Ping: Steve Young

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:54:01 -0400, "Steve Young"
bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet wrote:

"William Graham" wrote

"Rob Wild" wrote

Duncan Hamilton wrote:

I nominate Vic Mason for the AUK Bobo Award.

may he *rot* *in* *Hell*

seconded

Gee guys.....Isn't that a bit strong for an occasional OT poster? - I mean,
I would reserve, "rotting in Hell" to people like Adolf Hitler and Josef
Stalin......
Do you guys get called to jury duty very often?

Do you know WHY they call that newsgroup "Usenet kooks?" Who do you think
hangs out there? NORMAL PEOPLE???
-- ^krp^



Steve: Here is your chance to demonstrate that "fun-loving" trolls
can be good citizens of the Usenet. The post frogging Duncan Hamilton
was one of the most repulsive posts I have seen on Usenet in years.
(It isn't the worst. It is the second worst. It doesn't even rise to
the horrible dignity of being the worst.)

You have previously stated that "fun-lovers" should "dog" someone who
is guilty of misuse of the Usenet in order to try to restore civility
or at least civilized behavior. This post was exactly the sort of
thing that a tribunal, if one existed, would find was out of line.
Are you and your buddies who like to have a knee-slapping good time
about to hound this disgusting anonymous sock-puppet?

If not, then you need to explain how Public Usenet White will help
prevent posts like this one.

- - Bob McClenon

"Robert McClenon" wrote

Steve: Here is your chance to demonstrate that "fun-loving" trolls
can be good citizens of the Usenet. The post frogging Duncan Hamilton
was one of the most repulsive posts I have seen on Usenet in years.
(It isn't the worst. It is the second worst. It doesn't even rise to
the horrible dignity of being the worst.)

I agree with you Bob and my condolences go out to Vic and his family. It's
quite disgusting that someone would post something like this.

You have previously stated that "fun-lovers" should "dog" someone who
is guilty of misuse of the Usenet in order to try to restore civility
or at least civilized behavior. This post was exactly the sort of
thing that a tribunal, if one existed, would find was out of line.

Distasteful and out of line, as considerate citizens, but I don't think PUW
would find this posting actionable. Nor do I think they would want to, as it
seems more an issue of free speech.

As uncivil as this behavior is and as much as I believe it to be in *very*
*poor* taste, I don't think it would come within the tribunal's radar. It's
not criminal, not a forged addy and probably would not fit the libelous
specification.

Actually, I think it would belong under the purview of AUK, as a misuse of
their awards program. If you really do want to bring the poster to the
tribunal to answer charges, I would have a designated AUK representative
review the claim and if found in violation of their regulations, file charges
with the tribunal prosecutor. A guilty sentence could be worth a few days in
the dungeon, I'd think.

Are you and your buddies who like to have a knee-slapping good time
about to hound this disgusting anonymous sock-puppet?

I would certainly discourage this appalling post, but I don't think I could
find grounds to terminate a user for it. AUK might well be the right place for
further action, though they would have to decide that independently, in
accordance with their own constitution.

If not, then you need to explain how Public Usenet White will help
prevent posts like this one.

It may or may not help on this type post. It would depend on what rules might
be implemented. I don't think it's in the tribunal's interest to involve
itself in distasteful postings, which do not harm and are simply free speech.
A good yardstick might be to ask yourself if a person making such statements
in real life could be held accountable by the laws.

Steve Young

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:01:50 -0400, "Steve Young"
bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet wrote:

"Robert McClenon" wrote

Steve: Here is your chance to demonstrate that "fun-loving" trolls
can be good citizens of the Usenet. The post frogging Duncan Hamilton
was one of the most repulsive posts I have seen on Usenet in years.
(It isn't the worst. It is the second worst. It doesn't even rise to
the horrible dignity of being the worst.)

I agree with you Bob and my condolences go out to Vic and his family. It's
quite disgusting that someone would post something like this.

You have previously stated that "fun-lovers" should "dog" someone who
is guilty of misuse of the Usenet in order to try to restore civility
or at least civilized behavior. This post was exactly the sort of
thing that a tribunal, if one existed, would find was out of line.

Distasteful and out of line, as considerate citizens, but I don't think PUW
would find this posting actionable. Nor do I think they would want to, as it
seems more an issue of free speech.

In that case, I am not sure why you claimed that PUW would restore a
measure of civility to the Usenet. You had specified that there would
be a tribunal, and that there would be a few 'hangin' offenses. I had
assumed that the tribunal would have jurisdiction for certain other
less serious offenses that were nonetheless clear violations of ethics
and etiquette.


