To people who complain about my replying to spam.

[steve]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in


But tacking a .invalid on the end would at least let people know that
it's useless to e-mail you there.

That's true but the address is also part of a honey pot to detect the
spammers who have fathomed out how to get through the filters. These
days I don't get much spam at all but I still like a challenge.

Steve

 

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

Yes, you're right. However, as I've already said, such a mistake
doesn't invalidate my other efforts. Not even close.

I didn't say it invalidates other efforts. I'm glad you file abuse
reports. I just think other people shouldn't rely on your posts about
when and where to send reports.

Good point. However, the complainers need to understand that
they're pissing in the wind and how to filter out my replies to
spam.

I don't have any problem with telling them how to filter the replies,
but if they'd rather continue to complain I think that's as valid as
your decision to continue to post the spam replies in the first place.

Ain't gonna happen.

I didn't really think it would.

Now though, it truly is the end of what I'll add to this thread.

Ok, see ya later.

 

[Franklin]

And why didn't YOU post that request to the OP, instead of boasting
into a thread in progress?

Have a good day, nevertheless...

It's because I'm hopeless.

 

[In_Parentheses]

It's because I'm hopeless.

<LOL>

 

[Aaron]

Oh, I see. You want it to be flooded with spam then. You're in a
minority in that case.

Huh? Dear John, I have no problems with you marking spam. I'm not so much
against your netcopish actions (not to say I agree 100%) , rather the way
you feel your need to start pointless threads to talk about yourself and
why you do it.

Today it's a thread about *you* and your marking of spam. Tomorrow it's a
thread about *you* and your
battle to define the word 'freeware'. The next day it's a thread about
*you* and your policy on answering 'trolls'. Some other day it about
*you* quiting the group (at least until you come back).

You see the pattern now? I wouldn't be surprised if you are one of the
major off topic thread generators on this group.

And surely you know these threads settle nothing and degenerate into
noise as bad as spam.

Now Imagine if everyone did that.

I will continue to do so when the need arises. If you can't understand
that my intent is to cut down on the amount of whining from newbies
who don't understand how to filter messages properly, then too bad.

I wouldn't presume to guess your intent. I'm simply pointing out the
results of your actions. More noise, which defeats your stated intent.

Do you see the irony, there?

 

[John Corliss]

I wouldn't presume to guess your intent. I'm simply pointing out the
results of your actions. More noise, which defeats your stated intent.

Do you see the irony, there?

There isn't any irony. I see a tradeoff in there being a small amount of
noise in this thread against there being larger amounts of noise from
newbies complaining about me dealing with spam.

Get it now?

Now you can post all the replies you want to this thread because I won't
be answering them.

 

[badgolferman]

Now you can post all the replies you want to this thread because I
won't be answering them.

You've already said this before -- several times.

I used to admire you for your dogged determination to stand up to the
"ware" controversies despite the mounting criticisms. Unfortunately
the words of Aaron ring very true of you. It seems you revel in
threads that discuss you and if there are none you create them in a
back-handed way to justify your questionable behaviors. There was no
need to start this thread when in the previous one when I questioned
you, you took the snooty attitude and shot me down with an "EOD". Why
didn't you just leave it at that rather than start this shit all over
again?

This is a non-moderated group. You are free to do and say what you
want, but you must be prepared to face the consequences also. If you
are going to be abrasive towards others then be man enough to take the
grief also.

 

[John Corliss]

You've already said this before -- several times.

And will keep repeating it as long as somebody like Aaron ignores my
having said it.

I used to admire you for your dogged determination to stand up to the
"ware" controversies despite the mounting criticisms. Unfortunately
the words of Aaron ring very true of you. It seems you revel in
threads that discuss you and if there are none you create them in a
back-handed way to justify your questionable behaviors. There was no
need to start this thread when in the previous one when I questioned
you, you took the snooty attitude and shot me down with an "EOD". Why
didn't you just leave it at that rather than start this shit all over
again?

AGAIN, and exactly as I told Aaron, because I saw a benefit to be gained
in the tradeoff of wasted bandwidth in this thread vs. wasted bandwidth
from continual whining from newbies who don't know how to set up a
proper filter yet.

