Re: CDR: Re: list spam, game theory, etal.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are not sufficiently suspicious and cynical. Observe that the three people who are spamming and trolling this list have similar political views, views whose implementation requires a large and powerful state. You need to realie that I am OK with whatever political views are held and espoused by anyone (even yours James!) - if they are here to engage on them, I think thats *great*. It's the intrinsically dishonest crap that I have issues with - and Jei/Choate are not (AFAICT) dishonest (although Jim has this *awful* habit of mapping me into the wrong political camps). In fact, I appreciate Jim's spam, and have defended it here before (much to Jim's annoyane I am sure!). At least Jim's stuff is [usually] on topic, and a genuine attempt to push thought out to those who are willing to read his posts. Of course, this does not mean I agree with him on any particular issue or item (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't). mattd is a whole different ballgame. He is, as pointed out, quite simply an unmedicated nutjob who makes no visible attempt to do anything but mumble to himself out loud to anyone who is present, with no attempt to engage or even mumble [loosely] on topic. His current fascination with Peter [Trei] is a great example of why he has made it into my killfile - Peter outed him for plaigerism sp?, and mattd's response has been to go on and on about how evil Peter is, and how Peter needs to die... sheesh! jei appears [to me] to be legit by intent, but so unfocused as to have made it into my killfile simply as a defensive measure - I simply can't wade through his massive volume, and still get to the 300-500 operational emails I have to deal with each day. I *do* [often] think about how justified his killfile entry is, and I may well remove it during periods of reduced load here. Jim has never, and likely will never make it into any of my killfiles - he is obviously, *completely* and totally legit. Obtuse sometimes, but legit nonetheless (although i *really* wish he would stop and think before lumping me in with his evil CACL crowds :-) -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: CDR: Re: list spam, game theory, etal.
-- On 7 Feb 2002, at 1:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim, I believe Peter's point, and mine as well, is that posters such as Jei and mattd differ by their intent. Jei is obviously a participant, and an active one. Whether or not anyone cares to listen, he's legit in that he is actively engaging those who care to receive him. For those who do not, theres procmail et al. Until mattd made his actual purposes known (i.e., that this is seen by him as a free archive service), I had [personally] lumped him in with Jei - vocal, but useless. You are not sufficiently suspicious and cynical. Observe that the three people who are spamming and trolling this list have similar political views, views whose implementation requires a large and powerful state. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG LBZS/lXIdVOggWZ/bDn33bxCsiH8DYxZ2xKxE7HW 4yk37ydIwy5UMMyob4oLqbVPCtqaLZB9GhpHxDJpO
Re: CDR: RE: list spam, game theory,etal.
Until mattd made his actual purposes known (i.e., that this is seen by him as a free archive service), Interesting who's objecting,the fools,liars and knaves are coming out of the rotten woodwork. I had [personally] lumped him in with Jei - vocal, but useless. You are not sufficiently suspicious and cynical. Stupid and cynical in your case,jamesd Observe that the three people who are spamming and trolling this list have similar political views, I've argued with choate and jei,your a selective quoter or liar for short. views whose implementation requires a large and powerful state. This is slander.If you said that to my face I would do you physical injury.I am an anarchist,25 years ago I was a labor voter,(once) and majihuana party once.Jamesd in his youthful foolishness spent SIX,(6!)YEARS in various authoritarian socialist groups/parties.Since then he's become a notorious online liar.(URLs available in archive and direct from me) Tailgunner joe's got nothing on jamesd,fucking lying scumbag and poor loser.
Re: CDR: Re: list spam, game theory, etal.
Jim, I believe Peter's point, and mine as well, is that posters such as Jei and mattd differ by their intent. Jei is obviously a participant, and an active one. Whether or not anyone cares to listen, he's legit in that he is actively engaging those who care to receive him. For those who do not, theres procmail et al. Until mattd made his actual purposes known (i.e., that this is seen by him as a free archive service), I had [personally] lumped him in with Jei - vocal, but useless. However, with the understanding that mattd is merely using [scarce] publicly donated resources solely for his own purposes, with no intent of paying the dues that really matter (i.e., interacting with those who share the CDR universe he has chosen to infest), he is exposed as a mere thief. Worse, he is exposed as a thief who is acting intentionally for the purposes of taking without giving, which *is* the ultimate list charter. At least the spammer can honestly say that her deliberate appropriation of others resources is done for the purpose of interacting (a sale and purchase is without question an interaction). Can mattd make this claim? Of course not. As to censoring being good or bad: you can only censor a view, or put another way, a *participant*. Preventing someone from using your (and I mean your==archive operators) facilities for their own single-sided gain is not an act of censoship. Nobody gave mattd the right to use your machines as an extension of his hard drive. I agree with Peter, mattd is *slime*. Spammers, by and large, don't bother me (unless I'm *really* raggy that day), but this sociopathic little shit is without question worth whacking. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Jim Choate wrote: On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Trei, Peter wrote: Read my post again. My problem was not with folks who want to talk or flame on or off topic. Your problem is your a whinner when you don't get your way or people with other views manage to stand toe to toe and point for point with your CACL drivel. It is with a person who disregards the entire notion of using the list for discourse of any kind. It is the list operators who make this decision, not the list members. It's that property thing you CACL folks seem to forget when it isn't your property. He posts things to the list (and thus into the archives) What and how people use the archives are the archivists decision to make. Not yours and not the users of the archive (there only decision is it relevant to their personal goals). simply as a storage device - saving him the time and trouble of having to save them to disk. He is indifferent to whether anyone else reads them or not. Which is relevant how? Take my pointers for example. I get plenty of feedback on their utility. One regular list member even found some work as a consequence (and it was relevant to cpunks topics to boot). I also intentionaly use the archives as a storage so if I, or anyone else, can get back to them easily. It's that community thing. If you are really that concerned, as an archivist versus a CACL whiner, about the use of resources then as the owner/operator you are free to filter as you see fit. You're myopic. This is abuse of the whole notion of a mailing list as a place of discourse. It is a sociopathic disregard for everyone who uses the list as a place for discussion and persuasion. It is more contemptable than even spam. Bullshit. Just plain and simple. A mailing list exists for the use and utility of its operators and subscribersk, AT THAT TIME. Not previous mailing lists, or social expectations writ large qualify as a binding precedence. Talk about somebody in a rut. As Jefferson said, the world belonds to the living not the dead. It's not sociopathic in any manner, opportunistic perhaps. In addition since there is no harm done to anyone it's a little hard to understand CACL complaints on these sorts of topics. Just goes to demonstrate my claim that CACL is really socialist at heart wanting everyone to do the same thing so a small group can benefit. What happend, your d key break? procmail quit working? -- James Choate - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ssz.com -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