As uncivil as this behavior is and as much as I believe it to be in *very*
*poor* taste, I don't think it would come within the tribunal's radar. It's
not criminal, not a forged addy and probably would not fit the libelous
specification.

If the tribunal would have jurisdiction over libelous posts, would it
apply US law, British law, Australian law, or European civil law?
Libel is a very difficult tort for real courts to adjudicate even when
there is no conflict of laws.


Actually, I think it would belong under the purview of AUK, as a misuse of
their awards program. If you really do want to bring the poster to the
tribunal to answer charges, I would have a designated AUK representative
review the claim and if found in violation of their regulations, file charges
with the tribunal prosecutor. A guilty sentence could be worth a few days in
the dungeon, I'd think.

Are you and your buddies who like to have a knee-slapping good time
about to hound this disgusting anonymous sock-puppet?

I would certainly discourage this appalling post, but I don't think I could
find grounds to terminate a user for it. AUK might well be the right place for
further action, though they would have to decide that independently, in
accordance with their own constitution.

Since you have previously suggested that non-malicious trolls or
"fun-lovers" can actually help maintain reasonable behavior on the
Usenet, do you have any suggestions on what to do about the
sock-puppet who posted this disgusting attack on a dead man under the
names of Duncan Hamilton and Rob Wild?

If not, then I would suggest that Guy Macon and Rebecca Ore have been
right all along that Standard Advice is to ignore all trolls, both
innocent and malicious.


If not, then you need to explain how Public Usenet White will help
prevent posts like this one.

It may or may not help on this type post. It would depend on what rules might
be implemented. I don't think it's in the tribunal's interest to involve
itself in distasteful postings, which do not harm and are simply free speech.
A good yardstick might be to ask yourself if a person making such statements
in real life could be held accountable by the laws.


Since this post that was completely outside of any concept of human
decency also appears to be one for which PUW would not provide any
remedy, then it is not clear to me what PUW would accomplish. Perhaps
you should bring to my attention at least one recent offensive post
that you submit would be dealt with by PUW that is not dealt with by
existing responsible ISPs.

- - Bob McClenon

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:01:50 -0400, in
, "Steve Young"
bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet said:

"Robert McClenon" wrote

Steve: Here is your chance to demonstrate that "fun-loving" trolls
can be good citizens of the Usenet. The post frogging Duncan Hamilton
was one of the most repulsive posts I have seen on Usenet in years.
(It isn't the worst. It is the second worst. It doesn't even rise to
the horrible dignity of being the worst.)

I agree with you Bob and my condolences go out to Vic and his family. It's
quite disgusting that someone would post something like this.

And yet you posted it anyway, Steve/Organizer/Orville. What a surprise.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Robert, you're starting a conversation with a known troll. I don't
usually announce it, but that lands you square in my kill file, along with
the troll. Use your head, man.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Hey Robert, you're starting a conversation with a known troll. I don't
usually announce it, but that lands you square in my kill file, along with
the troll. Use your head, man.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to
sin.
He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth
reproof erreth.
He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander,
is a fool.
In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth
his lips is wise.
The tongue of the just is as choice silver: the heart of the wicked is
little worth.
The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.
The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with
it.
It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath
wisdom.
The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him: but the desire of the
righteous shall be granted.
As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no mo but the righteous is
an everlasting foundation.
Pro 10:16-25

The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to
sin.
He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth
reproof erreth.
He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander,
is a fool.
In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth
his lips is wise.
The tongue of the just is as choice silver: the heart of the wicked is
little worth.
The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.
The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with
it.
It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath
wisdom.
The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him: but the desire of the
righteous shall be granted.
As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no mo but the righteous is
an everlasting foundation.
Pro 10:16-25

"Robert McClenon" wrote

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:01:50 -0400, "Steve Young"
bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet wrote:

"Robert McClenon" wrote

You have previously stated that "fun-lovers" should "dog" someone who
is guilty of misuse of the Usenet in order to try to restore civility
or at least civilized behavior. This post was exactly the sort of
thing that a tribunal, if one existed, would find was out of line.

Distasteful and out of line, as considerate citizens, but I don't think PUW
would find this posting actionable. Nor do I think they would want to, as it
seems more an issue of free speech.

In that case, I am not sure why you claimed that PUW would restore a
measure of civility to the Usenet. You had specified that there would
be a tribunal, and that there would be a few 'hangin' offenses. I had
assumed that the tribunal would have jurisdiction for certain other
less serious offenses that were nonetheless clear violations of ethics
and etiquette.

