Discussion:
some questions about smm RFD
(too old to reply)
Bret Schaffer
2006-06-06 13:46:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
***@gmail.com says...

<...>
Another idea is that we should be working on an FAQ now as part of the
RFD. The proponents like the idea of more civil discussion but are
reluctant to impose it by moderation. An alternative is to
encourage it through an FAQ. Is it practical/appropriate to write the
FAQ to work in conjuction with the moderation policies with input from
the RFD?
This seems like a good idea.
Bret Schaffer
2006-06-06 13:47:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
***@gmail.com says...

<...>
One idea is setting up a periodic review of smm. I think we would
Six months after the creation of smm the B8MB or its successor will
appoint a person or persons to conduct a performance review of smm.
This review will assess traffic on the group and whether the group is
following the charter and moderation policies proposed in the RFD. The
review can recommend changes to the charter and moderation policies,
reorganization of the group, or the removal of smm. Any of these
changes would be introduced by RFD in the usual way. The review can
also suggest other improvements, such as modifications to the FAQ.
After the first review, others will follow on a yearly basis.
This would have the same effect as requiring the moderator to be put up
for annual reelection, which would be an open invitation for anyone and
everyone to attack the moderator, by any means necessary, year after
year after year. It would also amount to forcing the future newsgroup
inhabitants to sit through a mandatory equivalent of the RFD process
each and every year, and that would open the gates for all sorts of
disruptive behavior by various folks from all walks of the 'net.

Other things to consider:

Who would be conducting these reviews, and how can you guarantee that
this person (or persons) wouldn't be driven by an underlying agenda of
his own? Would there be an avenue of appeal, or does the reviewer have
the last word? What happens if the reviewer abandons his duties and
does not conduct the review?

In my personal opinion, this is *not* a viable idea, as it encourages
divisiveness and invites unnecessary disruption. I do not speak for
any of my co-proponents.
Lost
2006-06-08 17:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Schaffer
This would have the same effect as requiring the moderator to be put up
for annual reelection, which would be an open invitation for anyone and
everyone to attack the moderator, by any means necessary, year after
year after year.
So soc.men.moderated (to be renamed just soc.men after the original
soc.men is removed) will have Moderators For Life?

There will be no way for the men who built this newsgroup to have a
say. Most of them work for a living and don't have the time to become
moderators, even if there were any chance of them getting the posts.

The proponents of soc.men.moderated do not have the interests of the
users of soc.men at heart. They intend to hijack and emasculate most
of the traffic from soc.men then have it removed.

They are cutting deals behind closed doors and there is some cause for
concern about their identities. It's not unreasonable to believe that
sock puppets may be being used.

The present influx of trolls poses less of a threat to soc.men than
does the diversion of a large proportion of the serious and useful
traffic to a censored group.
Tim Skirvin
2006-06-08 17:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lost
Post by Bret Schaffer
This would have the same effect as requiring the moderator to be put up
for annual reelection, which would be an open invitation for anyone and
everyone to attack the moderator, by any means necessary, year after
year after year.
So soc.men.moderated (to be renamed just soc.men after the original
soc.men is removed)
That's certainly not been proposed; and I don't think that such a
proposal would pass the Board. I'd almost certainly vote against it if
anybody *did* propose it.

This concern is a red herring. soc.men isn't going anywhere.

- Tim Skirvin (***@big-8.org)
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Lost
2006-06-08 17:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Lost
Post by Bret Schaffer
This would have the same effect as requiring the moderator to be put up
for annual reelection, which would be an open invitation for anyone and
everyone to attack the moderator, by any means necessary, year after
year after year.
So soc.men.moderated (to be renamed just soc.men after the original
soc.men is removed)
That's certainly not been proposed; and I don't think that such a
proposal would pass the Board. I'd almost certainly vote against it if
anybody *did* propose it.
This concern is a red herring. soc.men isn't going anywhere.
Glad to hear that and I'll remind you of it in two years. The
proponents are playing a long game here. It's taken four years to get
this far.

Their latest surprise is that they wish to divide the proposed new
group into two parts, one for men's rights issues and one for all
other men's issues.

As a supporter of men's rights, I am aware that it is necessary to
engage with men in other aspects of their lives before introducing the
subject. To do otherwise is to risk being called a misogynist or
worse. The newsgroup, soc.men, serves this purpose admirably,
frequented as it is by both supporters and opponents of men's rights.
At least one prominent fathers' rights group here in Britain was born
in soc.men.

Splitting soc.men into two groups, or even three, would suit those who
hate the effect that soc.men has had. Men's lives are lived as a
whole, not in neat compartments. There is a home in soc.men for
everyone. It's not a hotbed of women-hating fools.

The motives of the proponents of the proposed moderated group are the
key to the problem here. Many interesting posters have left soc.men
over the years, hounded out by personal abuse and repeated allegations
of abuse to their ISPs. ISPs are commercial entities and usually see
no economic reason in properly investigating such claims.
Jayne Kulikauskas
2006-06-08 19:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lost
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Lost
Post by Bret Schaffer
This would have the same effect as requiring the moderator to be put up
for annual reelection, which would be an open invitation for anyone and
everyone to attack the moderator, by any means necessary, year after
year after year.
So soc.men.moderated (to be renamed just soc.men after the original
soc.men is removed)
That's certainly not been proposed; and I don't think that such a
proposal would pass the Board. I'd almost certainly vote against it if
anybody *did* propose it.
This concern is a red herring. soc.men isn't going anywhere.
Glad to hear that and I'll remind you of it in two years. The
proponents are playing a long game here. It's taken four years to get
this far.
It is almost flattering to have someone consider me capable of such
machiavellian plotting. <g>
Post by Lost
Their latest surprise is that they wish to divide the proposed new
group into two parts, one for men's rights issues and one for all
other men's issues.
Anyone who has followed the discussion from the beginning will not be
surprised at all. I explained up front that there was disagreement
among the proponents over this question. I mentioned that we would
explore it later.
Post by Lost
As a supporter of men's rights, I am aware that it is necessary to
engage with men in other aspects of their lives before introducing the
subject. To do otherwise is to risk being called a misogynist or
worse. The newsgroup, soc.men, serves this purpose admirably,
frequented as it is by both supporters and opponents of men's rights.
At least one prominent fathers' rights group here in Britain was born
in soc.men.
Splitting soc.men into two groups, or even three, would suit those who
hate the effect that soc.men has had. Men's lives are lived as a
whole, not in neat compartments. There is a home in soc.men for
everyone. It's not a hotbed of women-hating fools.
This is much like part of my reasoning for only creating one moderated
group rather than two.
Post by Lost
The motives of the proponents of the proposed moderated group are the
key to the problem here. Many interesting posters have left soc.men
over the years, hounded out by personal abuse and repeated allegations
of abuse to their ISPs. ISPs are commercial entities and usually see
no economic reason in properly investigating such claims.
The motives of the proponents are not likely to have much effect at
all. Everyone will see the proposal we turn out and can judge it on
its own merits. Its implementation will be up to a moderator or
moderators and this will be the person or people to be concerned
about.

I've had to give a lot of thought to this question because I am
working with co-proponents who are strangers to me. I don't know what
their motives are. The more I work with them the better I feel about
them, but I've been fooled by a co-proponent before. I came to the
conclusion that their motives just don't matter. As long as they seem
to be working on an RFD that I can support, I will work with them.

Jayne
Found
2006-06-08 21:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
It is almost flattering to have someone consider me capable of such
machiavellian plotting. <g>
I doubted you at first, but I'm willing to give you a chance. Were you
bluffing when you asked me if I wanted to become a proponent? I wasn't
bluffing when I volunteered.
j***@gmail.com
2006-06-08 22:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Found
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
It is almost flattering to have someone consider me capable of such
machiavellian plotting. <g>
I doubted you at first, but I'm willing to give you a chance. Were you
bluffing when you asked me if I wanted to become a proponent? I wasn't
bluffing when I volunteered.
If you are really serious about this, the current proponents need to
discuss it. I can't speak for the group. In the meantime, you need to
think about this more. Read the news.groups FAQs about creating
newsgroups and about moderation. I'm not sure that you even understand
what a proponent does. It is not a position of power. Also you need
to be prepared to come under scrutiny. People are likely to comment
that you only turned up a few days ago and that your nym and email seem
to connect you with Lost. There will probably be demands that you
provide some evidence that you are not a sock puppet. Are you really
willing to face that while being polite to everybody?

Jayne
Lost
2006-06-08 22:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Found
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
It is almost flattering to have someone consider me capable of such
machiavellian plotting. <g>
I doubted you at first, but I'm willing to give you a chance. Were you
bluffing when you asked me if I wanted to become a proponent? I wasn't
bluffing when I volunteered.
If you are really serious about this, the current proponents need to
discuss it. I can't speak for the group. In the meantime, you need to
think about this more. Read the news.groups FAQs about creating
newsgroups and about moderation. I'm not sure that you even understand
what a proponent does. It is not a position of power. Also you need
to be prepared to come under scrutiny. People are likely to comment
that you only turned up a few days ago and that your nym and email seem
to connect you with Lost.
If you knew a little more, you would have compared his headers with
mine. I certainly did when he appeared, just to see if my account had
been forged.

I also compared his grammar and written style with that of others on
here...
Post by j***@gmail.com
There will probably be demands that you
provide some evidence that you are not a sock puppet. Are you really
willing to face that while being polite to everybody?
Jayne
I call your bluff and accept your offer and you renege. Then Found
gets offered the job. Very puzzling.

Resign now.
--
This post is unsuitable for soc.men.moderated.feminista
Found
2006-06-08 23:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Found
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
It is almost flattering to have someone consider me capable of such
machiavellian plotting. <g>
I doubted you at first, but I'm willing to give you a chance. Were you
bluffing when you asked me if I wanted to become a proponent? I wasn't
bluffing when I volunteered.
If you are really serious about this, the current proponents need to
discuss it. I can't speak for the group. In the meantime, you need to
think about this more. Read the news.groups FAQs about creating
newsgroups and about moderation. I'm not sure that you even understand
what a proponent does. It is not a position of power. Also you need to
be prepared to come under scrutiny. People are likely to comment that
you only turned up a few days ago and that your nym and email seem to
connect you with Lost. There will probably be demands that you provide
some evidence that you are not a sock puppet. Are you really willing to
face that while being polite to everybody?
I know what it means, and I have not changed my mind. When will I have a
final decision from you and your partners?
Woodchuck Bill
2006-06-06 16:08:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:40:52 -0000, Bret Schaffer
The proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas and I would
like some input from news.groups.
We've discussed various ideas, but I don't recall having discussed
either of the following.
Gee, Jayne's making stuff up again. What a shocker.
Somebody's lying to us - either Jayne or Bret. Probably Jayne, since she
hasn't denied Bret's charges.
--
Bill

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker Award, October 2005
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker Award, February 2006
Jayne Kulikauskas
2006-06-06 17:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodchuck Bill
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:40:52 -0000, Bret Schaffer
The proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas and I would
like some input from news.groups.
We've discussed various ideas, but I don't recall having discussed
either of the following.
Gee, Jayne's making stuff up again. What a shocker.
Somebody's lying to us - either Jayne or Bret. Probably Jayne, since she
hasn't denied Bret's charges.
Bret is not lying. Neither was I. He will explain when he gets a
chance.

Jayne
Bret Schaffer
2006-06-06 17:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodchuck Bill
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:40:52 -0000, Bret Schaffer
The proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas and I would
like some input from news.groups.
We've discussed various ideas, but I don't recall having discussed
either of the following.
Gee, Jayne's making stuff up again. What a shocker.
Somebody's lying to us - either Jayne or Bret. Probably Jayne, since she
hasn't denied Bret's charges.
Clarification:

Jayne did send one email to the rest of us proponents, precisely ten
minutes before she made the original Usenet post at the top of this
thread, in which she described *her* ideas for A) Annual reviews for
SMM by a third party, and B) Working on the future SMM FAQ before the
group is created. When I wrote the text above, I hadn't read Jayne's
email yet. The first time I read anything about either of these ideas
was in news.groups, not in any previous discussions among the
proponents, and that's why I originally responded in the manner which I
did.

Are you in agreement with this account of what happened, Jayne?