This is a non-moderated group. You are free to do and say what you
want, but you must be prepared to face the consequences also. If you
are going to be abrasive towards others then be man enough to take the
grief also.

Badgolferman,
My reply was to Aaron, yet you chose to jump in and contribute. Now
who's wasting bandwidth?

As for EOD being snooty, I never thought of it that way. Rather, a
discussion takes two people and if I chose not to be one of the intended
participant, then obviously the discussion ends. Otherwise it becomes a
one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest.

And as for me being "man enough to take the grief", well then there you are.

 

[POKO]

Both sides of this issue have strong points. Anyone here think it would
be a good idea to see what Dr. Phil would propose?

 

[Roger Johansson]

Both sides of this issue have strong points. Anyone here think it would
be a good idea to see what Dr. Phil would propose?

Some people need to let out steam now and then, as they slowly unwind
from a very intensive state of mind, or a personality based on anger.

It is like living in a house where there is a man who just can't keep
quiet, he always finds a reason to start some quarrel or make some
sounds so others can hear him, and so he clears up what needs to be
cleared up.

Sometimes these high strung minds even believe in telepathy, that means
that he has to take care of the state of mind of all the people in the
house.

Sometimes they are very singleminded, and just cannot see things from
different perspectives, and it doesn't matter how much others try to
explain to such a person, he is so convinced that he is right that it
is impossible to make him see things from another perspective.

When others talk to him he says; You don't understand this.

I wrote an article about understanding and states of mind the other
day, which ended a long and heated argument, where people told me that
they talked about things that I didn't understand.
........

Some people say: You don't understand this.

It doesn't matter how you try to talk sense to them, they keep on
saying, you don't understand this, and it is nothing to discuss, this
is just how things are.

Such people can be impossible to deal with, because they have their
minds made up, and it doesn't matter what you say, they have their
convictions and won't even talk about it.

To them I want to explain something:

"To understand" is a dangerous thing to do.

To see things in the simple and direct way is often the opposite of
"understanding".

I tried to explain that when I talked about opera.
If you study it for long you might get used to it, learn to like it,
even love it.
But if you see it directly and in a simple way, like a child, it is
just people shouting in a very unnatural way.

The kind of stupidity that is a problem in the world is not a lack of
genius, it is an abundance of genius. A state of mind that is
overexcited and feels like intelligence, but it isn't intelligence, and

it is not natural either.
It is a created state of mind and is based on a mixture of anger and
conviction.

It makes people think that opera is fantastic, it makes them think that

they understand.

It makes people understand doublespeak, and understand why the society
has to be like it is. It is a state of mind closely related to
religious conviction.

The religious people "understand" that God exists, they "understand"
why it is right to be religious, they are mental acrobats who can make
anything fit into their world view, and they can "understand" how it
all supports their religious view.

That's why it is a lot more difficult to see things in a simple and
natural way, than to "understand" practically anything, because you are

in a state of mind which is overexcited and you can make anything
support the conviction you have.

Thank you for bringing up the issue of "understanding" things, this is
one of the pieces of knowledge which are badly missing in the minds of
people in general, and media people more than others.

If you have a mind which is like you recently took LSD you can
"understand" everything, everything fits, the world is complete,
everything is wonderful.

Only those who cannot "understand" this are poor people who we cannot
help, they do not have the mental acrobat skills needed to realize that

there IS a God, that God is good, that we all should get bibles, or use

LSD, or get married in a special way, or become mormons, or go into
scientology, or whatever..

This is the reason a lot of people think they are so right, they have
never learned that "understanding" is a dangerous thing to do, unless
you know where you are, what ground you stand on, what state of mind
you are in.

Lao-Tzu said: To get used to something is a terrible thing to do to
your mind.

Lots of writers are geniuses, overexcited minds that are basically
letting out steam from their boiling minds.

The world was dominated by geniuses, most of them were religious mental

acrobats, until the humanists appeared around the year 1500 and said
that we cannot build a world on the views of religious geniuses, on
God.

We have to build the future on mere mortals, people who are not
geniuses, mere humans. Humanism is the opposite of theism.

That was in opposition to the church, which is built on the views of
angels, of overexcited prophets, on supernatural minds, on the holy
spirit.

Humanism became the start of a new, rational, world order, a scientific

way to see things, a simple human way to see things.

