evaluating posts with stars

[Andrew Thompson]

Or you can just do like I do... set up a score of -9999 (or what ever
your newsreader can do) and poof... all the google gropers disaapper

Huh? What newsreader are *you* using?
AFAIU - the stars only appear in the GG WITUN,
and it does not offer to screen them out. Further,
wherever the 'stars' apply, they apply to not only GG
posters, but you, me, ..him, ..her.

As I understand it. A non Google Groups poster can
be browsing the archive and choose to 'rate' a post
they see, the post itself is not necessarily made by
another Google poster.

 

[JohnT]

Huh? What newsreader are *you* using?

I use slrn on Linux and XNews on Windows. Same concept on both.
I could give you a score of -9999 as well, which would, in effect, kill
all your posts

 

[JohnT]

How evil. Most of us are perfectly ordinary usenetters.
Discriminating against people based on their site of origin is
bad. So is discriminating against people on the basis of
socioeconomic status (or to put it more simply, money), and
tarring all google groups users with the same brush is doing
that as well, since it's the only source of free usenet access
for some of us. You let all people with money escape your
discrimination but not some people without money.

Funny, I see your post, I'm overriding the -9999 score for google
with a not-so-evil score for gmail. And then I'll create a white
list of those gg'ers who I want to see posts from. The rest of them
can just sod off.... hit-and-run-posters... be gone... You...
Twisted, are the first person on my white list.

--
** Filtering out Google Groups since 2007-08-02 RLU 451587
** Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections
** must first be overcome. Samuel Johnson
** The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

 

[Lew]

Funny, I see your post, I'm overriding the -9999 score for google
with a not-so-evil score for gmail. And then I'll create a white
list of those gg'ers who I want to see posts from. The rest of them
can just sod off.... hit-and-run-posters... be gone... You...
Twisted, are the first person on my white list.

As if "money" had anything to do with it, or as if refusing to hear someone
were "discrimination". There is no harm to the people one killfiles except
the failure to reach a person who has every right not to be bothered by their
posts.

The tyranny would be to insist that every Usenet reader /had/ to read every
post. It is freedom and liberty to be allowed to block all GG posts from
ONE'S OWN PRIVATE NEWSREADER. It is tyranny to forbid the right to quietude
to that individual who is ONLY AFFECTING THEIR OWN PRIVATE EXPERIENCE and not
harming the hapless GGers.

Trying to cast that as some political issue is an interesting bit of rhetoric
but, really, completely ludicrous. I have a right to determine what gets put
on /my/ computer. I don't have to read every blog, I don't have to read every
email, and I don't have to read every source of Usenet posts. It's my
computer and my experience, and no harm to the people I block.

It's not like I'm using their own "star ratings" system against them, now is
it? If I killfile all GG posts, I'm only changing what I myself experience,
privately, and that is my God-given human right.

 

[JohnT]

As if "money" had anything to do with it, or as if refusing to hear someone
were "discrimination". There is no harm to the people one killfiles except
the failure to reach a person who has every right not to be bothered by their
posts.

The tyranny would be to insist that every Usenet reader /had/ to read every
post. It is freedom and liberty to be allowed to block all GG posts from
ONE'S OWN PRIVATE NEWSREADER. It is tyranny to forbid the right to quietude
to that individual who is ONLY AFFECTING THEIR OWN PRIVATE EXPERIENCE and not
harming the hapless GGers.

Trying to cast that as some political issue is an interesting bit of rhetoric
but, really, completely ludicrous. I have a right to determine what gets put
on /my/ computer. I don't have to read every blog, I don't have to read every
email, and I don't have to read every source of Usenet posts. It's my
computer and my experience, and no harm to the people I block.

It's not like I'm using their own "star ratings" system against them, now is
it? If I killfile all GG posts, I'm only changing what I myself experience,
privately, and that is my God-given human right.

I would never impose my opinions on others. I made a choice based on
experience. And it appears that there are many others who have
had similar experiences

http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Granted, there are some GG'ers who have no other choice but to use GG so
I will adjust my Score file so that they are not blocked. And there are
a few. I just won't see what they say unless someone replies to them.
And if there are no replies then either
a) No one knows the answer or
b) No one want to reply

 

[Lew]

I would never impose my opinions on others. I made a choice based on
experience. And it appears that there are many others who have
had similar experiences

No accusations, mate. If the shoe fits ...

And the converse: don't wear it if it doesn't.

 

[Twisted]

As if "money" had anything to do with it, or as if refusing to hear someone
were "discrimination". There is no harm to the people one killfiles except
the failure to reach a person who has every right not to be bothered by their
posts.

[snip lots]

Killfiling a particular person for cause is one thing. Blanket
killfiling a whole ISP or geographic region is another matter entirely
and betrays an elitist, bigoted, or similar attitude on the part of
the killfiler, regardless of whether the killfilees even notice. It is
that attitude that I take issue with, more than any potential
consequences to the victims.