Hopefully now, we can move on to the meat and potatoes of this RFD, now
that this bare-bones RFD has been officially published in NAN. :-)
Jayne Kulikauskas
2006-06-06 17:49:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:36:02 -0000, Bret Schaffer
Post by Bret Schaffer
Post by Woodchuck Bill
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:40:52 -0000, Bret Schaffer
The proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas and I would
like some input from news.groups.
We've discussed various ideas, but I don't recall having discussed
either of the following.
Gee, Jayne's making stuff up again. What a shocker.
Somebody's lying to us - either Jayne or Bret. Probably Jayne, since she
hasn't denied Bret's charges.
Jayne did send one email to the rest of us proponents, precisely ten
minutes before she made the original Usenet post at the top of this
thread, in which she described *her* ideas for A) Annual reviews for
SMM by a third party, and B) Working on the future SMM FAQ before the
group is created. When I wrote the text above, I hadn't read Jayne's
email yet. The first time I read anything about either of these ideas
was in news.groups, not in any previous discussions among the
proponents, and that's why I originally responded in the manner which I
did.
Are you in agreement with this account of what happened, Jayne?
Yes. That is what happened. I am sorry if anyone got the impression
there was any agreement among the proponents on these ideas. I did
not mean for it to sound that way. They were ideas that I had put up
for discussion and I didn't even know how the other proponents were
going to respond at the point when I asked for input from news.groups.
Post by Bret Schaffer
Hopefully now, we can move on to the meat and potatoes of this RFD, now
that this bare-bones RFD has been officially published in NAN. :-)
I am somewhat uneasy with this mix of metaphors. Putting meat on
bones, I can deal with, but I'm not so sure about putting potatoes on.
<g> But Bret is right. Let's discuss the RFD.

Jayne
Sharon B
2006-06-06 18:44:49 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:49:50 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:36:02 -0000, Bret Schaffer
Post by Bret Schaffer
Post by Woodchuck Bill
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:40:52 -0000, Bret Schaffer
The proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas and I would
like some input from news.groups.
We've discussed various ideas, but I don't recall having discussed
either of the following.
Gee, Jayne's making stuff up again. What a shocker.
Somebody's lying to us - either Jayne or Bret. Probably Jayne, since she
hasn't denied Bret's charges.
Jayne did send one email to the rest of us proponents, precisely ten
minutes before she made the original Usenet post at the top of this
thread, in which she described *her* ideas for A) Annual reviews for
SMM by a third party, and B) Working on the future SMM FAQ before the
group is created. When I wrote the text above, I hadn't read Jayne's
email yet. The first time I read anything about either of these ideas
was in news.groups, not in any previous discussions among the
proponents, and that's why I originally responded in the manner which I
did.
Are you in agreement with this account of what happened, Jayne?
Yes. That is what happened. I am sorry if anyone got the impression
there was any agreement among the proponents on these ideas.
Anyone getting that impression got it from your claim that is what you
and the Stealth Proponents were discussing. *I* know better than to
take anything you say at face value.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I did
not mean for it to sound that way.
pfft
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
They were ideas that I had put up
for discussion and I didn't even know how the other proponents were
going to respond at the point when I asked for input from news.groups.
IOW--there was no discussion, just you. Just like you don't have
support from your "core regulars" of soc.fr00ts.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Bret Schaffer
Hopefully now, we can move on to the meat and potatoes of this RFD, now
that this bare-bones RFD has been officially published in NAN. :-)
I am somewhat uneasy with this mix of metaphors. Putting meat on
bones, I can deal with, but I'm not so sure about putting potatoes on.
<g> But Bret is right. Let's discuss the RFD.
Proponents caught lying and misrepresenting numerous times /is/ part
of an RFD discussion, I would hope.
Bob Officer
2006-06-06 20:15:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:44:49 -0400, in news.groups, Sharon B
Post by Sharon B
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:49:50 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:36:02 -0000, Bret Schaffer
Post by Bret Schaffer
Post by Woodchuck Bill
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:40:52 -0000, Bret Schaffer
The proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas and I would
like some input from news.groups.
We've discussed various ideas, but I don't recall having discussed
either of the following.
Gee, Jayne's making stuff up again. What a shocker.
Somebody's lying to us - either Jayne or Bret. Probably Jayne, since she
hasn't denied Bret's charges.
Jayne did send one email to the rest of us proponents, precisely ten
minutes before she made the original Usenet post at the top of this
thread, in which she described *her* ideas for A) Annual reviews for
SMM by a third party, and B) Working on the future SMM FAQ before the
group is created. When I wrote the text above, I hadn't read Jayne's
email yet. The first time I read anything about either of these ideas
was in news.groups, not in any previous discussions among the
proponents, and that's why I originally responded in the manner which I
did.
Are you in agreement with this account of what happened, Jayne?
Yes. That is what happened. I am sorry if anyone got the impression
there was any agreement among the proponents on these ideas.
Anyone getting that impression got it from your claim that is what you
and the Stealth Proponents were discussing. *I* know better than to
take anything you say at face value.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I did
not mean for it to sound that way.
pfft
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
They were ideas that I had put up
for discussion and I didn't even know how the other proponents were
going to respond at the point when I asked for input from news.groups.
IOW--there was no discussion, just you. Just like you don't have
support from your "core regulars" of soc.fr00ts.
Jayne doesn't or can't even be honest with herself. Discussions are
not her posting some ideas in an e-mail to her fellow proponents, and
then posting them as having been discussed to usenet ten minutes
later. A discussion is one or more exchanges on points or ideas.

What she did was post a trial balloon to the fellow proponents and
usenet. There was no discussion between proponents and that states
WRT to Discussion was a deliberate act of misleading people in
news.groups.
Post by Sharon B
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Bret Schaffer
Hopefully now, we can move on to the meat and potatoes of this RFD, now
that this bare-bones RFD has been officially published in NAN. :-)
I am somewhat uneasy with this mix of metaphors. Putting meat on
bones, I can deal with, but I'm not so sure about putting potatoes on.
<g> But Bret is right. Let's discuss the RFD.
Proponents caught lying and misrepresenting numerous times /is/ part
of an RFD discussion, I would hope.
It will be part of a conclusion, submitted to the board prior to the
CFV or what ever they are calling in their game of Calvinball.
--
Ak'toh'di
Jayne Kulikauskas
2006-06-06 22:06:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:44:49 -0400, Sharon B <***@lart.com> wrote:


[...]
Post by Sharon B
Proponents caught lying and misrepresenting numerous times /is/ part
of an RFD discussion, I would hope.
I haven't been "caught lying and misrepresenting". You have found a
few unclear or ambiguous comments of mine and assumed that they were
made with intent to deceive. It is flattering that you seem to think
that my command of the language is such that I would always write with
perfect clarity, but it is not correct. Sometimes, with the best of
intentions, I fail to clearly communicate my ideas. This happens to
people. I suspect it even happens to you. How would you feel if
people assumed that any time you misspoke it was a delberate attempt
to deceive?

I try my best to tell the truth. It's important to me. I admit I'm
not perfect. Sometimes, I think I go to far in my attempts to be
tactful and diplomatic and downplay unpleasantness too much. Sometimes
I write a polite post while thinking "What a jerk". But I do not lie.
I am not lying about the proposal.

Jayne
Sharon B
2006-06-07 03:18:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:06:34 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]
Post by Sharon B
Proponents caught lying and misrepresenting numerous times /is/ part
of an RFD discussion, I would hope.
I haven't been "caught lying and misrepresenting".
...and there's another lie.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
You have found a
few unclear or ambiguous comments of mine and assumed that they were
made with intent to deceive.
I'm not the only one to call you on it, at least three other
news.groupies including a board member have done so. Alt.revisionism
is down the hall to your left.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
How would you feel if
people assumed that any time you misspoke it was a delberate attempt
to deceive?
Gee--that NEVER happens to me from the soc.fr00t cabal.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I try my best to tell the truth. It's important to me.
You know what they say about folks who run around constantly claiming
what an honest injun they are.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I admit I'm
not perfect. Sometimes, I think I go to far in my attempts to be
tactful and diplomatic and downplay unpleasantness too much.
Yah, you think you're just TOO nice.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Sometimes
I write a polite post while thinking "What a jerk".
But more often you flame folks from behind your plonker or by
pretending that dressing it up pretty makes the embers invisible.

Which is dishonest.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
But I do not lie.
There was no discussion with the proponents--you lied when you said
there was.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I am not lying about the proposal.
deflection.
Tim Skirvin
2006-06-07 15:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon B
How would you feel if people assumed that any time you misspoke it was
a delberate attempt to deceive?
Gee--that NEVER happens to me from the soc.fr00t cabal.
Sharon, what do you think you're accomplishing with this?

Are you trying to convince Jayne to change her stance? I don't
think that flaming her is going to help.

Are you trying to call Jayne's credibility into question with the
Board? I know that every time I see someone say 'fr00t', my sympathies
turn towards the soc.men crowd; you're definitely being counterproductive
with statements like this.

Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.

I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.

- Tim Skirvin (***@big-8.org)
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Andre Lieven
2006-06-07 16:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
How would you feel if people assumed that any time you misspoke it was
a delberate attempt to deceive?
Gee--that NEVER happens to me from the soc.fr00t cabal.
Sharon, what do you think you're accomplishing with this?
Trolling, and making soc.men less useful to men, and men's rights
advocates.
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to convince Jayne to change her stance? I don't
think that flaming her is going to help.
No, but it fits in with trolling.
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to call Jayne's credibility into question with the
Board? I know that every time I see someone say 'fr00t', my sympathies
turn towards the soc.men crowd; you're definitely being counterproductive
with statements like this.
Well, this is the sort of kookery and trollery that we have been getting
on soc.men for quite some time now.

Thats why, when you check out the stats of most frequent posters to
soc.men, undifferentiated by which did and which didn't crosspost,
you find that the kooks and trolls do show up with high overall
numbers.

But, were an analysis done that looked at posts only posted to
soc.men, and/or posts made only to soc.men and *relevent* newsgroups
( Like threads on rape cases and law going to talk.rape, or child
support threads being shared with alt.child-support ), the list of
most frequent posters to soc.men would be very different, with the
kooks gone from that list.
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
Indeed.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
Well, this is what we've been telling you... :-)

Andre
Found
2006-06-07 17:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
How would you feel if people assumed that any time you misspoke it was
a delberate attempt to deceive?
Gee--that NEVER happens to me from the soc.fr00t cabal.
Sharon, what do you think you're accomplishing with this?
Trolling, and making soc.men less useful to men, and men's rights
advocates.
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to convince Jayne to change her stance? I don't
think that flaming her is going to help.
No, but it fits in with trolling.
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to call Jayne's credibility into question with the
Board? I know that every time I see someone say 'fr00t', my sympathies
turn towards the soc.men crowd; you're definitely being counterproductive
with statements like this.
Well, this is the sort of kookery and trollery that we have been getting
on soc.men for quite some time now.
Thats why, when you check out the stats of most frequent posters to
soc.men, undifferentiated by which did and which didn't crosspost,
you find that the kooks and trolls do show up with high overall
numbers.
But, were an analysis done that looked at posts only posted to
soc.men, and/or posts made only to soc.men and *relevent* newsgroups
( Like threads on rape cases and law going to talk.rape, or child
support threads being shared with alt.child-support ), the list of
most frequent posters to soc.men would be very different, with the
kooks gone from that list.
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
Indeed.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
Well, this is what we've been telling you... :-)
These proposers, including Jayne, want to silence the voices of men's
rights' supporters in the new group. That CANNOT be allowed to happen.
The MEN in soc.men need to rise up and take charge of this proposal. This
proposal needs to be driven by REAL MEN, not by three wussy submissives
led by a strapon-queen.
j***@gmail.com
2006-06-08 02:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Found wrote:

[...]
Post by Found
These proposers, including Jayne, want to silence the voices of men's
rights' supporters in the new group. That CANNOT be allowed to happen.
The MEN in soc.men need to rise up and take charge of this proposal. This
proposal needs to be driven by REAL MEN, not by three wussy submissives
led by a strapon-queen.
Do you have some suggestions about the proposal? Are you volunteering
to be a proponent? If you have some ideas about creating
soc.men.moderated, please feel free to share them.

BTW, you seem to misunderstand the relationship among the proponents.
Bret is the lead proponent. I am usually able to post more, so I may
seem more vocal, but he is the driving force of the proponents' team.
If I were in charge, we would have done more informal discussion before
submitting the RFD. I deferred to his wish that we do it as soon as
possible.

As I am getting to know my co-proponents better through working with
them, I am growing to like and respect them. As far as I can tell,
they are real men.

Jayne
Found
2006-06-08 06:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
[...]
Post by Found
These proposers, including Jayne, want to silence the voices of men's
rights' supporters in the new group. That CANNOT be allowed to happen.
The MEN in soc.men need to rise up and take charge of this proposal. This
proposal needs to be driven by REAL MEN, not by three wussy submissives
led by a strapon-queen.
Do you have some suggestions about the proposal?
Yes I do. See my last post.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Are you volunteering to be a proponent?
Alright. Consider me a proponent.