Well yes, but as I mentioned in previous text about AUK, it should probably
well from each newsgroup. Certainly different rules and standards would
apply. Example might be a contrast between alt.flame and say
rec.photo.digital. I would recommend groups define themselves and set/select a
netiquette which would become part of a new charter, submitted to the PUW
tribunal, for any potential future adjudication. Maybe for the tribunal to
hear a case, a newsgroup would need to have a current charter on file?

As uncivil as this behavior is and as much as I believe it to be in *very*
*poor* taste, I don't think it would come within the tribunal's radar. It's
not criminal, not a forged addy and probably would not fit the libelous
specification.

If the tribunal would have jurisdiction over libelous posts, would it
apply US law, British law, Australian law, or European civil law?
Libel is a very difficult tort for real courts to adjudicate even when
there is no conflict of laws.

Maybe the tribunal can decide, as it sets up shop, what laws it would follow
as its precedent. Which jurisdiction laws would you suggest we work from?

Actually, I think it would belong under the purview of AUK, as a misuse of
their awards program. If you really do want to bring the poster to the
tribunal to answer charges, I would have a designated AUK representative
review the claim and if found in violation of their regulations, file
charges with the tribunal prosecutor. A guilty sentence could be worth
a few days in the dungeon, I'd think.

Are you and your buddies who like to have a knee-slapping good time
about to hound this disgusting anonymous sock-puppet?

I would certainly discourage this appalling post, but I don't think I could
find grounds to terminate a user for it. AUK might well be the right place
for further action, though they would have to decide that independently,
in accordance with their own constitution.

Since you have previously suggested that non-malicious trolls or
"fun-lovers" can actually help maintain reasonable behavior on the
Usenet, do you have any suggestions on what to do about the
sock-puppet who posted this disgusting attack on a dead man under the
names of Duncan Hamilton and Rob Wild?

Wouldn't one first have to decide what regulations were broken?
I've never expected or hoped for loose cannon lynching mobs.

If not, then I would suggest that Guy Macon and Rebecca Ore have been
right all along that Standard Advice is to ignore all trolls, both
innocent and malicious.

Well it looks like Matt thinks *you* fit the category snicker

If not, then you need to explain how Public Usenet White will help
prevent posts like this one.

It may or may not help on this type post. It would depend on what rules
might be implemented. I don't think it's in the tribunal's interest to
involve itself in distasteful postings, which do not harm and are
simply free speech. A good yardstick might be to ask yourself
if a person making such statements in real life
could be held accountable by the laws.

Since this post that was completely outside of any concept of human
decency also appears to be one for which PUW would not provide any
remedy, then it is not clear to me what PUW would accomplish.

Sure it might, but it won't be on just a whim.

Perhaps
you should bring to my attention at least one recent offensive post
that you submit would be dealt with by PUW that is not dealt with by
existing responsible ISPs.

I'll give a list from an old post, which you obviously missed,
Something in this list might sort the difference?
Did you get satisfaction from your post here?:

From: "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.ass hole.lisa-horton
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:56 PM EST
Subject: Lisa Horton SUCKS BLACK ****** COCK

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:20 AM EST
Subject: BLACK PEOPLE are ******S, COONS, and SPOOKS

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:23 AM EST
Subject: COCKSUCKING ****** BITCHES SUCK WHITE PENIS and DRINK CUM

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:27 AM EST
Subject: CUM-SWALLOWING ****** SLUTS are CRACKHEAD WHORES

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID: .com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:28 AM EST
Subject: ******S SMOKE CRACK and STEAL MONEY

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID: .com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:29 AM EST
Subject: ****ING ******S are PORCH MONKEYS

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:33 AM EST
Subject: ******S have BIG DICKS and SMALL BRAINS ...

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:35 AM EST
Subject: AFRICAN-AMERICANS are ******S, SPOOKS, and JIGGABOOS

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:37 AM EST
Subject: ASIAN PEOPLE are GOOKS and DOG-EATERS

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:42 AM EST
Subject: ******-****ING WHITE SLUTS are COAL-BURNING WHORES

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID: om
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:44 AM EST
Subject: HISPANICS are SPICK WETBACK COCKROACHES
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Spose there would be language, one place or another, which would give this
fella a stint in the pokey?

x

"Robert McClenon" wrote

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:01:50 -0400, "Steve Young"
bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet wrote:

"Robert McClenon" wrote

You have previously stated that "fun-lovers" should "dog" someone who
is guilty of misuse of the Usenet in order to try to restore civility
or at least civilized behavior. This post was exactly the sort of
thing that a tribunal, if one existed, would find was out of line.

Distasteful and out of line, as considerate citizens, but I don't think PUW
would find this posting actionable. Nor do I think they would want to, as it
seems more an issue of free speech.

