Announcement regarding the F.A.Q.

[|3iff //ullins' flonk]

fizzle pop Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:02:32 +0000, whir sput ssssput Andy

<SFX: Cheers>

i agree with this post.

**
|3iff "flonk" //ulins
CEO Indignitas - Formerly Alcatroll Labs Inc. (A Subsidiary of SNUH)
flOnk aT vERizOn DoT nEt

" "
-Marcel Marceau

 

[|3iff //ullins' flonk]

fizzle pop 26 Oct 2003 17:27:32 GMT, whir sput ssssput Henk de Jong

I *think*

no you don't if you *did, you'd retire from usenet.

**
|3iff "flonk" //ulins
CEO Indignitas - Formerly Alcatroll Labs Inc. (A Subsidiary of SNUH)
flOnk aT vERizOn DoT nEt

" "
-Marcel Marceau

 

[John Corliss]

WHACK

Did somebody say something?

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

I did not catch that! What was his ID du jour, for that --
remember?

T-Ray.

AFAICT, he came back here recently to ask questions about some
software he was having trouble with, saw that the spyware and adware
he favors was still being discouraged here, and went off the deep
end. His posts going back to the beginning of his time here show
that he always thought spyware should be promoted in a.c.f. He
resents the fact that spyware is not welcome on the PL. Genna was
one of the first to try to reason with him, so maybe that has
something to do with what he's doing now. After enough people told
him that the "help" he was offering was not helping, he added this
to his posts:

ATTENTION: The site(s), program(s) above/below
MIGHT contain Adware, Spyware, Shareware or other
such things that some find objectionable.

He even sometimes made a slight effort to weed out the spyware &c.
from his posts.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

What do you mean by as legitimate as a.c.f.? The group is already
a valid usenet group. It just didn't have a charter sent with the
control message.

a.c.f.d was newgrouped by an abuser using a web form to send control
messages. It was rmgrouped a little more than an hour later. These were
the reasons given for the rmgroup:

* No discussion in alt.config
* Improper short description
* No numerical justification

The newgroup cmsg in question was generated by a web
page form, leading to an improperly formatted cmsg that
bypassed the normal avenues for alt.* group creation.
The brief existence of this web page has created nothing
but frivious newgroups, and most are of the joke/revenge
nature. The group list is human-screened before being
rmgrouped

 

[Boomer]

a.c.f.d was newgrouped by an abuser using a web form to send
control messages. It was rmgrouped a little more than an hour
later. These were the reasons given for the rmgroup:

* No discussion in alt.config
* Improper short description
* No numerical justification

The newgroup cmsg in question was generated by a web
page form, leading to an improperly formatted cmsg that
bypassed the normal avenues for alt.* group creation.
The brief existence of this web page has created nothing
but frivious newgroups, and most are of the joke/revenge
nature. The group list is human-screened before being
rmgrouped

Okay. I understand that. But what good is discussing it in a.c. now
going to do?

 

[dszady]

a.c.f.d was newgrouped by an abuser using a web form to send control
messages. It was rmgrouped a little more than an hour later. These were
the reasons given for the rmgroup:

* No discussion in alt.config
* Improper short description
* No numerical justification

The newgroup cmsg in question was generated by a web
page form, leading to an improperly formatted cmsg that
bypassed the normal avenues for alt.* group creation.
The brief existence of this web page has created nothing
but frivious newgroups, and most are of the joke/revenge
nature.

You are refering to groups like alt.fan.andy-mabbett, for instance?
If you aren't, I will.

 

[dszady]

You are refering to groups like alt.fan.andy-mabbett, for instance?
If you aren't, I will.

Good heavens, I've been cross-posted!

 

[Blinky the Shark]

AFAICT, he came back here recently to ask questions about some
software he was having trouble with, saw that the spyware and adware
he favors was still being discouraged here, and went off the deep
end. His posts going back to the beginning of his time here show
that he always thought spyware should be promoted in a.c.f. He
resents the fact that spyware is not welcome on the PL. Genna was
one of the first to try to reason with him, so maybe that has
something to do with what he's doing now. After enough people told
him that the "help" he was offering was not helping, he added this
to his posts:

ATTENTION: The site(s), program(s) above/below
MIGHT contain Adware, Spyware, Shareware or other
such things that some find objectionable.