<SNIP>
Larry Caldwell
2006-06-08 13:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Found
These proposers, including Jayne, want to silence the voices of men's
rights' supporters in the new group. That CANNOT be allowed to happen.
The MEN in soc.men need to rise up and take charge of this proposal. This
proposal needs to be driven by REAL MEN, not by three wussy submissives
led by a strapon-queen.
If you are all that concerned about soc.men, you should try posting
there once in a while. Jayne's genital plumbing is irrelevant. She is
doing an excellent job as proponent.
Aratzio
2006-06-08 01:24:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Trolling, and making soc.men less useful to men, and men's rights
advocates.
I am a man, I think soc.men is fine just as it is. A wonderland of
paranoid, bitter, weak kneed, misogymistic kooks.

Where else can I find a plethora of supposedly *manly* men so phobic
of women. To the point they actually revel in finding statistics and
articles that *prove* how oppressed are those self said *manly* men.

Oh, I'm a lumberjack...
--
alt.hackers.malicious - Wanker Stomping Award - 2005

alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - Jan, 2006

alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor - July, 2005

alt.flame - Worst Flame War - 2005

Please ask your admin to be adding alt.aratzio to your news server
alt.aratzio Usenet asshole Aratzio

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10-22-2005
Message-Id: <***@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
"But it is not isolated AUK has a massive impact the rest of usenet."

VjikQueen of soc.froot explaining sock paranoia:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
"Yep. Whether or not they're you, they're you, doesn't make no diff in
how I treat them."
krp
2006-06-08 12:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Andre Lieven
Trolling, and making soc.men less useful to men, and men's rights
advocates.
I am a man, I think soc.men is fine just as it is. A wonderland of
paranoid, bitter, weak kneed, misogymistic kooks.
Yeah YOU are here!
krp
2006-06-08 12:49:45 UTC
Permalink
It's not a beer-belly, it's a gas tank for a sex machine.
Rasta Khan
2006-06-07 14:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
How would you feel if people assumed that any time you misspoke it
was a delberate attempt to deceive?
Gee--that NEVER happens to me from the soc.fr00t cabal.
Sharon, what do you think you're accomplishing with this?
They gave her a HAMMER OF THOR merit award for doing the same thing
during the first SMM.

Mayhaps she's trying for the diamond version.
Diamonds are a gal's best friend. ;)))

The original "proponent" (Sean) of SMM got promoted to *Vote* *Wrangler*
after
that RFD.

How fucken sad these stAUKtards are.
Rasta Khan
2006-06-07 16:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Rasta Khan
You're a good man.
I always giggle out loud and tell everyone in my work address book
about how a spell check changed an innocent word into something really
dirty.
Pray for a miracle.
It's hard to get the big picture when you have such a small screen.
I send my cats out to work so I can post all day.
Maybe it's not wise to discuss your personal problems here, Khan.
ks.
You just coming in or just going out?
uiuc.
Once in a while good things happen.
edu:.
You just need to change your attitude.
To tell you the truth, if it keeps bleeding the way it does I don't
think I'll last that long.
Do you have any friends you can talk to about it, Khan? Scratch that.
Stupid question.
.
Heinous dishonesty.
Fucking niggers.
Pass.
.
Exit only. You got to go that way. Sorry.
I'm sorry. I often get lost in my own thoughts.
Eh? Are you mentally ill or something?
They gave her a HAMMER OF THOR merit award for doing the same thing
during the first SMM.
They're always trying to make you feel bad for having fun.
.
It's preposterous.
Mayhaps she's trying for the diamond version.
For all YOU know.
Diamonds are a gal's best friend.
You have friends?
;))).
IT'S WORTH IT.
I have ejaculation problems when I'm on Zoloft.
You really are sick, aren't you, Khan?
.
With a body like that, you could go places.
I'm a label whore.
I can just imagine you crying and screaming like a little kid over it,
too.
The original "proponent" (Sean) of SMM got promoted to *Vote*
*Wrangler* after that RFD.
After twenty-four years, does the sex go bad?
.
You'd be surprised.
How fucken sad these stAUKtards are.
Why are you depressed?
--
--
Fly Cooter
2006-06-07 16:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Rasta Khan
Rasta Khan.
With your permission, of course.
.
Window to window.
I'm an Easterner, remember? We get feelings about these things.
Note to self: Do not respond.
.
Reread your statement.
You're a good man.
You murky, swishing french-fried potato. You hallucinating, tasselled
ferret. You uninteresting, catchpenny fiddlehead.
.
Bozo.
.
You hear about the cross-eyed school teacher who couldn't keep her
pupils straight?
I feel out of control. I'm a pathalogical liar and I'm depressed.
Note to self: Do not respond.
Pray for a miracle.
Praise God!
.
Asshead.
Where can I go to find out what to expect when I switch from Xanax to
Klonopin?
You should be more concerned about being unable to control your bodily
functions.
.
Find one.
It's hard to get the big picture when you have such a small screen.
It's really shocking how many people are mean and sadistic.
.
You bitch.
.
I feel so much smarter.
Something ought to be done about the education system. Illitrissy is
rife.
How bizarre.
Maybe it's not wise to discuss your personal problems here, Khan.
It's called Three Wishes. Did you see it?
.
What do you want to ruin your life having fun for?
I have diarrhoea. Can you help me? It's like I'm shitting through the
eye of a needle.
Are you ever surprised by the speed with which people run away from you,
Khan?
.
What he lacks in size, he makes up for in speed.
I need all the help I can get.
Eh? Are you mentally ill or something?
You just coming in or just going out?
Just like old times.
.
You may never know what I've done for you.
.
You don't like?
I'm truly sorry for my attitude. I've been off of Paxil cold-turkey
for a week..feeling REAL BAD.
Note to self: Do not respond.
Once in a while good things happen.
Good morning.
.
If it's a parallel universe, how can you see it?
.
Asinine.
Well 4 nights in a row now i have been experiencing weird pretty
frightening dreams which seem so real when i wake up. This morning I
had a kitchen knife in my hand and my pyjama bottoms was all torn.
Try wearing heavier makeup, Khan.
You just need to change your attitude.
My body is my temple.
.
Isn't it against the law to plant a tree there?
I have been taking Ultram for about 2 1/2 years. I take too much. I
take it every day and increase the dose to get the buzz. It gives me
energy and the will to get things done in my life. When I have tried
to stop taking it I feel night sweats, hot and cold flashes, muscle
pain like I have to stretch all of the time, extreme fatigue, I feel
very unsocial, no energy at all, can't sleep and these are just to
name some of the problems. I don't know what to do. I don't want to go
into rehab because nobody knows that I have this problem.
Death would become you.
.
Lots of help.
Do you have any friends you can talk to about it, Khan? Scratch that.
Why should I tell you if I have any friends I can talk to about it or
not?
Stupid question.
What do you think is stupid, Khan?
.
It's good medicine for diarrhoea, right, Khan?
.
Hydrogen. You must be Helium.
I GET THIS EMOTIONAL INTIMACY ANXIETY! I AM JSUT SO SO SO
OVERWHELMED!!!
Weird, eh. Still, I suppose it's better than embarrassing yourself in
front of everyone, Khan.
Heinous dishonesty.
Lover boy.
I have chronic constipation.
Now that's a revelation, Khan.
.
It's unbelievable.
I wish my posts would say what I think they say.
You made your bed, Khan. Die in it.
.
Judging by the old saying, 'What you don't know can't hurt you,' you're
practically invulnerable.
Pass.
These two spots belong to me.
.
You are so dumb, they have to be watered twice a week.
.
Wass is duss?
Exit only.
Insufferable imbecile.
Really, I need help with klonopin withdrawal.
Note to self: Do not respond.
You got to go that way.
I have cast my spell on you.
Sorry.
Sort of.
.
I already have a boyfriend.
What if I'm pregnant? Will you still love me?
Thank you for sharing, Khan.
.
Speak for yourself.
Eh? Are you mentally ill or something?
Heh, what, old chap? Pip! Pip! Heh what?
.
Whitey. [viciously]
what is a sixty niner?
Right, well. Thanks for sharing, Khan.
.
I don't know how to put it.
I get jealous if someone of the opposite sex checks out my partner.
Do many people laugh when you blurt that out, Khan.
They're always trying to make you feel bad for having fun.
I don't know. Are they always trying to make me feel bad for having fun?
.
I'd be nice for you. I'm a rebel.
The doctor said my incontinence was caused by stress!!!!1!
Note to self: Do not respond.
.
I don't want to be the stooge of a fool.
I have to stop drinking alcohol when I'm on the Zoloft. This muscle
twitching is getting me down.
Thank you for sharing, Khan.
It's preposterous.
It's golden.
.
I want you to wear a condom, because you could have AIDS.
.
You need a death merchant.
For all YOU know.
I was talking to my friend here.
.
It's hard for me to count money and think at the same time.
I'm hopeless both socially and romantically. Does that mean I'm gay?
Note to self: Delete from brain.
.
It's all fluid and crazy and stupid.
Oh my goodness! I think I have thrush.
Is that your last Will and Testament, Khan?
You have friends?
Would you like to be my friend?
.
You're one in a million. You're very thorough.
.
You're busy today.
IT'S WORTH IT.
It's good to have a little trouble, too. It smartens you up.
.
Most people, without thinking, thinks whatever they learned when they
were little.
A bubbling shit erupted from out my ass like Mount St. Helens and
liquid poo blew out of my butt cheeks and all down my legs!
Note to self: Do not respond.
.
Argumentum ad numerum. Appealing to others who believe your tripe does
not make your claim true.
I have to try to stop masturbating in public places.
Don't start up any new relationships, Khan.
You really are sick, aren't you, Khan?
Sniffle.
.
Your life could be worse, right?
.
Boring butt.
With a body like that, you could go places.
Have you ever done research on symptoms of tumors or a serious illness
when you have some sort of pain in your body?
.
More than you would know.
.
You don't want to put me out of work, do you?
I can just imagine you crying and screaming like a little kid over it,
too.
You can just imagine I crying? Wow. Cool.
.
What can you pay me that won't give you a heart attack?
.
You're lucky you don't have to deal with people like that.
After twenty-four years, does the sex go bad?
Ooh, baby!
.
Hua.
.
It's better to be dead than ugly.
You'd be surprised.
I would be surprised? How, allegedly, Khan?
.
I know how you feel.
.
How much do you pay for gates?
I want to feel normal, I just can't do it.
I recommend a bullet to your temple, Khan.
Why are you depressed?
Normal people always depressed.
--
--
Bob Officer
2006-06-07 18:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
How would you feel if people assumed that any time you misspoke it was
a delberate attempt to deceive?
Gee--that NEVER happens to me from the soc.fr00t cabal.
Sharon, what do you think you're accomplishing with this?
Are you trying to convince Jayne to change her stance? I don't
think that flaming her is going to help.
Are you trying to call Jayne's credibility into question with the
Board? I know that every time I see someone say 'fr00t', my sympathies
turn towards the soc.men crowd; you're definitely being counterproductive
with statements like this.
how can you possible use the word creditable and Jayne at the same
time, tim. She was caught trying to mislead people into believe there
was/is some sort of back channel discussions going on, with only ten
minutes between her posting a e-mail with a few idea to her
co-proponents and posting those same ideas to news.groups?

Maybe she is following the example set (by the big 8 board, with
their infamous 20 minute vote)?
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
she is pointing out the fact Jayne is trying to dupe not only the
board but the people in both soc.men and news.groups!
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
Here is a suggestion, offer entertain an RFD to remove soc.men
completely and bar any discussion of a moderated group or recreate
soc.men for 6 months.
--
Ak'toh'di
Dante Soch
2006-06-08 11:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
Here is a suggestion, offer entertain an RFD to remove soc.men
completely and bar any discussion of a moderated group or recreate
soc.men for 6 months.
Why would you remove soc.men before creating soc.men.moderated? It is a
reasonable assumption that the current users would simply move to another
newsgroup and the problems that led to a need for the moderated group would
not only continue, but would also displace another group.

