From: fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott)
Subject: Re: use a KILLFILE
Organization: Protocol Engines Incorporated
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:06:14 GMT

In article <386@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.210025.15371@pei.com> fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott) writes:
>Redirecting off-topic posts to the correct topic (which the poster
>*may* not be aware of) is why we have the "Followup-to:" header item.

True - I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from trying something practical
like that.  Trouble is, that won't do anything about folks who followup to
other messages but not yours.

For my money though, the most effective thing you could do is to just E-mail
the worst offenders and ask nicely that they drop your newsgroup from their
future posts on the subject.  Note - I said "nicely".  (Not condescendlingly!)
While it's true that they may not *deserve* cordiality, it's use will greatly
increase your chances of your request being adhered to (as oppose to having
the incidence of such posts *increased*, instead.)  But if it doesn't work, it
doesn't work.

>The Chuthlu-heads may have found that the ghost-stories group was
>the only thing even close to their "religion" (believe me, with some
>of 'em it comes close...) and decided to use it.  Mebbe they aren't
>aware of how to create a new group for themselves.

From what I've seen, I think that's extremely unlikely.  On the other hand, if
it's true, then perhaps they have a right to post there.  (That is, if their
material is arguably appropriate to the purpose of the newsgroup.  And if some
of it comes close, as you suggest, then that is, indeed, the case!)  One thing
to keep in mind is that there is *no* arbiter of what's germane to an
unmoderated newsgroup.  Just because person X "started the group" or person Y
"has been there for a lot longer" does not give either of these people the
right to stand up and say "hey buddy, your material doesn't belong here - get
out!"  If you think it does, then we ought to clear up that misunderstanding
right away.

>Of course, it *could* be that they are just net.terrorists that
>nothing will help, but it doesn't hurt to TRY to get 'em channeled
>into a group of their own if they are generating enough traffic
>to support one.

Not in this way.  (By creating a newsgroup that *THEY* didn't request.)

>>Somehow, I don't they're going to change their behavior because you've
>>"thoughtfully" created them a newsgroup to go play in.  Newsgroups should
>>be created only by people who truly want to use them.
>
>Or as a public service for the people who are interested in ghost stories
>and want to get back to their business.  Don't assume they're net.terrorists
>until they've had a chance to show themselves as respectable and refused
>it.

Sorry - I strongly disagree.  The net is full of junk alt newsgroups.  I don't
think there's a solution to that, either, given the rules for creating alt
newsgroups.  However, that doesn't mean we should be contributing to the
morass for these purposes.  From where I'm sitting, this is just a snide way
of telling off some posters whose contributions you don't happen to appreciate
and it has nothing whatsoever to do with creating a newsgroup which people will
actually use.

But maybe I'm misjudging and some of you actually think this will solve your
problem.  If so, to you I would say that if you think that, your responsibility
is to go ahead and suggest it to your "tormentors".  If they like the idea and
go with it, then you're right and I'm wrong and everyone will be happy.
However, it sounds like this has been done and that they didn't go for it.
If that's true, further action on your part makes no sense.  You can create
the newsgroup, but how are you going to *force* them to use it?

Fred