This humanist approach led to great advances in science and technology,

it led to secularisation, it led to a massive decrease in power for the

pope, it led to democratic constitutions in most countries, equality
between men and women, human rights, and the whole modern world of
thought.

The churches tried desperately to counter this movement of humanism and

enlightenment, it changed itself in reformation and counterreformation,

it split up in protestantism and other half religious churches, they
even invented religious humanism, which is like compassionate
capitalism, a way to defend the current order by renaming it into its
opposite.

Humanism is atheism, and religious atheism is a contradition in itself.


But the people who think, who "understand", that their lifestyle is the

best thing ever invented, even though it is thousands of years old, are

trying desperately to defend their old culture, they could rename it
into anything if they just can go on creating men out of boys, if they
can continue being overexcited mental acrobats.

They don't mind calling it humanism, or atheism, or whatever, as long
as they can continue to be in an overexcited state of mind, as long as
they can keep the feeling of being absolutely convinced.

When a genius unwinds, as his mind is cooling down, he has a lot to
say, and it comes flowing, many writers are that kind of writers.

Few are the kind that has really studied certain issues and worked to
understand things from the simplest possible level.

Occams razor: Choose the simplest possible theory to fully explain
something. Simplicity is the basis of science.

Simplicity is also the goal of the most advanced eastern philosophy, to

become empty, is the goal for those who have their brains too full of
everything.

The western civilization in general has not really understood what this

means, it is based on too complex thinking, on supernatural strength,
on the idea of superhumans as an ideal. Only the most advanced
scientists and philosophers have even thought about this issue.

The philosopher Montaigne tried to remind the perfume-smelling and
powdered french aristocracy that humans are actually animals, and our
most basic needs are eating, shitting, and some simple lovemaking.

Darwin, who came with similar ideas, that man is just another animal,
was met with the same hate as Montaigne, because their views clashed
violently with the religious geniuses view, that humans are something
very different than simple animals.

To really understand something you first need to understand yourself,
and especially your own state of mind. This is simpler if you have a
lot of experience in different states of minds, and experience in
unwinding an overexcited brain, from positive overexcitement as well as

from negative overexcitement.

You need experience in how to become simple and natural, how to come
out of a heavy mind into an easygoing mind. And do it without
disturbing other people with your excess steam, no matter the excess
steam comes out as pure anger or as ideas.

A lot of people have only become extremely excited only once in their
lives, and have still not fully unwinded from that state of mind.

Others have been overexcited all their lives, by being trained into
strong personalities by their parents, and have never exprienced a
naturally relaxed mind.
Therefor they can easily be overcome by the experience of love, which
throws them into a very convinced state of mind, but just as unnatural
as their first personality as very strong minds.

The traditional cultures have made a mess out of people's minds, with
manipulation and violence, convictions and a social regulation system
for how people are allowed to be in their minds. And that is the big
cultural problem we are dealing with in the world today.

To judge the performance we can expect from scientific instrument,
like a voltmeter, we need to know what design it is and where and when
it was made, when it was last calibrated, etc..
"This voltmeter is made after a japanese high quality design and
specifications set up in Japan 1972, it was made by Mitsubishi in 1985
and it was last re-calibrated in 2004."

To judge the performance we can expect from a mind we can say, for
example, this mind is made after a well known design and specifications

set up in the middle east 3000 years ago, this specific mind was
created in Great Britain 15 years ago, and its history after the
creation has been mainly a lot of sex and watching football on tv,
drinking beer. It has a history of reinforcement and backup from the
community that made it.

By the way, the well known design set up in the middle east 3000 years
ago is infamous for its design flaws, tendencies towards aggression,
fanaticism, instability, dependency on a certain community, and other
problems.

Main types of minds:

1: The kind that was trained from early years by a dominating father
and/or mother and since then has not changed much. Has never
experienced another state of mind, and getting drunk on alcohol doesn't

count as experiencing another state of mind.

2: The kind that is the same basic design as number 1 type but has
experienced a change in the state of mind once, and that was organized
and manipulated by a community of other people which kept it locked
into this second state of mind with the help of social pressure and
rewards.