There are advantages to having both groups. Anyone who actually enjoys the
hostility of soc.men could continue to do what they have been doing there
and those who prefer a low-noise environment could enjoy that in
soc.men.moderated.
krp
2006-06-08 12:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Bob Officer
Here is a suggestion, offer entertain an RFD to remove soc.men
completely and bar any discussion of a moderated group or recreate
soc.men for 6 months.
Why would you remove soc.men before creating soc.men.moderated?
You don't get the REAL agenda here? To close this newsgroup down by any
means possible?
Chadwick Stone©
2006-06-08 12:50:31 UTC
Permalink
X-No-Archive: YES
Post by krp
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Bob Officer
Here is a suggestion, offer entertain an RFD to remove soc.men
completely and bar any discussion of a moderated group or recreate
soc.men for 6 months.
Why would you remove soc.men before creating soc.men.moderated?
You don't get the REAL agenda here? To close this newsgroup down by
any means possible?
Awwwwwwwwwww... KennyKakes, no one wants to shut down Fort Machismo.
You and your fellow inmates provide so much entertainment that to lose
you would be like losing one of my favorite turds.
--
Skepticult® Member# 581-00504-208
ChadwickStone at Gmail dot com
Usenet's most helpful netizen
Hammer of Thor, March 2005
krp
2006-06-08 13:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chadwick Stone©
Post by krp
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Bob Officer
Here is a suggestion, offer entertain an RFD to remove soc.men
completely and bar any discussion of a moderated group or recreate
soc.men for 6 months.
Why would you remove soc.men before creating soc.men.moderated?
You don't get the REAL agenda here? To close this newsgroup down by
any means possible?
Awwwwwwwwwww... KennyKakes, no one wants to shut down Fort Machismo.
You and your fellow inmates provide so much entertainment that to lose
you would be like losing one of my favorite turds.
Yeah right GIRLYMAN!
krp
2006-06-08 13:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Boycott shampoo, demand real poo instead.
Chadwick Stone©
2006-06-08 19:33:42 UTC
Permalink
X-No-Archive: YES
Post by krp
Post by Chadwick Stone©
Post by krp
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Bob Officer
Here is a suggestion, offer entertain an RFD to remove soc.men
completely and bar any discussion of a moderated group or recreate
soc.men for 6 months.
Why would you remove soc.men before creating soc.men.moderated?
You don't get the REAL agenda here? To close this newsgroup down by
any means possible?
Awwwwwwwwwww... KennyKakes, no one wants to shut down Fort Machismo.
You and your fellow inmates provide so much entertainment that to
lose you would be like losing one of my favorite turds.
Yeah right GIRLYMAN!
I wouldn't shit you, son ;)
--
Skepticult® Member# 581-00504-208
ChadwickStone at Gmail dot com
Usenet's most helpful netizen
Hammer of Thor, March 2005
krp
2006-06-08 12:51:52 UTC
Permalink
I live in a world of my own. You're welcome to visit.
Bob Officer
2006-06-09 23:57:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 11:02:03 GMT, in news.groups, Dante Soch
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
Here is a suggestion, offer entertain an RFD to remove soc.men
completely and bar any discussion of a moderated group or recreate
soc.men for 6 months.
Why would you remove soc.men before creating soc.men.moderated? It is a
reasonable assumption that the current users would simply move to another
newsgroup and the problems that led to a need for the moderated group would
not only continue, but would also displace another group.
It only makes sense. The noise would go to some other group. The
activity and abuse that would remain would complete spoil soc.men for
any purpose. The time and only meaningful time to remove it would be
at the time the moderated group starts. There already exists group
(alt.mens-rights) which would cover the most discussed topic here,
which BTW, is the cause 80% of noise <anti-female discussion>. There
is also talk.rape for the pro-rapist, minority faction.
Post by Dante Soch
There are advantages to having both groups. Anyone who actually enjoys the
hostility of soc.men could continue to do what they have been doing there
and those who prefer a low-noise environment could enjoy that in
soc.men.moderated.
Mens rights belongs in another group. Perhaps
talk.mens-rights.moderated... soc.mens is not supposed to be nor was
it intended to be a mens only discussion group, as thought by a few
of the users.

IMNSHO, Men's rights is a fiction and while people like to think they
are talking about men's rights, they are not, what they are talking
about is ways for a man to escape reasonable responsibility for all
their actions.
--
Ak'toh'di
Dante Soch
2006-06-10 08:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Dante Soch
Why would you remove soc.men before creating soc.men.moderated? It is a
reasonable assumption that the current users would simply move to another
newsgroup and the problems that led to a need for the moderated group would
not only continue, but would also displace another group.
It only makes sense. The noise would go to some other group. The
activity and abuse that would remain would complete spoil soc.men for
any purpose. The time and only meaningful time to remove it would be
at the time the moderated group starts. There already exists group
(alt.mens-rights) which would cover the most discussed topic here,
which BTW, is the cause 80% of noise <anti-female discussion>.
Your identification of alternate groups for various topics makes some good
points but I cannot bring myself to agree with you that this is sufficient
justification to rmgroup soc.men, at least not until after the creation of
soc.men.moderated (if at all.) Each group would have it's own dynamic, I'm
convinced that that there would be enough of a difference to indicate
retaining both.
Post by Bob Officer
There is also talk.rape for the pro-rapist, minority faction.
It is my opinion that anyone who advocates rape is simply looking to start
a flame war. It's worked pretty well :-(
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Dante Soch
There are advantages to having both groups. Anyone who actually enjoys the
hostility of soc.men could continue to do what they have been doing there
and those who prefer a low-noise environment could enjoy that in
soc.men.moderated.
Mens rights belongs in another group. Perhaps
talk.mens-rights.moderated... soc.mens is not supposed to be nor was
it intended to be a mens only discussion group, as thought by a few
of the users.
I agree 100%, our original RFD was for two groups, one was going to host
"men's rights" but the present RFD is what it is as a matter of simplicity
and expedition.
Post by Bob Officer
IMNSHO, Men's rights is a fiction and while people like to think they
are talking about men's rights, they are not, what they are talking
about is ways for a man to escape reasonable responsibility for all
their actions.
"Men's rights" is a legitimate issue, not always associated with dodging
responsibility (good examples are custody and visitation) and I believe
that we could foster conversation more in these veins in the moderated
group. It's simply a matter of setting the group dynamic with a good
starting core of contributors.
Sharon B
2006-06-08 10:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
How would you feel if people assumed that any time you misspoke it was
a delberate attempt to deceive?
Gee--that NEVER happens to me from the soc.fr00t cabal.
Sharon, what do you think you're accomplishing with this?
That assumes I have an agenda.
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to convince Jayne to change her stance? I don't
think that flaming her is going to help.
Are you trying to call Jayne's credibility into question with the
Board?
"trying"? Yah, I have a habit of calling Jayne on her dishonesty.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I know that every time I see someone say 'fr00t', my sympathies
turn towards the soc.men crowd; you're definitely being counterproductive
with statements like this.
If y'all make your decisions based on that, then I don't know how to
respond other than--bring back the old way of voting. The proponent
comes in here and gets caught /multiple/ times in falsehoods, brings
in a slew of Stealth Proponents. sheesh.
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That didn't need my help, Jayne's friends are helping her out quite
admirably.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
Tim Skirvin
2006-06-08 15:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon B
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to call Jayne's credibility into question with the
Board?
"trying"? Yah, I have a habit of calling Jayne on her dishonesty.
So I've seen; but your zeal in doing so is effectively keeping me
from attempting to decipher whether you've found something unambiguously
wrong, or if you've just found typos, differences in phrasing and/or
opinion, or legitimate mistakes. I think that this is detracting from
your case, and I *want* to hear your case.
Post by Sharon B
The proponent comes in here and gets caught /multiple/ times in
falsehoods, brings in a slew of Stealth Proponents. sheesh.
Okay, on the falsehoods - would you like to list them, preferably
in some kind of order of importance, and without the gratuitous personal
attacks?

I'm less concerned about the "Stealth Proponents" at this point.
If none of the proponents were known quantities, I'd be more worried; but
given that Jayne is in large part the public face of the proposal, and
*she's* known, then I'm content.

- Tim Skirvin (***@big-8.org)
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Sharon B
2006-06-10 11:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to call Jayne's credibility into question with the
Board?
"trying"? Yah, I have a habit of calling Jayne on her dishonesty.
So I've seen; but your zeal in doing so is effectively keeping me
from attempting to decipher whether you've found something unambiguously
wrong, or if you've just found typos, differences in phrasing and/or
opinion, or legitimate mistakes. I think that this is detracting from
your case, and I *want* to hear your case.
They're not legitimate mistakes when they happen over and over and
over, Tim. Like I told Lionel, just wait--y'all will see how she is
as she gets more rope.
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
The proponent comes in here and gets caught /multiple/ times in
falsehoods, brings in a slew of Stealth Proponents. sheesh.
Okay, on the falsehoods - would you like to list them, preferably
in some kind of order of importance, and without the gratuitous personal
attacks?
It would be easier to point out when she's /not/ lying or
misrepresenting. I've pointed out all the ones I've caught her at,
with the gratuitous insults.

The point is, not to take /anything/ she says about /anything/ at face
value, cuz she misrepresents most everything--and she's been called on
it in multiple ngs across a span of years. The latest whopper is the
one that Lost persona busted her on, which may or may not be germaine
to her being a proponent: her claim that her master/husband grounded
her from Usenet for 3 weeks for disrespecting a man--and the
master/husband coming in here and stating he did no such thing and
doesn't tell her what to do.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I'm less concerned about the "Stealth Proponents" at this point.
If none of the proponents were known quantities, I'd be more worried; but
given that Jayne is in large part the public face of the proposal, and
*she's* known, then I'm content.
I'm not at all sure that all the proponents save Bret aren't her socks
(and that includes her husband, Vic). It would certainly explain her
lie re: 'the proponents are discussing X' when the truth is they were
not, it was an email /she/ sent out not ten minutes prior to making
that claim. Geez, her fellow proponent busted her on that one.

If you're going to allow proponents to sock up, then you're gonna end
up with RFDs from folks like Bert & Schattie, Bowtie and even
Hipcrime.
j***@gmail.com
2006-06-10 14:28:08 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Sharon B
Post by Tim Skirvin
Okay, on the falsehoods - would you like to list them, preferably
in some kind of order of importance, and without the gratuitous personal
attacks?
It would be easier to point out when she's /not/ lying or
misrepresenting. I've pointed out all the ones I've caught her at,
with the gratuitous insults.
The point is, not to take /anything/ she says about /anything/ at face
value, cuz she misrepresents most everything--and she's been called on
it in multiple ngs across a span of years. The latest whopper is the
one that Lost persona busted her on, which may or may not be germaine
to her being a proponent: her claim that her master/husband grounded
her from Usenet for 3 weeks for disrespecting a man--and the
master/husband coming in here and stating he did no such thing and
doesn't tell her what to do.
Vic and I often have very different perceptions on things. I think he
is the most wonderful man in the world and he thinks he is just
ordinary. I think of him as the head of the family but he does not
really think in those terms. He thinks more in terms of his
responsibilty to care for us. I think it is very important to respect
his decisions, while he may perceive himself as merely suggesting or
mutually agreeing. Neither of us is being dishonest. We just
understand our relationship differently.

Jayne
Sharon B
2006-06-10 19:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
[...]
Post by Sharon B
Post by Tim Skirvin
Okay, on the falsehoods - would you like to list them, preferably
in some kind of order of importance, and without the gratuitous personal
attacks?
It would be easier to point out when she's /not/ lying or
misrepresenting. I've pointed out all the ones I've caught her at,
with the gratuitous insults.
The point is, not to take /anything/ she says about /anything/ at face
value, cuz she misrepresents most everything--and she's been called on
it in multiple ngs across a span of years. The latest whopper is the
one that Lost persona busted her on, which may or may not be germaine
to her being a proponent: her claim that her master/husband grounded
her from Usenet for 3 weeks for disrespecting a man--and the
master/husband coming in here and stating he did no such thing and
doesn't tell her what to do.
Vic and I often have very different perceptions on things. I think he
is the most wonderful man in the world and he thinks he is just
ordinary. I think of him as the head of the family but he does not
really think in those terms. He thinks more in terms of his
responsibilty to care for us. I think it is very important to respect
his decisions, while he may perceive himself as merely suggesting or
mutually agreeing. Neither of us is being dishonest. We just
understand our relationship differently.
Oh, bulldada. Lost had it exactly right.

Your version:
*******************************************************************
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Sharon B
You once invited me to report you to your husband if you misbehaved.
Is this the type of incident that you had in mind?
Write to me at this email address and I will send you his address so
you can report me. Or, if you would prefer, I can tell him about it
myself.
Jayne
Post by Sharon B
No really, Jane, it's all right.
It's too late. I already told my husband about it so he would know to
expect an email from you. He has told me that I can't use Usenet for
three weeks. He gave me permission to make this post so I could explain
that I wouldn't be posting for a while. Bye for now.
Jayne
****************************************************************************

Whereas Vic says:
"However, contrary to Jayne's fantasies and desires and the impression
she is leaving in various places on Usenet, I do NOT dominate her or
give her orders or tell her what to do."

One of you told a "porkie". Either Vic told you you weren't permitted
to go on Usenet or he did not.

