From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: use a KILLFILE
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:38:25 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Oct9.000614.3454@pei.com> fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott) writes:
>In article <386@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) 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.
>
>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.  

Good suggestion.

>>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

I didn't quite suggest that it "came close", only that nothing
came closer when they were looking.  A minor distinction, but
(IMHO) an important one.

And you are correct, it is unlikely, but I believe in giving people
the benefit of the doubt until it is shown that they are intent upon
disrupting the existing group rather than finding their own place....

>to keep in mind is that there is *no* arbiter of what's germane to an
>unmoderated newsgroup.  

Sure there is.  The current population of the group that has
been happily (sp?) communicating until the advent of the disruptive
force.  The status quo should always have precedence (perhaps even
when it is the status quo that is technically in violation of the
established charter, if no attempt has been made to enforce it).

>"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.

Perhaps we should.  I maintain that the current population of the
group is the best determiner of what is/is not appropriate material
for that group, and are perfectly within their rights to request
off-topic posters to relocate.  Of course this must stand up to
the "reasonability test".  If we're talking about nude windsurfing
in the comp.cpm topic because it hasn't had any real posts about cpm
in years <g>, then perhaps someone who has inheirted an Osborne would
have a decent case for being there......

>>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.)

How would this not help (given my initial assumption that they didn't
know how to request a group of their own)?

>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.

I was under the impression that, even if there were somewhere a set
of rules for creating alt. groups, that it was not frequently adhered
to.  If there is a concerted effort underway to try to get a mechanism
in place and honored I apologize for undermining your efforts.

I disagree w/ your comment about it being nothing more than a
"snide way of telling off some posters..."  In this case, the Chthulu
mythos is the creation of a single author (H.P. Lovecraft) perpetuated
by subsequent authors (and others).  It is a self-contained subject,
with perhaps the most tenuous of intersections with (what I understand
to be) the given topic of the group from which the original complaint
came.

If the Chtulu people were misguided, the best thing to do is reguide
them.  If this takes the creation of a truly appropriate group, then
it should be done.

If they Chtulu people were there merely to disrupt then there is
nothing that could be done about them anyway except placing an
entry in your kill file (assumming you have one...)

>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

Not my problem :)

I was merely suggesting a course of action to the person who had
the original complaint.

>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.

I got mail saying that a reorg has been proposed, 
I have no idea whether it is being accepted or not.

Is EVrrrrybody 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?

You can't.  You can merely present the opportunity for an 
appropriate place.  If they will not be redirected then they
ARE net.terrorists.  Someone had suggested that they were and
I was merely advocating giving them a chance before making
the assumption......

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And when you stop and think about it	|
(you won't believe it's true)		|	-Richard Hartman	
That all the love you've been giving	|	hartman@uLogic.COM
has all been meant for you.		|
Xref: sparky news.groups:18851 rec.music.bluenote:7727