This is the most dangerous type of mind, as it is very convinced that
it knows best, that it has come out of darkness into the light and is
superior to the type 1 mind and all other kinds of minds. This is the
religious type of mind. This state of mind is overexcited and it feels
like intelligence, it feels omnipotent, all seeing, all knowing.
It usually comes in flocks and can be very dangerous, flocks of this
type of mind has had the power in some parts of the world for thousands
of years and has a history of violence, social domination, slavery,
bully culture,
superhuman ideals, torture, etc..

3: People who grew up with non-dominant parents, and was rebuilt by
itself during youth, has experienced many changes in the state of mind,

rewinding from both negative and positive experiences, has studied
cultures and knows itself fairly well.

4: People who grew up with dominating parents, but has since then
experienced a lot of changes in the state of mind and is not part of a
certain secret community.

The number 1 and number 2 groups are the biggest groups, and the number
1 type is the result of the social rule of the number 2 type.
If you grow up with a strong father whose mind is built on anger or
conviction you often become a strong character yourself, a type 1
personality.

Both types are slowly unwinding as they get older, and that often
happens in ways which others are disturbed by. Fanaticism of all kinds
comes from this type of culture where the number 2 type rule. Strong
convictions and anger is the basis for this culture. Those are also the
social tools used to uphold these created states of mind.

 

[Caesar Romano]

Today it's a thread about *you* and your marking of spam. Tomorrow it's a
thread about *you* and your
battle to define the word 'freeware'. The next day it's a thread about
*you* and your policy on answering 'trolls'. Some other day it about
*you* quiting the group (at least until you come back).

You see the pattern now? I wouldn't be surprised if you are one of the
major off topic thread generators on this group.

And surely you know these threads settle nothing and degenerate into
noise as bad as spam.

Now Imagine if everyone did that.

Well said.

 

[Caesar Romano]

If you have a mind which is like you recently took LSD you can
"understand" everything, everything fits, the world is complete,
everything is wonderful.

Where you on Acid when you wrote that; or are you a psychologist?

 

[badgolferman]

And will keep repeating it as long as somebody like Aaron ignores my
having said it.

And in doing so continue to decrease any credibility you have.

AGAIN, and exactly as I told Aaron, because I saw a benefit to be
gained in the tradeoff of wasted bandwidth in this thread vs. wasted
bandwidth from continual whining from newbies who don't know how to
set up a proper filter yet.

You've already said this a hundred times. And it's also been said a
hundred times that the newbies won't know how to make a spam complaint
if you did everything for them except hit the SEND key. Make your
report to the ISP and let it go at that. Others can get the
information just like you did and they can complain also. Your
"altruistic" approach is not going over well with the majority of the
group.

Badgolferman,
My reply was to Aaron, yet you chose to jump in and contribute. Now
who's wasting bandwidth?

I never complained about wasting bandwidth. I complained about
propogating the spam messages to the group. Replying to those spams is
making more spam IN THE NEWSGROUP. Either my news server
(ReadFreeNews) must be doing an outstanding job of filtering the
original stuff out or my eyes are filtering them out because I don't
see very many except for the ones you reply to. I suppose I will have
to learn to filter out those also since you stubbornly refuse to change
your behavior despite many pleas to do so.

As for EOD being snooty, I never thought of it that way. Rather, a
discussion takes two people and if I chose not to be one of the
intended participant, then obviously the discussion ends. Otherwise
it becomes a one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest.

No, it is the same as holding your hand up in someone's face and saying
"Speak to the hand, you're not worthy of my time." Yet you keep coming
back to the discussion to have the last word -- again and again. That
is extraordinary arrogance.

I have nothing against you personally and have said many times I
admired your determination and to a point your motives. I am just
disagreeing with you on this point and don't wish to exacerbate this
anymore. You do as you please and I will occassionally question your
tactics when I don't start out my day with the right frame of mind.

 

[Aaron]

There isn't any irony. I see a tradeoff in there being a small amount of
noise in this thread against there being larger amounts of noise from
newbies complaining about me dealing with spam.

'Small' amount of noise in this thread = 70+ posts so far. And you
thoughtfully "forgot" to even label them OT until reminded.

Have you received 70 complains from 'newbies'?

Nice tradeoff.

Get it now?

Yes, John, I don't get anything but you always do. lol.

Now you can post all the replies you want to this thread because I won't
be answering them.