I was all prepared to believe the liar was you, since I catch you
lying all the time...but since I've now caught /Vic/ in a bald faced
lie on something else, I don't know which one of you it is lying
above.
Tim Skirvin
2006-06-11 03:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon B
The point is, not to take /anything/ she says about /anything/ at face
value, cuz she misrepresents most everything--and she's been called on
it in multiple ngs across a span of years.
So you've said - and I'm not buying it, because she seems to me
that she's working in good faith, and so far, all that the evidence has
shown *me* is that Jayne is being bullied. (And holding up to it pretty
well, I might add.)
Post by Sharon B
The latest whopper is the one that Lost persona busted her on, which
may or may not be germaine to her being a proponent: her claim that her
master/husband grounded her from Usenet for 3 weeks for disrespecting a
man--and the master/husband coming in here and stating he did no such
thing and doesn't tell her what to do.
Again, this looks to me like a difference of perspective and
phrasing, and not a lie by any reasonable definition.
Post by Sharon B
If you're going to allow proponents to sock up, then you're gonna end up
with RFDs from folks like Bert & Schattie, Bowtie and even Hipcrime.
And we'll deal with them on their merits. (And again, I don't see
any evidence of sockpuppetry in this case anyway.)

- Tim Skirvin (***@big-8.org)
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
edward ohare
2006-06-11 07:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
The point is, not to take /anything/ she says about /anything/ at face
value, cuz she misrepresents most everything--and she's been called on
it in multiple ngs across a span of years.
So you've said - and I'm not buying it, because she seems to me
that she's working in good faith, and so far, all that the evidence has
shown *me* is that Jayne is being bullied. (And holding up to it pretty
well, I might add.)
I agree. There's a lot Jayne doesn't know (typical for proponents)
but she knows there's stuff she doesn't know (atypical for proponents)
and is receptive to logically evaluating advice she may not like
rather than rejecting it because she doesn't like it (atypical for
proponents). Can't figure out why she's interested in soc.men though.
Jayne Kulikauskas
2006-06-11 10:58:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:44:07 -0700, Bob Officer
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 03:11:36 -0400, in news.groups, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
The point is, not to take /anything/ she says about /anything/ at face
value, cuz she misrepresents most everything--and she's been called on
it in multiple ngs across a span of years.
So you've said - and I'm not buying it, because she seems to me
that she's working in good faith, and so far, all that the evidence has
shown *me* is that Jayne is being bullied. (And holding up to it pretty
well, I might add.)
I agree. There's a lot Jayne doesn't know (typical for proponents)
but she knows there's stuff she doesn't know (atypical for proponents)
and is receptive to logically evaluating advice she may not like
rather than rejecting it because she doesn't like it (atypical for
proponents). Can't figure out why she's interested in soc.men though.
Edward, Jayne has run from group to group with basically the same
plan in every group. A proposal move to moderation because she
doesn't want to be bothered with /noise/. /Noise/ = stuff she doesn't
want to read. She thinks a moderator should be a host or human/living
filter to clean-up/censor stuff she doesn't want to read, and doesn't
want anyone else to read either.
Please provide evidence to back up this claim.

Jayne
MCP
2006-06-11 13:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:44:07 -0700, Bob Officer
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 03:11:36 -0400, in news.groups, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
The point is, not to take /anything/ she says about /anything/ at face
value, cuz she misrepresents most everything--and she's been called on
it in multiple ngs across a span of years.
So you've said - and I'm not buying it, because she seems to me
that she's working in good faith, and so far, all that the evidence has
shown *me* is that Jayne is being bullied. (And holding up to it pretty
well, I might add.)
I agree. There's a lot Jayne doesn't know (typical for proponents)
but she knows there's stuff she doesn't know (atypical for proponents)
and is receptive to logically evaluating advice she may not like
rather than rejecting it because she doesn't like it (atypical for
proponents). Can't figure out why she's interested in soc.men though.
Edward, Jayne has run from group to group with basically the same
plan in every group. A proposal move to moderation because she
doesn't want to be bothered with /noise/. /Noise/ = stuff she doesn't
want to read. She thinks a moderator should be a host or human/living
filter to clean-up/censor stuff she doesn't want to read, and doesn't
want anyone else to read either.
Please provide evidence to back up this claim.
Jayne
He can't,he's spinning his wheels,as usual!
Sharon B
2006-06-11 14:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by MCP
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:44:07 -0700, Bob Officer
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 03:11:36 -0400, in news.groups, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
The point is, not to take /anything/ she says about /anything/ at face
value, cuz she misrepresents most everything--and she's been called on
it in multiple ngs across a span of years.
So you've said - and I'm not buying it, because she seems to me
that she's working in good faith, and so far, all that the evidence has
shown *me* is that Jayne is being bullied. (And holding up to it pretty
well, I might add.)
I agree. There's a lot Jayne doesn't know (typical for proponents)
but she knows there's stuff she doesn't know (atypical for proponents)
and is receptive to logically evaluating advice she may not like
rather than rejecting it because she doesn't like it (atypical for
proponents). Can't figure out why she's interested in soc.men though.
Edward, Jayne has run from group to group with basically the same
plan in every group. A proposal move to moderation because she
doesn't want to be bothered with /noise/. /Noise/ = stuff she doesn't
want to read. She thinks a moderator should be a host or human/living
filter to clean-up/censor stuff she doesn't want to read, and doesn't
want anyone else to read either.
Please provide evidence to back up this claim.
Jayne
He can't,he's spinning his wheels,as usual!
Nope. For one example, she deliberately xposted crap between
alt.mothers and something*child-free, despite posters in both groups
telling her to shut the hell up and knock it off---then out of the
blue all on her own proposed some kind of /moderated/ combination of
the two ngs so they could discuss /her/ issue without getting flambeed
(convincing child-free to be parents).

And ya might want to consider Bob was likely asleep when she posted
her demand for proof, mkay?
Gary L. Burnore
2006-06-11 14:56:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 06:58:03 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:44:07 -0700, Bob Officer
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 03:11:36 -0400, in news.groups, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
The point is, not to take /anything/ she says about /anything/ at face
value, cuz she misrepresents most everything--and she's been called on
it in multiple ngs across a span of years.
So you've said - and I'm not buying it, because she seems to me
that she's working in good faith, and so far, all that the evidence has
shown *me* is that Jayne is being bullied. (And holding up to it pretty
well, I might add.)
I agree. There's a lot Jayne doesn't know (typical for proponents)
but she knows there's stuff she doesn't know (atypical for proponents)
and is receptive to logically evaluating advice she may not like
rather than rejecting it because she doesn't like it (atypical for
proponents). Can't figure out why she's interested in soc.men though.
Edward, Jayne has run from group to group with basically the same
plan in every group. A proposal move to moderation because she
doesn't want to be bothered with /noise/. /Noise/ = stuff she doesn't
want to read. She thinks a moderator should be a host or human/living
filter to clean-up/censor stuff she doesn't want to read, and doesn't
want anyone else to read either.
Please provide evidence to back up this claim.
You already did. Now explain why you have such an interest in
soc.MEN instead of soc.WOMEN.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Gary L. Burnore
2006-06-11 14:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
The point is, not to take /anything/ she says about /anything/ at face
value, cuz she misrepresents most everything--and she's been called on
it in multiple ngs across a span of years.
So you've said - and I'm not buying it, because she seems to me
that she's working in good faith, and so far, all that the evidence has
shown *me* is that Jayne is being bullied. (And holding up to it pretty
well, I might add.)
Then Team Calvin should just go ahead and do what we all know it's
going to do anyway: Create another private clubhouse for its friends
and supporters.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Sharon B
2006-06-11 13:50:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:47:13 -0700, Bob Officer
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:04:09 -0400, in news.groups, Sharon B
Post by Sharon B
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to call Jayne's credibility into question with the
Board?
"trying"? Yah, I have a habit of calling Jayne on her dishonesty.
So I've seen; but your zeal in doing so is effectively keeping me
from attempting to decipher whether you've found something unambiguously
wrong, or if you've just found typos, differences in phrasing and/or
opinion, or legitimate mistakes. I think that this is detracting from
your case, and I *want* to hear your case.
They're not legitimate mistakes when they happen over and over and
over, Tim. Like I told Lionel, just wait--y'all will see how she is
as she gets more rope.
Post by Tim Skirvin
Post by Sharon B
The proponent comes in here and gets caught /multiple/ times in
falsehoods, brings in a slew of Stealth Proponents. sheesh.
Okay, on the falsehoods - would you like to list them, preferably
in some kind of order of importance, and without the gratuitous personal
attacks?
It would be easier to point out when she's /not/ lying or
misrepresenting. I've pointed out all the ones I've caught her at,
with the gratuitous insults.
Sharon point out her announcement of so-called 'discussion' with the
co-proponents. the announcement was posted here, ten minutes after
the only e-mail to her fellow proponents. Jayne announcement of a
'discussion' having taking place was either a deliberate act to
mislead the board and everyone else or a outright deliberate lie.
Post by Sharon B
The point is, not to take /anything/ she says about /anything/ at face
value, cuz she misrepresents most everything--and she's been called on
it in multiple ngs across a span of years. The latest whopper is the
one that Lost persona busted her on, which may or may not be germaine
to her being a proponent: her claim that her master/husband grounded
her from Usenet for 3 weeks for disrespecting a man--and the
master/husband coming in here and stating he did no such thing and
doesn't tell her what to do.
<sort> that was funny.
Post by Sharon B
Post by Tim Skirvin
I'm less concerned about the "Stealth Proponents" at this point.
If none of the proponents were known quantities, I'd be more worried; but
given that Jayne is in large part the public face of the proposal, and
*she's* known, then I'm content.
I'm not at all sure that all the proponents save Bret aren't her socks
(and that includes her husband, Vic). It would certainly explain her
lie re: 'the proponents are discussing X' when the truth is they were
not, it was an email /she/ sent out not ten minutes prior to making
that claim. Geez, her fellow proponent busted her on that one.
Bingo! see above.
Post by Sharon B
If you're going to allow proponents to sock up, then you're gonna end
up with RFDs from folks like Bert & Schattie, Bowtie and even
Hipcrime.
You see the future, too?
Only on Tuesdays. But I can see, for example, Thorne conspiring with
his buddy HipCrime where he is the visible proponent, HC the Stealth
proponent of a moderated ng with Big Daddy Zeus as the proposed
moderator--who, while a thug, would pass the prevailing opinion of 'so
what, other moderators are thugs, too'.....then once they get the
moderated ng, all hell breaks loose.
Peter J Ross
2006-06-09 20:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon B
If y'all make your decisions based on that, then I don't know how to
respond other than--bring back the old way of voting.
<rex_harrison>
By George, she's got it!
</rex>


PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ FSM: http://www.venganza.org/
._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, PJR: http://www.insurgent.org/~pjr/
/ (`---'\ `-. AUK: http://www.netcabal.com/auk/
,-` _) (_, F_P God's Own Newsreader: http://www.slrn.org/
Dante Soch
2006-06-08 11:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to call Jayne's credibility into question with the
Board? I know that every time I see someone say 'fr00t', my sympathies
turn towards the soc.men crowd;
That is one of the reasons that we need a moderated newsgroup. It simply
doesn't appear that the situation will resolve itself on it's own. I don't
want to play chicken & egg here, I just want to point out that there is a
group of people who won't leave each other alone and it has rendered
soc.men unusable in my opinion.
Post by Tim Skirvin
you're definitely being counterproductive
with statements like this.
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
I don't think this is such a difficult proposal. A group of people want to
create a newsgroup, we are convinced that the newsgroup will be used, all
we need to do is reach a consensus in regard to the details surrounding the
group. I believe it can and will be done.
krp
2006-06-08 12:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
I don't think this is such a difficult proposal. A group of people want to
create a newsgroup, we are convinced that the newsgroup will be used, all
we need to do is reach a consensus in regard to the details surrounding the
group. I believe it can and will be done.
What is happening here is that the AUK folks are entrenching the
reputation all over the net. Loads of people are dropping by to see what's
happening here and people are getting an eyeful of what the AUK cadre is
doing. I know they believe they are winning this little war they have with
soc.men. There are maybe a dozen of the punks playing in here. Eventually it
will dawn on them in some fashion that it is they who are taking the real
reputation hit. There have been efforts before to destroy soc.men. All of
them have failed as will this. Compared to the war mounted by the radical
feminists in 96 -97 these clowns are amateurs. Poseurs. They'll go away once
they see that they are rapidly becoming the laughingstocks of the net.
krp
2006-06-08 12:54:58 UTC
Permalink
How did a fool and his money GET together in the first place?
Daedalus
2006-06-08 15:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
I don't think this is such a difficult proposal. A group of people want to
create a newsgroup, we are convinced that the newsgroup will be used, all
we need to do is reach a consensus in regard to the details surrounding the
group. I believe it can and will be done.
What is happening here is that the AUK folks are entrenching the
reputation all over the net. Loads of people are dropping by to see what's
happening here and people are getting an eyeful of what the AUK cadre is
doing. I know they believe they are winning this little war they have with
soc.men. There are maybe a dozen of the punks playing in here. Eventually it
will dawn on them in some fashion that it is they who are taking the real
reputation hit. There have been efforts before to destroy soc.men. All of
them have failed as will this. Compared to the war mounted by the radical
feminists in 96 -97 these clowns are amateurs. Poseurs. They'll go away once
they see that they are rapidly becoming the laughingstocks of the net.
Can you depict this imaginitive usenet good/evil struggle in a Play
Doh diarama for us, Kenny Kakes?