I remember that.

He even sometimes made a slight effort to weed out the spyware &c.
from his posts.

I didn't remember that.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Okay. I understand that. But what good is discussing it in a.c.
now going to do?

None, unless propagation is still a problem. A news admin could
reasonably (IMO) refuse to carry the group because of that rmgroup. If
there aren't any troubles with servers not carrying it, no reason to
bother alt.config with it.

 

[Boomer]

None, unless propagation is still a problem. A news admin could
reasonably (IMO) refuse to carry the group because of that
rmgroup. If there aren't any troubles with servers not carrying
it, no reason to bother alt.config with it.

Thanks, »Q«. I understand now.

 

[benalias]

I am immediately taking down my version of the F.A.Q. This is a
permanent change and is not open for discussion.

It is certainly your right to take down webpages that you yourself
have created. But I am curious as to *why* you did take this down,
and as to why you took it down *immediately.* I would have been
happier with something like two weeks notice.

If you want an F.A.Q., I suggest that you either go with John
Fitzsimmons' version or create a new one at the Pricelessware site.

The last four words of the above-quoted sentence seem to hint at
something I am not understanding. Why should it matter where the site
is of a new FAQ to be created?

BTW, I* was able to find an archived copy of at least most of your
FAQ, but possibly in an older version than the one you had up just
before you took it down. It seemed to have a lot of useful
information, and I am sorry that you took it down.

C'ya.

Ben

------------------------------------------------------------------
*My computer skills and knowledge are at best "moderate."
So I assume that if I could find an archived copy, most ACF readers
could do so too. I am curious as to how you managed to avoid Google
having a "cached" copy of your FAQ. They do have a cache, but it
contains the same "nothing to see here" material that is now present
at the URL of the former FAQ site.

 

[REMbranded]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

BTW, I* was able to find an archived copy of at least most of your
FAQ, but possibly in an older version than the one you had up just
before you took it down. It seemed to have a lot of useful
information, and I am sorry that you took it down.

Agreed. It is a helpful guide.

Discussions as to what is on topic and off topic in the group were not
meant to deflect from the FAQ.

 

[John Corliss]

Agreed. It is a helpful guide.

Discussions as to what is on topic and off topic in the group were not
meant to deflect from the FAQ.

For those who would like a copy of my version of the FAQ, use this link:

http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/ACF FAQ.zip

However, the site will not go back up.

 

[REMbranded]

John Corliss <[email protected]#> wrote:

For those who would like a copy of my version of the FAQ, use this link:

However, the site will not go back up.

Do you mind if I put it online?

 

[Vegard Krog Petersen]

John Corliss wrote:

For those who would like a copy of my version of the FAQ, use this link:

http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/ACF FAQ.zip

However, the site will not go back up.

Thanks, John!

 

[Andy Mabbett]

For those who would like a copy of my version of the FAQ, use this
link:

http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/ACF FAQ.zip

Q:

Any bets on how long 'til it's back?

A:

29 October 2003 11:08:51 - 26 October 2003 12:35:09

= less than three days.

 

[Alan]

2) Could a second forum be started where the disagreements could be
discussed in more depth? Something like
alt.comp.freeware.disagreements

There is alt.comp.freeware.discussion, but it is rarely used. A large
component of the loud voices prefer posturing to useful discussion. This
is their real agenda, so ACF is their preferred venue.

3) Could another forum be created where dissenting members could
discuss different varieties of software that does not meet the
definition of pure "freeware"?

alt.comp.adware (I think it's called) was invented to serve this purpose
in part. Nobody seemed to use it much because it quickly filled up with,
guess what, adware.

 

[John Corliss]

Do you mind if I put it online?

Yes, I very much do.

 

[John Corliss]

Yes, I very much do.

I took down the F.A.Q. because Susan Bugher wants to include an F.A.Q.
on the Pricelessware page. I suggest that the group start discussions
about the creation of that F.A.Q.