I hope we won't soon see a new thread started by you explaining why *you*
don't answer posts from me.

 

[Aaron]

And in doing so continue to decrease any credibility you have.

IMHO John's crediability has being in a downward spiral for a while
already.

John has always being helped by the fact that he has being targetted by
obvious trolls whose only intent is to attack him and hence this has
generated some sympathy, so that for many people a knee jerk reaction is
to attack these people.

JC probably takes these responses has support of him.


What he doesn't see is that this obscures the fact that for a while now
perfectly respectable posters like yourself, some even long time
'allies' of John are starting to realise that there is something really
wrong with John and are distancing themselves from him if not turning on
him.

No doubt this being usenet, this comment will draw one or maybe even two
posters who will disagree and state that JC is a god (like the last time
I posted a similar assessment where *one* poster did so) but the lack of
numbers itself merely supports what I am saying.

Let me also draw a distinction between what JC believes in, and how he is
acting. Of course almost everyone here is against spammers, and most want
a 'pure' definition of freeware, but nobody here acts like JC.

By all means, support the pure definition of freeware, act against
spammers, but don't act in a way such that you start threads that reeks
of attention seeking by painting a picture of 'me against the world'.

The problem with that is whenever JC gets into the picture (or more
likely starts it), rational discussion is pretty much impossible because
of the way he tends to personalise the issue ('Why I do what I do') not
to mention his 'rich' history...

Such issues are difficult enough to handle, without someone with a big
ego going out of his way to personalise it.

EOD.

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schneider?=]

Let me also draw a distinction between what JC believes in, and how
he is acting. Of course almost everyone here is against spammers, and
most want a 'pure' definition of freeware, but nobody here acts like
JC.

Yes. It takes a lot to be mentioned in a FAQ about a software product
(40tude dialog):

Quote:
"[...] And yes JC, regardless of what the definition of freeware is in
JC land, Dialog is freeware [...]"

http://tinyurl.com/mudvd

 

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

Yes. It takes a lot to be mentioned in a FAQ about a software
product (40tude dialog):

Quote:
"[...] And yes JC, regardless of what the definition of freeware
is in JC land, Dialog is freeware [...]"

http://tinyurl.com/mudvd

It doesn't take too much to get mentioned in a wiki. The threads that
so upset some Dialog users did some good at the time. It wasn't
freeware at the time, and Marcus clarified his main Dialog page.

 

[John Corliss]

Let me also draw a distinction between what JC believes in, and how
he is acting. Of course almost everyone here is against spammers, and
most want a 'pure' definition of freeware, but nobody here acts like
JC.

Yes. It takes a lot to be mentioned in a FAQ about a software product
(40tude dialog):

Quote:
"[...] And yes JC, regardless of what the definition of freeware is in
JC land, Dialog is freeware [...]"

http://tinyurl.com/mudvd

Yes, it's freeware now that it no longer has a time limit! What's so
hard to understand about that? Do you think that time-limited beta
software is freeware? What's next, shareware?

Regardless, let's not get off on that tack again. It's a done deal.

 

[John Corliss]

badgolferman deliberately kept this thread going by writing:
I've just changed my mind. I'm going to keep this up as long as YOU do.
You're deliberately provoking me and then giving me a bad time for
having to reply to your accusations. You ask for it and I give it. You
can expect nothing else.

And in doing so continue to decrease any credibility you have.

Well, If you're going to throw something like that out, you should
provide some supportive proof. I've done nothing in this thread that
encroaches on my credibility and resent your implication that I have
done so.

Hmmm. Let me pause a second to quote myself:

"set up a proper filter"

You've already said this a hundred times.

Don't think I'd go that far. Maybe a total of about four or five times.
However, when somebody ignores my having said it and goes on like I
didn't, I will understandably feel compelled to repeat myself.

And it's also been said a
hundred times that the newbies won't know how to make a spam complaint
if you did everything for them except hit the SEND key.

And here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

I don't *CARE* if newbies can send a spam report or not! All I care
about is that they can filter out my replies if they don't like seeing
them. If there's anybody in this group I would like to see send spam
complaints, it's those who have the technical experience to do so. My
replies can save them the time of having to look up who to complain to
and that's undeniable.