AUK is not interfering with smm. Some of us are adding our well
deserved two cents. That is all. But please continue to froth at will.

Jade
MCP
2006-06-08 15:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by krp
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
I don't think this is such a difficult proposal. A group of people want to
create a newsgroup, we are convinced that the newsgroup will be used, all
we need to do is reach a consensus in regard to the details surrounding the
group. I believe it can and will be done.
What is happening here is that the AUK folks are entrenching the
reputation all over the net. Loads of people are dropping by to see what's
happening here and people are getting an eyeful of what the AUK cadre is
doing. I know they believe they are winning this little war they have with
soc.men. There are maybe a dozen of the punks playing in here. Eventually it
will dawn on them in some fashion that it is they who are taking the real
reputation hit. There have been efforts before to destroy soc.men. All of
them have failed as will this. Compared to the war mounted by the radical
feminists in 96 -97 these clowns are amateurs. Poseurs. They'll go away once
they see that they are rapidly becoming the laughingstocks of the net.
Can you depict this imaginitive usenet good/evil struggle in a Play
Doh diarama for us, Kenny Kakes?
AUK is not interfering with smm. Some of us are adding our well
deserved two cents. That is all. But please continue to froth at will.
Jade
Hey Deadanus!the only one you could interfere with is yourself,and you seem
to be good at that!
Daedalus
2006-06-08 16:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by MCP
Post by Daedalus
Post by krp
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
I don't think this is such a difficult proposal. A group of people want to
create a newsgroup, we are convinced that the newsgroup will be used, all
we need to do is reach a consensus in regard to the details surrounding the
group. I believe it can and will be done.
What is happening here is that the AUK folks are entrenching the
reputation all over the net. Loads of people are dropping by to see what's
happening here and people are getting an eyeful of what the AUK cadre is
doing. I know they believe they are winning this little war they have with
soc.men. There are maybe a dozen of the punks playing in here. Eventually it
will dawn on them in some fashion that it is they who are taking the real
reputation hit. There have been efforts before to destroy soc.men. All of
them have failed as will this. Compared to the war mounted by the radical
feminists in 96 -97 these clowns are amateurs. Poseurs. They'll go away once
they see that they are rapidly becoming the laughingstocks of the net.
Can you depict this imaginitive usenet good/evil struggle in a Play
Doh diarama for us, Kenny Kakes?
AUK is not interfering with smm. Some of us are adding our well
deserved two cents. That is all. But please continue to froth at will.
Jade
Hey Deadanus!the only one you could interfere with is yourself,and you seem
to be good at that!
Did you have anything to add to the discussion of smm, or were you
just wanting to try out another page from "101 Great Comebacks to Use
at Recess?"

Jade
MCP
2006-06-08 17:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by MCP
Post by Daedalus
Post by krp
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
I don't think this is such a difficult proposal. A group of people
want
to
create a newsgroup, we are convinced that the newsgroup will be used, all
we need to do is reach a consensus in regard to the details
surrounding
the
group. I believe it can and will be done.
What is happening here is that the AUK folks are entrenching the
reputation all over the net. Loads of people are dropping by to see what's
happening here and people are getting an eyeful of what the AUK cadre is
doing. I know they believe they are winning this little war they have with
soc.men. There are maybe a dozen of the punks playing in here.
Eventually
it
will dawn on them in some fashion that it is they who are taking the real
reputation hit. There have been efforts before to destroy soc.men. All of
them have failed as will this. Compared to the war mounted by the radical
feminists in 96 -97 these clowns are amateurs. Poseurs. They'll go away once
they see that they are rapidly becoming the laughingstocks of the net.
Can you depict this imaginitive usenet good/evil struggle in a Play
Doh diarama for us, Kenny Kakes?
AUK is not interfering with smm. Some of us are adding our well
deserved two cents. That is all. But please continue to froth at will.
Jade
Hey Deadanus!the only one you could interfere with is yourself,and you seem
to be good at that!
Did you have anything to add to the discussion of smm, or were you
just wanting to try out another page from "101 Great Comebacks to Use
at Recess?"
Jade
Well at least my comebacks are in english,fuckface!
Daedalus
2006-06-08 17:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by MCP
Post by Daedalus
Post by MCP
Post by Daedalus
Post by krp
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
I don't think this is such a difficult proposal. A group of people
want
to
create a newsgroup, we are convinced that the newsgroup will be used, all
we need to do is reach a consensus in regard to the details
surrounding
the
group. I believe it can and will be done.
What is happening here is that the AUK folks are entrenching the
reputation all over the net. Loads of people are dropping by to see what's
happening here and people are getting an eyeful of what the AUK cadre is
doing. I know they believe they are winning this little war they have with
soc.men. There are maybe a dozen of the punks playing in here.
Eventually
it
will dawn on them in some fashion that it is they who are taking the real
reputation hit. There have been efforts before to destroy soc.men. All of
them have failed as will this. Compared to the war mounted by the radical
feminists in 96 -97 these clowns are amateurs. Poseurs. They'll go away once
they see that they are rapidly becoming the laughingstocks of the net.
Can you depict this imaginitive usenet good/evil struggle in a Play
Doh diarama for us, Kenny Kakes?
AUK is not interfering with smm. Some of us are adding our well
deserved two cents. That is all. But please continue to froth at will.
Jade
Hey Deadanus!the only one you could interfere with is yourself,and you seem
to be good at that!
Did you have anything to add to the discussion of smm, or were you
just wanting to try out another page from "101 Great Comebacks to Use
at Recess?"
Jade
Well at least my comebacks are in english,fuckface!
See above.

Jade
Cujo DeSockpuppet
2006-06-08 19:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by MCP
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:56:08 GMT, "MCP"
Post by MCP
Post by Daedalus
Post by krp
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Post by Tim Skirvin
I still don't know what I think about this whole proposal; if
anything, I think that there are still many issues that have to be worked
out before the Board is even willing to vote on the matter, but I also
think that those issues will be worked out. But the only way that this
massive flamewar is adjusting my opinion is that I'm growing more biased
against those that are inflicting it upon me.
I don't think this is such a difficult proposal. A group of
people want
to
create a newsgroup, we are convinced that the newsgroup will be used, all
we need to do is reach a consensus in regard to the details
surrounding
the
group. I believe it can and will be done.
What is happening here is that the AUK folks are entrenching the
reputation all over the net. Loads of people are dropping by to see what's
happening here and people are getting an eyeful of what the AUK
cadre is doing. I know they believe they are winning this little
war they have with
soc.men. There are maybe a dozen of the punks playing in here.
Eventually
it
will dawn on them in some fashion that it is they who are taking the real
reputation hit. There have been efforts before to destroy soc.men. All of
them have failed as will this. Compared to the war mounted by the radical
feminists in 96 -97 these clowns are amateurs. Poseurs. They'll go away once
they see that they are rapidly becoming the laughingstocks of the net.
Can you depict this imaginitive usenet good/evil struggle in a
Play Doh diarama for us, Kenny Kakes?
AUK is not interfering with smm. Some of us are adding our well
deserved two cents. That is all. But please continue to froth at will.
Jade
Hey Deadanus!the only one you could interfere with is yourself,and you seem
to be good at that!
Did you have anything to add to the discussion of smm, or were you
just wanting to try out another page from "101 Great Comebacks to
Use at Recess?"
Jade
Well at least my comebacks are in english,fuckface!
See above.
It's the dyke feminazis that withheld proper English usage.

Take pity on the fr00t.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award & July 2005 Hammer of Thor.
Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle - Dec. 2005
Fanatic Legions Distinguished Service Citation - 2 FL Unit Commendations
"... George Clooney, Cher and Jimmy Stewart--Three well known
politicians who were assassinated." - Edmo really loses it.
Aratzio
2006-06-08 22:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Werll at reast my comebacks all in engrish,fluckflace!
What?
--
VjikQueen defining irony:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

"But, of course, you are a dense thinkheaded fucking moron."

AHM Wanker Stomping Award - 2005

Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - Jan, 2006

Hammer of Thor - July, 2005

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10-22-2005
Message-Id: <***@dformosa.zeta.org.au>

"But it is not isolated AUK has a massive impact the rest of usenet."

Please ask your admin to be adding alt.aratzio to your news server
alt.aratzio Usenet asshole Aratzio

viking of soc.men in a killer demonstration of irony:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
"We all know you are fucking stuipd, though."

VjikQueen teh Impotent Trollbuster on battling Trolls:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

Fighting trolls here, or letting them fill this space with crap,
always brings us back to square one in our discussions. New posters
are continually turned off by the environment here--if we get soc.men
cleaned up, we could have a serious, international, rounded forum for
the discussion of men's issues. I know that some regular posters don't
agree with me on this, but I believe the only way to un-cripple
soc.men is to take a stand and to let the trolls know that what they
do won't stand. I'm open to comments, of course.
Aratzio
2006-06-08 22:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Do you imagine the *abuse* will suddenly cease when you include the
same cast of characters?
--
VjikQueen defining irony:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

"But, of course, you are a dense thinkheaded fucking moron."

AHM Wanker Stomping Award - 2005

Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - Jan, 2006

Hammer of Thor - July, 2005

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10-22-2005
Message-Id: <***@dformosa.zeta.org.au>

"But it is not isolated AUK has a massive impact the rest of usenet."

Please ask your admin to be adding alt.aratzio to your news server
alt.aratzio Usenet asshole Aratzio

viking of soc.men in a killer demonstration of irony:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
"We all know you are fucking stuipd, though."

VjikQueen teh Impotent Trollbuster on battling Trolls:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

Fighting trolls here, or letting them fill this space with crap,
always brings us back to square one in our discussions. New posters
are continually turned off by the environment here--if we get soc.men
cleaned up, we could have a serious, international, rounded forum for
the discussion of men's issues. I know that some regular posters don't
agree with me on this, but I believe the only way to un-cripple
soc.men is to take a stand and to let the trolls know that what they
do won't stand. I'm open to comments, of course.
Bob Officer
2006-06-08 23:03:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:13:25 GMT, in news.groups, Aratzio
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Do you imagine the *abuse* will suddenly cease when you include the
same cast of characters?
a badly written and performed play will be bad whether or not the
stage in the finest theater, or the smallest and shabbiest of venues.
--
Ak'toh'di
Aratzio
2006-06-08 23:47:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:03:20 -0700, Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:13:25 GMT, in news.groups, Aratzio
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Do you imagine the *abuse* will suddenly cease when you include the
same cast of characters?
a badly written and performed play will be bad whether or not the
stage in the finest theater, or the smallest and shabbiest of venues.
Translation, private clubhouse, no gurls allowed.
--
VjikQueen defining irony:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

"But, of course, you are a dense thinkheaded fucking moron."

AHM Wanker Stomping Award - 2005

Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - Jan, 2006

Hammer of Thor - July, 2005

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10-22-2005
Message-Id: <***@dformosa.zeta.org.au>

"But it is not isolated AUK has a massive impact the rest of usenet."

Please ask your admin to be adding alt.aratzio to your news server
alt.aratzio Usenet asshole Aratzio

viking of soc.men in a killer demonstration of irony:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
"We all know you are fucking stuipd, though."

