falling into, is that one persons 'constructive criticism' can be
another's 'bigoted abuse' - but, as intelligent, mature, people shouldn't we
be able to self police this problem ?
5, This marks a very disappointing moment in news.povray.org's history,
unfortunately, deeds cannot be undone and we have no way of knowing the
future, but I hope we can learn for this experience and 'grow' as a
community. Shit, I'm starting to sound like a hippie now, so, to kind of sum
up, I'll say one final thing...
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,
always, that this is a community and not your own personal forum - respect
that community and it will respect you (I personally have forced myself (too
late some might think in some cases (but I'm getting better at it)), on
several occasions, to pull out of a thread that I'd have liked to have
continued when it was clear that it was going absolutely nowhere and was
rapidly devolving).
Oh, and now that there's nowhere else to do it... Happy New Year one and
all! I hope everyone had a suitably festive holiday period and I wish you
all luck, prosperity and good health in 2K+1.
--
Scott Hill.
Software Engineer.
E-Mail : sco### [at] innocentcom
PGP Key : http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
Pandora's Box : http://www.pandora-software.com
*Everything in this message/post is purely IMHO and no-one-else's*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Scott Hill" <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote :
>
> 1, I'd pretty much been ignoring the whole M.G. thing, did things in
> really escalate _so far_ in p.o-t that it called for such draconian
> measures?
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. Who knows what happened?
> 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.
Agreed. If the policy says something then the policy should be
followed -first-, then if more drastic measures are required go there.
> 3, I'm glad to see that p.o-t is returning, a forum as popular and as
> eclectic as ours needs somewhere like p.o-t for exactly the reasons that,
> IIRC, the news admins stated when p.o-t was first set up - Threads going
> 'off-topic' is inevitable within this type of 'community forum', and
they're
> an important part of keeping such a forum alive, without p.o-t all the
other
> groups (particularly p.general) get clogged up with this banter.
Again, agreed. The "community of POV happens in OT more than otherwise.
Sometimes communities get stressfull, but that is what a community is like.
Learn to live with it here or you can't live with it anywhere.
> 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. The closest we have
had was Mosl claiming that everyone but he was a "moron hypocrits" (sic).
> only you,
> yourself, can effectively police what you read here and no-one is forcing
> you to reply,
Nothing could be more relevant to the issue.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