 

[JohnT]

Lew wrote:

Hmm... Xnews seems to be filtering out signature files. And it was
your signature that I wanted to respond to


Query: Does the contrapositive of "If the shoe fits, then wear it"
hold?

Response: Not if its too expensive or too uglyl

 

[Joe Attardi]

Killfiling a particular person for cause is one thing. Blanket
killfiling a whole ISP or geographic region is another matter entirely
and betrays an elitist, bigoted, or similar attitude on the part of
the killfiler, regardless of whether the killfilees even notice. It is
that attitude that I take issue with, more than any potential
consequences to the victims.

There is no victim here. Everyone has the right to control what he/she
sees on their own computer.

And in your specific case, I don't think people killfile you because
you're from Google Groups...

 

[Twisted]

Paul Derbyshire wrote:

No, he didn't. I did. Quit mixing me up with that guy.

[snip repetition of things Lew said, to which nothing original and
meaningful got added]

Do go away and grow up, Attacki.

NOW!!

 

[Lew]

Twisted wrote:

[snip repetition of things Lew said, to which nothing original and
meaningful got added]

But truthful and valid nonetheless.

 

[Joe Attardi]

[snip repetition of things Lew said, to which nothing original and
meaningful got added]

That's because Lew already summed it up pretty well.

[attempts to order me around]
No thanks, I'll stay.

 

[Twisted]

Twisted wrote:

[snip repetition of things Lew said, to which nothing original and
meaningful got added]

But truthful and valid nonetheless.

No. I already explained that mass killfilings indicate a mental
attitude of elitism or bigotry, and there is really no way you can
disprove this since it's the plain honest truth. Claim all you like
that it doesn't actually harm the killfilees; this doesn't change my
underlying objection, which is really an objection to the bigoted
attitudes that necessarily *motivate* such behavior.

Individuals may be killfiled for cause. Domains that generate nothing
but spam are also reasonable targets. But large domains with thousands
of legitimate users? Nosirree.

 

[Twisted]

[snip repetition of things Lew said, to which nothing original and
meaningful got added]

That's because Lew already summed it up pretty well.

Then why did you post at all? "Me too" posts are so ... AOLish.

[snip threat to continue flaming me]

**** off!

 

[Lew]

Twisted wrote:

[snip repetition of things Lew said, to which nothing original and
meaningful got added]

But truthful and valid nonetheless.

No. I already explained that mass killfilings indicate a mental
attitude of elitism or bigotry, and there is really no way you can
disprove this since it's the plain honest truth. Claim all you like

Calling your conclusion "truth" and referring to your own argument to support
your own argument is a little logical fallacy we call "circular reasoning".

Yes, you asserted that it's bigotry, but that doesn't make it so.

Claim all you like.

 

[Lew]

**** off!

Tsk, tsk. Such language!

 

[kaldrenon]

[snip threat to continue flaming me]

**** off!

Man, I miss the days when I was selfish enough to think that a
person's every actions revolved directly around me. When "I'm not
going to leave" meant "I promise that I'll stay only to bother you" as
opposed to "I'm not going to leave." When people who disagreed with me
were "wrong" by the very merit of the fact that they disagreed with
me, even on matters of opinion. Ah, it was a simpler time.

I think I outgrew that perspective when I was 6, but hey, everyone's
welcome to whatever perspective they choose. Twisted, this post isn't
an attack or a flame. I'm just feeling nostalgic about my youth...

 

[Joe Attardi]

Then why did you post at all? "Me too" posts are so ... AOLish.

Because I felt like it.

[snip threat to continue flaming me]

Now who's misattributing? You told me to leave, and I said I would stay.
How do you get a threat to continue flaming you from that?

 

[Twisted]

[snip insulting BS]

Yes, you asserted that it's bigotry, but that doesn't make it so.

Nonetheless, it is so. What else would you call what is, in effect, a
blanket declaration that "nobody from this entire domain is worth my
time"? It's not a specific person that you have a problem with. It's,
in your mind, everyone at an entire site. That sort of blanket
generalization that a certain group of people is "bad" or "should be
avoided" or whatever as determined by an irrelevant and accidental
fact such as what ISP they use or their skin's shade of brown is
pretty much bigotry *by definition*.

Stop arguing with me!

 

[Twisted]

[snip threat to continue flaming me]

**** off!

[insulting twaddle largely deleted]

When "I'm not going to leave" meant "I promise that I'll stay only to
bother you"

It does when it's Joe Attacki saying it. A quick googling will reveal
that his favorite topic on Usenet is "Twisted" rather than "Java"; the
vast majority of his posts are followups to mine, and every last one
of them does something wrong or insulting, such as misattributing what
I wrote to someone else or calling me names.

So yes, I consider any statement by him of his intent to continue
posting here as implying that he intends to continue posting attacki
followups to my postings in particular. Especially when the subject
arises in the context of just such a followup, as it did here.