VjikQueen teh Impotent Trollbuster on battling Trolls:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

Fighting trolls here, or letting them fill this space with crap,
always brings us back to square one in our discussions. New posters
are continually turned off by the environment here--if we get soc.men
cleaned up, we could have a serious, international, rounded forum for
the discussion of men's issues. I know that some regular posters don't
agree with me on this, but I believe the only way to un-cripple
soc.men is to take a stand and to let the trolls know that what they
do won't stand. I'm open to comments, of course.
Bob Officer
2006-06-09 02:32:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:47:33 GMT, in news.groups, Aratzio
Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:03:20 -0700, Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:13:25 GMT, in news.groups, Aratzio
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Do you imagine the *abuse* will suddenly cease when you include the
same cast of characters?
a badly written and performed play will be bad whether or not the
stage in the finest theater, or the smallest and shabbiest of venues.
Translation, private clubhouse, no gurls allowed.
Sounds like a team calvin sort of place...
--
Ak'toh'di
pandora
2006-06-09 03:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:13:25 GMT, in news.groups, Aratzio
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Do you imagine the *abuse* will suddenly cease when you include the
same cast of characters?
a badly written and performed play will be bad whether or not the
stage in the finest theater, or the smallest and shabbiest of venues.
"All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players;"

Wm. Shakespeare.
Post by Bob Officer
--
Ak'toh'di
Bob Officer
2006-06-09 05:17:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:46:11 -0700, in news.groups, "pandora"
Post by pandora
Post by Bob Officer
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:13:25 GMT, in news.groups, Aratzio
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Do you imagine the *abuse* will suddenly cease when you include the
same cast of characters?
a badly written and performed play will be bad whether or not the
stage in the finest theater, or the smallest and shabbiest of venues.
"All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players;"
Wm. Shakespeare.
"Some are better than others... " Mae West?
--
Ak'toh'di
Dante Soch
2006-06-10 08:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Do you imagine the *abuse* will suddenly cease when you include the
same cast of characters?
No sir, I don't. What I do believe is that starting a moderated group with
some fair rules and a good core of contributors will set a less abusive
dynamic; a direct consequence is that soc.men.moderated with thrive as a
positive forum for discussing men's issues. Soc.men can continue to house
the flame wars and trolls who are more concerned with insulting each other
than coherent discussion.
Aratzio
2006-06-10 19:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Do you imagine the *abuse* will suddenly cease when you include the
same cast of characters?
No sir, I don't.
What I do believe is that starting a moderated group with
some fair rules and a good core of contributors will set a less abusive
dynamic; a direct consequence is that soc.men.moderated with thrive as a
positive forum for discussing men's issues. Soc.men can continue to house
the flame wars and trolls who are more concerned with insulting each other
than coherent discussion.
So you are planning blacklisting, since that is the only way to insure
the fantasy you just posted.
--
alt.hackers.malicious - Wanker Stomping Award - 2005

alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - Jan, 2006

alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor - July, 2005

alt.flame - Worst Flame War - 2005

Please ask your admin to be adding alt.aratzio to your news server
alt.aratzio Usenet asshole Aratzio

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10-22-2005
Message-Id: <***@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
"But it is not isolated AUK has a massive impact the rest of usenet."

VjikQueen of soc.froot explaining sock paranoia:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
"Yep. Whether or not they're you, they're you, doesn't make no diff in
how I treat them."
Dante Soch
2006-06-10 22:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Do you imagine the *abuse* will suddenly cease when you include the
same cast of characters?
No sir, I don't.
A contradiction? I stated that soc.men.moderated will be "less abusive"
after agreeing with your inferrence that the abuse will not "suddenly
cease."
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
What I do believe is that starting a moderated group with
some fair rules and a good core of contributors will set a less abusive
dynamic; a direct consequence is that soc.men.moderated with thrive as a
positive forum for discussing men's issues. Soc.men can continue to house
the flame wars and trolls who are more concerned with insulting each other
than coherent discussion.
So you are planning blacklisting, since that is the only way to insure
the fantasy you just posted.
If a participant is unwilling to behave in accordance with the charter then
they will be removed. You wouldn't want to eat in a restaurant with a
constant, ongoing food fight, would you? Replace "restaurant" with
"newsgroup" and "food fight" with "flame war."
Aratzio
2006-06-11 00:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Tim Skirvin
Are you trying to show what an abusive atmosphere there is in
soc.men? That's certainly coming out.
That is the reason we need a soc.men.moderated.
Do you imagine the *abuse* will suddenly cease when you include the
same cast of characters?
No sir, I don't.
A contradiction? I stated that soc.men.moderated will be "less abusive"
after agreeing with your inferrence that the abuse will not "suddenly
cease."
Apologies, you are correct.
Post by Dante Soch
Post by Aratzio
Post by Dante Soch
What I do believe is that starting a moderated group with
some fair rules and a good core of contributors will set a less abusive
dynamic; a direct consequence is that soc.men.moderated with thrive as a
positive forum for discussing men's issues. Soc.men can continue to house
the flame wars and trolls who are more concerned with insulting each other
than coherent discussion.
So you are planning blacklisting, since that is the only way to insure
the fantasy you just posted.
If a participant is unwilling to behave in accordance with the charter then
they will be removed. You wouldn't want to eat in a restaurant with a
constant, ongoing food fight, would you? Replace "restaurant" with
"newsgroup" and "food fight" with "flame war."
And the whining will be a prelude to the silence in smm.
--
alt.hackers.malicious - Wanker Stomping Award - 2005

alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - Jan, 2006

alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor - July, 2005

alt.flame - Worst Flame War - 2005

Please ask your admin to be adding alt.aratzio to your news server
alt.aratzio Usenet asshole Aratzio

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10-22-2005
Message-Id: <***@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
"But it is not isolated AUK has a massive impact the rest of usenet."

VjikQueen of soc.froot explaining sock paranoia:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
"Yep. Whether or not they're you, they're you, doesn't make no diff in
how I treat them."
Sharon B
2006-06-06 18:41:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:36:02 -0000, Bret Schaffer
Post by Bret Schaffer
Post by Woodchuck Bill
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:40:52 -0000, Bret Schaffer
The proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas and I would
like some input from news.groups.
We've discussed various ideas, but I don't recall having discussed
either of the following.
Gee, Jayne's making stuff up again. What a shocker.
Somebody's lying to us - either Jayne or Bret. Probably Jayne, since she
hasn't denied Bret's charges.
Jayne did send one email to the rest of us proponents, precisely ten
minutes before she made the original Usenet post at the top of this
thread, in which she described *her* ideas for A) Annual reviews for
SMM by a third party, and B) Working on the future SMM FAQ before the
group is created. When I wrote the text above, I hadn't read Jayne's
email yet. The first time I read anything about either of these ideas
was in news.groups, not in any previous discussions among the
proponents, and that's why I originally responded in the manner which I
did.
Are you in agreement with this account of what happened, Jayne?
Hopefully now, we can move on to the meat and potatoes of this RFD,
Part of the meat and potatoes is the trustworthiness of the proponent.

Jayne has been caught multiple times misrepresenting--and now, bald
faced lying. Her sending one email does not a discussion make--and
I've already lost count of how many times the /only/ proponent with a
posting history has misrepresented things in this ng just in the last
month.

"The proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas and I would
like some input from news.groups." in no way equals "Jayne did send
one email to the rest of us proponents, precisely ten minutes before
she made the original Usenet post at the top of this thread"

The rest of y'all are apparently "Stealth Proponents", socking up for
this proposal so no one knows who you really are.

You, for example, could be Bob the Rape Advocate or Hot Frog the Rape
Advocate for all any of us know....or, you could be an AUK-er. I
wouldn't put it past one of y'all to be the current scourge of Usenet,
Steve "Bowtie" Young.
Daedalus
2006-06-06 19:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:36:02 -0000, Bret Schaffer
Post by Bret Schaffer
Post by Woodchuck Bill
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:40:52 -0000, Bret Schaffer
The proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas and I would
like some input from news.groups.
We've discussed various ideas, but I don't recall having discussed
either of the following.
Gee, Jayne's making stuff up again. What a shocker.
Somebody's lying to us - either Jayne or Bret. Probably Jayne, since she
hasn't denied Bret's charges.
Jayne did send one email to the rest of us proponents, precisely ten
minutes before she made the original Usenet post at the top of this
thread, in which she described *her* ideas for A) Annual reviews for
SMM by a third party, and B) Working on the future SMM FAQ before the
group is created. When I wrote the text above, I hadn't read Jayne's
email yet. The first time I read anything about either of these ideas
was in news.groups, not in any previous discussions among the
proponents, and that's why I originally responded in the manner which I
did.
Are you in agreement with this account of what happened, Jayne?
Hopefully now, we can move on to the meat and potatoes of this RFD,
Part of the meat and potatoes is the trustworthiness of the proponent.
Jayne has been caught multiple times misrepresenting--and now, bald
faced lying. Her sending one email does not a discussion make--and
I've already lost count of how many times the /only/ proponent with a
posting history has misrepresented things in this ng just in the last
month.
"The proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas and I would
like some input from news.groups." in no way equals "Jayne did send
one email to the rest of us proponents, precisely ten minutes before
she made the original Usenet post at the top of this thread"
The rest of y'all are apparently "Stealth Proponents", socking up for
this proposal so no one knows who you really are.
You, for example, could be Bob the Rape Advocate or Hot Frog the Rape
Advocate for all any of us know....
I thought of that too.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I
wouldn't put it past one of y'all to be the current scourge of Usenet,
Steve "Bowtie" Young.
None of the stealth proponents seem stupid enough, but you could be
right.

Jade
Brian Mailman
2006-06-07 01:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....

..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"

B/
Daedalus
2006-06-07 12:22:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.


Jade
Kali
2006-06-07 12:33:18 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, posted
Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:22:03 -0400, Daedalus ***@net-kooks.org
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
--
Reason can answer questions, but imagination has to ask them.
- Ralph Gerard
K. A. Cannon
2006-06-07 13:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Schaffer
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone death
threats, you might be an AUK'er.
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

"It's astounding, time is fleeting
Madness takes its toll
But listen closely, not for very much longer
I've got to keep control"
-The Time Warp - Rocky Horror Picture Show
Lionel
2006-06-07 13:36:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by Bret Schaffer
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone death
threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to 'destroy' your
home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Daedalus
2006-06-07 13:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by Bret Schaffer
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone death
threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to 'destroy' your
home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of, spying for the government, being a
minion of Satan or working for the aliens, you might be an AUKer.

Jade
Cujo DeSockpuppet
2006-06-07 14:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by Bret Schaffer
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone death
threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to 'destroy' your
home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of, spying for the government, being a
minion of Satan or working for the aliens, you might be an AUKer.
If you've ever been threatened with a citizens arrest while dining on
scrumptious crab wontons at PF Changs, you might be an AUKer.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award & July 2005 Hammer of Thor.
Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle - Dec. 2005
Fanatic Legions Distinguished Service Citation - 2 FL Unit Commendations
"The point punk, is that abusers like you will soon be removed
completely from the internet and placed in custody for your criminal
activities." - Wollmann fucks up yet another prediction.
Lionel
2006-06-07 17:06:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by Bret Schaffer
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone death
threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to 'destroy' your
home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of, spying for the government, being a
minion of Satan or working for the aliens, you might be an AUKer.
If you've ever been threatened with a citizens arrest while dining on
scrumptious crab wontons at PF Changs, you might be an AUKer.
If ever been told that you are personally responsible for the Imminent
Death of Usenet, you might be an AUK'er.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Daedalus
2006-06-07 17:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by Bret Schaffer
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone death
threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to 'destroy' your
home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of, spying for the government, being a
minion of Satan or working for the aliens, you might be an AUKer.
If you've ever been threatened with a citizens arrest while dining on
scrumptious crab wontons at PF Changs, you might be an AUKer.
If ever been told that you are personally responsible for the Imminent
Death of Usenet, you might be an AUK'er.
If you thik the last place aliens, prophets and second coming Jesus
would show up is usenet, you might be an AUKer.