Yet, again, and since you don't seem to understand what I mean by what I
want, I will say that:

IF ANYBODY DOESN'T LIKE HAVING TO SEE MY REPLIES TO SPAM, THEY CAN
EASILY SET UP A FILTER ON THE SUBJECT LINE INCLUSION OF THE CHARACTER
STRING *SPAM* TO MAKE THEM DISAPPEAR!

What's so hard to understand about that or in fact to do?

Make your report to the ISP and let it go at that.

Who's trying to moderate the group now?

Others can get the
information just like you did and they can complain also. Your
"altruistic" approach is not going over well with the majority of the
group.

Baloney. It's not going over well with you and Aaron. You're both upset
because I've disengaged from argumentative threads with both of you at
some point in the past. (Aaron, I must admit, has pissed me off very
badly in the past and I generally don't even care to discuss anything
with him anymore.) And when the tone of such discussions turns sour as
those ones did, I will frequently EOD in the future. Perhaps though,
since (as you indicate further on down) my using "EOD" bothers you so
much, I'll use another phrase.

I never complained about wasting bandwidth. I complained about
propogating the spam messages to the group.

I do not "propagate the spam messages to the group." I always (except
for a few times I have slipped up far in the past) carefully delete the
contents of the spam from my replies and you know it. And since I'm not
propagating spam and you aren't complaining about waste of bandwidth,
then what are you complaining about?

Replying to those spams is making more spam IN THE NEWSGROUP.

Shall we now argue over the definition of spam? It's well known that the
term "Spam" is a nickname for UCEs. UCE is an acronym for "unsolicited
commercial emails". If unnecessary posts can all be termed "spam", then
I could just as easily label your replies to this thread as such.

Either my news server
(ReadFreeNews) must be doing an outstanding job of filtering the
original stuff out or my eyes are filtering them out because I don't
see very many except for the ones you reply to. I suppose I will have
to learn

<sarcasm on> Dear God! What an enormous learning curve THAT will be!

to filter out those also since you stubbornly refuse to change
your behavior despite many pleas

From only a few people - that list including yourself -

to do so.

How hard is it to set up a filter on the subject line inclusion of
*SPAM*? I know that you have the technical skills to do that, so what is
your excuse for not having taken care of this long ago in the past?

No, it is the same as holding your hand up in someone's face and saying
"Speak to the hand, you're not worthy of my time."

Well, to be truthful, in many cases that's exactly the scenario.
However, I didn't intend it that way. From now on, I will simply say
that I'm bailing out of the thread. Or perhaps, "I don't feel like
arguing anymore and this is going nowhere, so I'm out of here."

Yet you keep coming
back to the discussion to have the last word -- again and again. That
is extraordinary arrogance.

Being human enough to not want to lose face is not "arrogance". And
besides, you are no different. To make matters worse, you keep provoking
me to respond with criticisms that are easy to argue against as I have
done in this reply (for instance, your assertion that I'm concerned that
newbies are able to send spam complaints. I NEVER said that I was!

It's obvious that YOU want the last word and are trying everything in
your repertoire to convince me to let you have it. As long as you
criticize me of thing I'm not guilty of, it's not going to happen.

I have nothing against you personally and have said many times I
admired your determination and to a point your motives.

Then you should admit to yourself that such determination takes a high
degree of doggedness and let it go at that.

I am just disagreeing with you on this point and don't wish to
exacerbate this anymore.

And yet you have chosen to do so by posting the reply to which I am
responding with this.

You do as you please and I will occassionally question your
tactics when I don't start out my day with the right frame of mind.

Then you shouldn't complain when I try to defend myself against your
criticisms. You should understand that If you are going to be abrasive
towards others then be man enough to take the grief also.

 

[Aaron]

Yes. It takes a lot to be mentioned in a FAQ about a software
product (40tude dialog):

Quote:
"[...] And yes JC, regardless of what the definition of freeware
is in JC land, Dialog is freeware [...]"

http://tinyurl.com/mudvd

It doesn't take too much to get mentioned in a wiki.

Q, So when's the next time we are going to see your name in a wiki for
doing the same as what JC does?

Also you planning to start any new threads about your handling of spam?
Your censorship policy? Your definition of freeware? Your coming and
goings?