In that case, I am not sure why you claimed that PUW would restore a
measure of civility to the Usenet. You had specified that there would
be a tribunal, and that there would be a few 'hangin' offenses. I had
assumed that the tribunal would have jurisdiction for certain other
less serious offenses that were nonetheless clear violations of ethics
and etiquette.

Well yes, but as I mentioned in previous text about AUK, it should probably
well from each newsgroup. Certainly different rules and standards would
apply. Example might be a contrast between alt.flame and say
rec.photo.digital. I would recommend groups define themselves and set/select a
netiquette which would become part of a new charter, submitted to the PUW
tribunal, for any potential future adjudication. Maybe for the tribunal to
hear a case, a newsgroup would need to have a current charter on file?

As uncivil as this behavior is and as much as I believe it to be in *very*
*poor* taste, I don't think it would come within the tribunal's radar. It's
not criminal, not a forged addy and probably would not fit the libelous
specification.

If the tribunal would have jurisdiction over libelous posts, would it
apply US law, British law, Australian law, or European civil law?
Libel is a very difficult tort for real courts to adjudicate even when
there is no conflict of laws.

Maybe the tribunal can decide, as it sets up shop, what laws it would follow
as its precedent. Which jurisdiction laws would you suggest we work from?

Actually, I think it would belong under the purview of AUK, as a misuse of
their awards program. If you really do want to bring the poster to the
tribunal to answer charges, I would have a designated AUK representative
review the claim and if found in violation of their regulations, file
charges with the tribunal prosecutor. A guilty sentence could be worth
a few days in the dungeon, I'd think.

Are you and your buddies who like to have a knee-slapping good time
about to hound this disgusting anonymous sock-puppet?

I would certainly discourage this appalling post, but I don't think I could
find grounds to terminate a user for it. AUK might well be the right place
for further action, though they would have to decide that independently,
in accordance with their own constitution.

Since you have previously suggested that non-malicious trolls or
"fun-lovers" can actually help maintain reasonable behavior on the
Usenet, do you have any suggestions on what to do about the
sock-puppet who posted this disgusting attack on a dead man under the
names of Duncan Hamilton and Rob Wild?

Wouldn't one first have to decide what regulations were broken?
I've never expected or hoped for loose cannon lynching mobs.

If not, then I would suggest that Guy Macon and Rebecca Ore have been
right all along that Standard Advice is to ignore all trolls, both
innocent and malicious.

Well it looks like Matt thinks *you* fit the category snicker

If not, then you need to explain how Public Usenet White will help
prevent posts like this one.

It may or may not help on this type post. It would depend on what rules
might be implemented. I don't think it's in the tribunal's interest to
involve itself in distasteful postings, which do not harm and are
simply free speech. A good yardstick might be to ask yourself
if a person making such statements in real life
could be held accountable by the laws.

Since this post that was completely outside of any concept of human
decency also appears to be one for which PUW would not provide any
remedy, then it is not clear to me what PUW would accomplish.

Sure it might, but it won't be on just a whim.

Perhaps
you should bring to my attention at least one recent offensive post
that you submit would be dealt with by PUW that is not dealt with by
existing responsible ISPs.

I'll give a list from an old post, which you obviously missed,
Something in this list might sort the difference?
Did you get satisfaction from your post here?:

From: "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.ass hole.lisa-horton
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:56 PM EST
Subject: Lisa Horton SUCKS BLACK ****** COCK

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:20 AM EST
Subject: BLACK PEOPLE are ******S, COONS, and SPOOKS

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:23 AM EST
Subject: COCKSUCKING ****** BITCHES SUCK WHITE PENIS and DRINK CUM

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:27 AM EST
Subject: CUM-SWALLOWING ****** SLUTS are CRACKHEAD WHORES

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID: .com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:28 AM EST
Subject: ******S SMOKE CRACK and STEAL MONEY

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID: .com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:29 AM EST
Subject: ****ING ******S are PORCH MONKEYS

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:33 AM EST
Subject: ******S have BIG DICKS and SMALL BRAINS ...

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:35 AM EST
Subject: AFRICAN-AMERICANS are ******S, SPOOKS, and JIGGABOOS

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:37 AM EST
Subject: ASIAN PEOPLE are GOOKS and DOG-EATERS

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:42 AM EST
Subject: ******-****ING WHITE SLUTS are COAL-BURNING WHORES

From: "Lewis Lang "
Msg-ID: om
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:44 AM EST
Subject: HISPANICS are SPICK WETBACK COCKROACHES
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Spose there would be language, one place or another, which would give this
fella a stint in the pokey?

x