Jade
Lionel
2006-06-07 17:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by Bret Schaffer
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone death
threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to 'destroy' your
home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of, spying for the government, being a
minion of Satan or working for the aliens, you might be an AUKer.
If you've ever been threatened with a citizens arrest while dining on
scrumptious crab wontons at PF Changs, you might be an AUKer.
If ever been told that you are personally responsible for the Imminent
Death of Usenet, you might be an AUK'er.
If you thik the last place aliens, prophets and second coming Jesus
would show up is usenet, you might be an AUKer.
If you can spot a kook's new sock puppet in under 5 seconds, & name
the owner 30, you might be an AUK'er.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Officer
2006-06-07 19:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lionel
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by Bret Schaffer
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone death
threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to 'destroy' your
home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of, spying for the government, being a
minion of Satan or working for the aliens, you might be an AUKer.
If you've ever been threatened with a citizens arrest while dining on
scrumptious crab wontons at PF Changs, you might be an AUKer.
If ever been told that you are personally responsible for the Imminent
Death of Usenet, you might be an AUK'er.
If you thik the last place aliens, prophets and second coming Jesus
would show up is usenet, you might be an AUKer.
If you can spot a kook's new sock puppet in under 5 seconds, & name
the owner 30, you might be an AUK'er.
If you consider every article on usenet as having a potential C&C
prefix on the subject header, you might be an AUK'er.
--
Ak'toh'di
Kali
2006-06-07 23:31:46 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, posted
Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:01:20 -0700, Bob Officer bobofficers@
127.0.0.7 says...
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Lionel
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by Bret Schaffer
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone death
threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to 'destroy' your
home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of, spying for the government, being a
minion of Satan or working for the aliens, you might be an AUKer.
If you've ever been threatened with a citizens arrest while dining on
scrumptious crab wontons at PF Changs, you might be an AUKer.
If ever been told that you are personally responsible for the Imminent
Death of Usenet, you might be an AUK'er.
If you thik the last place aliens, prophets and second coming Jesus
would show up is usenet, you might be an AUKer.
If you can spot a kook's new sock puppet in under 5 seconds, & name
the owner 30, you might be an AUK'er.
If you consider every article on usenet as having a potential C&C
prefix on the subject header, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been been served a Poast Toasty Gag Order,
threatened to be locked up in a 72-hour hold, or been accused of
violating another poster's human rights to use the telephone,
you might be an AUKer.
--
Reason can answer questions, but imagination has to ask them.
- Ralph Gerard
Art Deco
2006-06-07 23:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kali
127.0.0.7 says...
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Lionel
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by Bret Schaffer
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone death
threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to 'destroy' your
home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of, spying for the government, being a
minion of Satan or working for the aliens, you might be an AUKer.
If you've ever been threatened with a citizens arrest while dining on
scrumptious crab wontons at PF Changs, you might be an AUKer.
If ever been told that you are personally responsible for the Imminent
Death of Usenet, you might be an AUK'er.
If you thik the last place aliens, prophets and second coming Jesus
would show up is usenet, you might be an AUKer.
If you can spot a kook's new sock puppet in under 5 seconds, & name
the owner 30, you might be an AUK'er.
If you consider every article on usenet as having a potential C&C
prefix on the subject header, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been been served a Poast Toasty Gag Order,
threatened to be locked up in a 72-hour hold, or been accused of
violating another poster's human rights to use the telephone,
you might be an AUKer.
If you've ever been accused on usenet of "identity theft", you might be
an AUK'er.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development
Chadwick Stone©
2006-06-08 00:35:25 UTC
Permalink
X-No-Archive: YES
Post by Art Deco
Post by Kali
127.0.0.7 says...
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Lionel
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
posted Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:22:03 -0400, Daedalus
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:41:09 -0400, Sharon B
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death
threats, lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an
AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels
next to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone
death threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to
'destroy' your home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of, spying for the government,
being a minion of Satan or working for the aliens, you might
be an AUKer.
If you've ever been threatened with a citizens arrest while
dining on scrumptious crab wontons at PF Changs, you might be
an AUKer.
If ever been told that you are personally responsible for the
Imminent Death of Usenet, you might be an AUK'er.
If you thik the last place aliens, prophets and second coming
Jesus would show up is usenet, you might be an AUKer.
If you can spot a kook's new sock puppet in under 5 seconds, & name
the owner 30, you might be an AUK'er.
If you consider every article on usenet as having a potential C&C
prefix on the subject header, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been been served a Poast Toasty Gag Order,
threatened to be locked up in a 72-hour hold, or been accused of
violating another poster's human rights to use the telephone,
you might be an AUKer.
If you've ever been accused on usenet of "identity theft", you might
be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of being part of GANGS ON THE INTERNET, you
might be an AUK'er.
--
Skepticult® Member# 581-00504-208
ChadwickStone at Gmail dot com
Usenet's most helpful netizen
Hammer of Thor, March 2005
Cujo DeSockpuppet
2006-06-08 00:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chadwick Stone©
X-No-Archive: YES
Post by Art Deco
Post by Kali
127.0.0.7 says...
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:33:40 +1000, in soc.men, Lionel
Post by Lionel
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
posted Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:22:03 -0400, Daedalus
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:41:09 -0400, Sharon B
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death
threats, lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an
AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels
next to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone
death threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to
'destroy' your home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of, spying for the government,
being a minion of Satan or working for the aliens, you might
be an AUKer.
If you've ever been threatened with a citizens arrest while
dining on scrumptious crab wontons at PF Changs, you might be
an AUKer.
If ever been told that you are personally responsible for the
Imminent Death of Usenet, you might be an AUK'er.
If you thik the last place aliens, prophets and second coming
Jesus would show up is usenet, you might be an AUKer.
If you can spot a kook's new sock puppet in under 5 seconds, &
name the owner 30, you might be an AUK'er.
If you consider every article on usenet as having a potential C&C
prefix on the subject header, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been been served a Poast Toasty Gag Order,
threatened to be locked up in a 72-hour hold, or been accused of
violating another poster's human rights to use the telephone,
you might be an AUKer.
If you've ever been accused on usenet of "identity theft", you might
be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of being part of GANGS ON THE INTERNET,
you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been sued for asking an astrolger for evidence, you might
be an AUK'er.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award & July 2005 Hammer of Thor.
Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle - Dec. 2005
Fanatic Legions Distinguished Service Citation - 2 FL Unit Commendations
"Like a child embarrased in front of the class, you try to make the
threatening thing a "funny thing", so as not to have to face just how
incompetant and fearful you yourself really are." - Edmo demonstrating
his incompetance and fear.
Michael Baldwin, Bruce
2006-06-08 08:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Post by Daedalus
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:33:10 -0400, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by Bret Schaffer
says...
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you keep a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels next
to your computer, you might be an AUKer.
If you have an extensive collection of recorded telephone death
threats, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've lost count of how many nutbags have vowed to 'destroy' your
home newsgroup, you might be an AUK'er.
If you've ever been accused of, spying for the government, being a
minion of Satan or working for the aliens, you might be an AUKer.
If you've ever been threatened with a citizens arrest while dining on
scrumptious crab wontons at PF Changs, you might be an AUKer.
No, that just means you're a luser, Cujoak.
Michael Baldwin, Bruce
2006-06-08 08:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:33:44 -0700, Brian Mailman
Post by Brian Mailman
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
I see a Jeff Foxworthy-type routine coming up....
..... and YOU.... could be... an AUK-er"
B/
If you have seperate email folders for organizing death threats,
lawsuits and spiritual curses, you might be an AUKer.
If you have your head up your arse and you don't realise it, you would
be Deadanus.
Sharon B
2006-06-07 03:18:29 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
The rest of y'all are apparently "Stealth Proponents", socking up for
this proposal so no one knows who you really are.
You, for example, could be Bob the Rape Advocate or Hot Frog the Rape
Advocate for all any of us know....
I thought of that too.
Feh, I'm not convinced that one or more aren't Jayne's socks.
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
or, you could be an AUK-er.
That sounds familiar...*giggle*
Heh. Worked once.
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
I
wouldn't put it past one of y'all to be the current scourge of Usenet,
Steve "Bowtie" Young.
None of the stealth proponents seem stupid enough, but you could be
right.
Maybe a snuh-tard.
±
2006-06-09 20:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon B
Post by Daedalus
Post by Sharon B
I
wouldn't put it past one of y'all to be the current scourge of Usenet,
Steve "Bowtie" Young.
None of the stealth proponents seem stupid enough, but you could be
right.
Maybe a snuh-tard.
Have a cookie, SnuhoBsEsSo.
--
http://www.bedoper.com/snuh

*********************************************************************
* GEORGE BUSH WIPES HIS ASS WITH THE ____________ *
* CONSTITUTION AGAIN! / / \ *
* __ __ __ _ | WE | ( ) | *
* | | / \ | | | | | THE |\__ / *
* | |__ | () | | |__ |_| |PEOPLE | *
* |_____| \__/ |_____| (_) |________| *
* *
*********************************************************************
* BTW, George Bush's head looks like a chimp. *
* *
* .-"-. _________________________________ *
* _/.-.-.\_ / \ *
* ( o o ) | Executive Privilege r0><3r$!!! | *
* |/ " \| _-_ \_ _____________________________/ *
* \ .0 ./ | / | / *
* \ / / / |/ *
* /`"""`--/ / / *
* / / *
* / ' ./ *
* | \_____/ *
* *
*********************************************************************
WTF is Fred Ziffel?


-------
/ \
/ \ /-----\
| (@) | | SnuH |
| (O) | \_ ___/
| / | ||
| \ /_ / //
\ \____/ / /
\ /
\_____,
Fly Cooter
2006-06-09 22:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ±
.
There was an office the size of a pirate ship.
Post by ±
Have a cookie, SnuhoBsEsSo.
Have a nice day. [Sarcastically, having pointed out a nasty detail in
the fine print]
--
--
Bob Officer
2006-06-06 19:26:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:36:02 -0000, in news.groups, Bret Schaffer
Post by Bret Schaffer
Post by Woodchuck Bill
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:40:52 -0000, Bret Schaffer
The proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas and I would
like some input from news.groups.
We've discussed various ideas, but I don't recall having discussed
either of the following.
Gee, Jayne's making stuff up again. What a shocker.
Somebody's lying to us - either Jayne or Bret. Probably Jayne, since she
hasn't denied Bret's charges.
Jayne did send one email to the rest of us proponents, precisely ten
minutes before she made the original Usenet post at the top of this
thread, in which she described *her* ideas for A) Annual reviews for
SMM by a third party, and B) Working on the future SMM FAQ before the
group is created. When I wrote the text above, I hadn't read Jayne's
email yet. The first time I read anything about either of these ideas
was in news.groups, not in any previous discussions among the
proponents, and that's why I originally responded in the manner which I
did.
Something sounds fishy... Jayne posting an e-mail to people a few
minutes, "ten minutes", before posting it to usenet is not "The
proponents of smm are discussing a couple of ideas".

This is Jayne trying to mislead people on news groups WRT the
activities between the proponents.
Post by Bret Schaffer
Are you in agreement with this account of what happened, Jayne?
Hopefully now, we can move on to the meat and potatoes of this RFD, now
that this bare-bones RFD has been officially published in NAN. :-)
<sigh>

Jayne's habit of trying to misleading people is getting tiresome.
--
Ak'toh'di
Woodchuck Bill
2006-06-07 00:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Another idea is that we should be working on an FAQ now as part of the
RFD. The proponents like the idea of more civil discussion but are
reluctant to impose it by moderation. An alternative is to
encourage it through an FAQ.
Good so far.
Is it practical/appropriate to write the
FAQ to work in conjuction with the moderation policies with input from
the RFD?
Sure, but it should be only written _after_ the community has established
itself in the newsgroup, and not before. An F.A.Q. is not a founding
document.
--
Bill

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker Award, October 2005
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker Award, February 2006
Found
2006-06-10 02:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Six months after the creation of smm the B8MB or its successor will
appoint a person or persons to conduct a performance review of smm.
This review will assess traffic on the group and whether the group is
following the charter and moderation policies proposed in the RFD. The
review can recommend changes to the charter and moderation policies,
reorganization of the group, or the removal of smm. Any of these
changes would be introduced by RFD in the usual way. The review can
also suggest other improvements, such as modifications to the FAQ.
After the first review, others will follow on a yearly basis.
Normally hierarchy management isn't involved in groups after they are
created. But I suppose its possible current management will adopt a
non-traditional course and want their fingers in everything.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It could be specific to smm.
But, back to the basics, this constant search for some way to rein in
moderations tells me the soc.men groupers aren't really willing to
accept moderation.
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. We've had some fairly successful
moderated groups come out of RFD discussions that were heavily concerned
with reining in moderators.
I agree with Edward, or I at least agree that soc.men is not ready to
accept the TYPE of moderation that Jayne Of Arc and the Three Mouseketeers
are proposing. They aim to silence the voices of longtime, distinguished
soc.men patrons like MCP, and replace it with feminist slopaganda. Look
how she changed her tune in less than a week. Last week she was telling
MCP that he's a legend of soc.men and that the new group would not be the
same without him. Now she's threatening to ban him if he refuses to obey
her rules in SMM.

And who the hell does this Graham Dribble character think he is, barging
in and trying to moderate the group? I'll bet a thousand farthings that
the man doesn't give a rats arse about men's rights!
Jayne Kulikauskas
2006-06-10 02:44:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:07:55 +0000, Found <***@mailinator.com> wrote:

[...]
Post by Found
I agree with Edward, or I at least agree that soc.men is not ready to
accept the TYPE of moderation that Jayne Of Arc and the Three Mouseketeers
are proposing. They aim to silence the voices of longtime, distinguished
soc.men patrons like MCP, and replace it with feminist slopaganda. Look
how she changed her tune in less than a week. Last week she was telling
MCP that he's a legend of soc.men and that the new group would not be the
same without him. Now she's threatening to ban him if he refuses to obey
her rules in SMM.
I still want MCP to continue giving links to articles. He does a great
job of finding really interesting items. I just want him to obey
international law and follow fair use standards when he does it. In a
moderated group, he isn't simply risking himself when he violates
copyright; the moderator becomes liable for prosecution. It isn't
fair to ask a moderator to take on that kind of risk.

This is not a matter of silencing MCP's voice. If it were his own
voice, it wouldn't be an issue. The articles he reposts are somebody
else's voice. MCP is free to write whatever he wants in his own words
(other than threatening violence).
Post by Found
And who the hell does this Graham Dribble character think he is, barging
in and trying to moderate the group? I'll bet a thousand farthings that
the man doesn't give a rats arse about men's rights!
That is not necessary in a technical moderator. What one looks for in
this position is technical skills and honesty. Considering his
record, there is every reason to believe that Graham Drabble is fully
qualified.

Jayne
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...