Phil is crossposting again!

[Bob Keeter]

Since they kicked his lousy butt out of Talk.Origins, look
like he has taken to trolling for flamebait over in
Sci.Archaeology. Guess we can ALWAYS count on the big guy.
Totally predictable, and consistently out there holding up the
honor of the SAP flag and doing professional science a service
across the entirety of USENET! Isnt that right, Poster Boy?

regards bk

[Patrick Ja]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 22:29:49 -0500, Bob Keeter wrote (in
message
<N0oSa.12568$Mc.902726@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>):

> Since they kicked his lousy butt out of Talk.Origins,

Ah, so sorry, but that's wrong. The Prince of Insufficient
Light has posted several items in t.o on this very day, not
least being messageID
<3f251384.5473699@netnews.worldnet.att.net> posted at 04:01:56
(UTC) today.

I think that he's changed his posting ID slightly. I'm not
sure, my filter nailed him and high-lighted his posts anyway.

> look like he has taken to trolling for flamebait over in
> Sci.Archaeology. Guess we can ALWAYS count on the big guy.
> Totally predictable, and consistently out there holding up
> the honor of the SAP flag and doing professional science a
> service across the entirety of USENET! Isnt that right,
> Poster Boy?
>
> regards bk
>
>

--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[Jabriol]

you mean DIG banned him again?

see denizens of News.groups?

"wax on", "wax off"

no sense in me writting a proper RFD, evry time the robot see
"Jabriol" it becomes wax off time..

how about writting and RFD for SAP to bann all cross post and
to have it moderated by.. DIG?

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:N0-
oSa.12568$Mc.902726@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Since they kicked his lousy butt out of Talk.Origins, look
> like he has
taken
> to trolling for flamebait over in Sci.Archaeology. Guess we
> can ALWAYS count on the big guy. Totally predictable, and
> consistently out there holding up the honor of the SAP flag
> and doing professional science a service across the entirety
> of USENET! Isnt that right, Poster Boy?
>
> regards bk

[Jabriol]

<ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
news:bfi5u8$ij2$1@tribune.usask.ca...
> jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ><ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
> >news:bfhhsr$dle$1@tribune.usask.ca...
> >> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >you mean DIG banned him again?
> >>
> >> >see denizens of News.groups?
> >>
> >> >"wax on", "wax off"
> >>
> >> >no sense in me writting a proper RFD, evry time the
> >> >robot see
"Jabriol"
> >it
> >> >becomes wax off time..
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:N0oSa.12568$Mc.902726@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink-
> >> >.net...
> >> >> Since they kicked his lousy butt out of Talk.Origins,
> >> >> look like he
has
> >> >taken
> >>
> >> I don't see what you are talking about. All I see is
> >> someone who is likely misinformed about the moderation
> >> policy of a group he probably doesn't read. Show me the
> >> moderator saying he's kicked you out totally (not just
> >> crossposts), and even the Rejection notices from the
> >> moderator for posts made only to T.O.. Until then, I
> >> won't believe a word you say about the moderation policy
> >> problems, and how they even justify an RFD. If you want
> >> to try an RFD, you are going to need to present these
> >> anyways, so you might as well do it now.y consideration.
>
>
> >You know the issue of DIG moderation dilema has viaited
> >News Groups
before
> >and it seems the attitude about moderation was a bit
> >different...
>
> Not at all. As far as I can tell, everyone was saying back
> then that the message below was pretty much incorrect, and
> we still think that.
>
> >351 articles generated:
>
> >here is the first message of the thread..
> >> Search Result 1 From: andysch@my-deja.com
> >> (andysch@my-deja.com) Subject: Minority has
> >> right to impartial moderator View: Complete
> >> Thread (351 articles) Original Format
> >> Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.censorship,
> >> news.groups Date: 2000-09-26 18:35:23 PST
> >
> >
> >>A moderator must be impartial. I can't imagine anyone
> >>disputing that.
>
> [snip]
> >>Moderators must be impartial and acceptable to the
> >>minority.
> >
> >>Andy
> >>-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >>there many comments originating from N.G regulars that
> >>agree's that moderation is not fair
>
> Which is what we've been saying even now. Moderation is not
> fair, at least not to the minority. No evidence of change in
> attitude here.
>
> >>---------------------
> >
> >>from Dig himself:
> >
> >>From: David Iain Greig (greig@ediacara.org)Subject:
> >>MODERATORS NOTE Re: Jabriol: Missing Link(tm) or just
> >>Net.Kook? View this article only Newsgroups: talk.origins,
> >>alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,
alt.usenet.kooksDate:
> >>2000/07/03 Bloody Viking <nospam@ripco.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >>Jabriol has also been the recipient of the personalized
> >>jabfilter on talk.origins; posts from Jabriol are scanned
> >>for Newsgroups: lines and he is limited to posting to
> >>talk.origins and alt.religion.j-w only. There is no other
> >>such rule in place in the procmail script.
>
> Read that last sentence. You were blocked in that instance.
> And before that, it is clearly stated that only crossposts
> from you are being blocked. That does NOT preclude you from
> posting to T.O. only. Quite to the contrary, he states you
> are being ALLOWED to post to T.O. (only). No evidence that
> you would be prevented from posting to T.O. alone (which is
> what I asked from you above).
>
> >>This was put in place after he started crossposting
> >>derogatory comments about abused women to the domestic
> >>violence survivors groups, rape
comments
> >>to alt.support.rape, etc.
>
> Note that such postings are OFF-TOPIC in those groups, and
> due to the failure for means to manage the problem local to
> those group, a means outside of the group was found: the
> moderator of T.O. was asked to help out, which is quite
> reasonable. No wrongdoing here.

First you would have the read, the original articles, to
determine if they were off topics. the original writings were
not, what became off topic, were the replies from within.
Talk.Origin n.g, which flooded these other groups. This
Philip Deiterwuss complaint against T.O. and still is.
Second, you have to consider the original poster who writes.
there are many Off-topic posts generated on Talk.Origins,
just take a look thru google. You will not see complaints
about these. Complaint are genrated when attempt to rebuttal
a post are based on ad-hom attack, which is very common on
talk.origin newsgroup. You will never read an obscenity from
me ever. It is the content of Material which get the ball
rolling. example, parapharasing my orignal post to ASRS was,
how do victims of rape would feel, if a defense attorney
would use the theory of evolution and natural selection which
include biological mandates as reproduction, as reason for
such rape to occur. the best place to ask was those who
survive rape in the ASRS NG. The assumption on my part, was,
that thos who write to the unmoderated news group are fully
aware that anything they write was at public display to
millions. few complaints, many answered sincerly about the
defintion of Rape, which was on topic for both groups. And as
with any disscusion you are going to have a few who
complains, wether the group is moderated or not. DIG does not
read all the posts, and evenback then, he had me in
personalized killfile. DIG reacted more to the complaints
generated inside T.O. than from the outside NG. the few
complaints, were the excuse needed to put up the block, since
he favors evolution, a political opportunity. This why I hint
of Iraq every so often..

the above may seem moot, but it should rise the question,
who determine what is or not on-topic in an unmoderated NG.
I have found, that not everybody has the same definition.
Which is one Philip dieklackof major flaw even among his own
in the SAP NG

>
> >>Since he continues to crosspost (I just checked todays
> >>batch, he
crossposted
> >>to incest survivors groups about how evolution mandates
> >>incest), the
filter
> >>will remain in place indefinitely. He is the only
> >>recipient of such a filter.
>
> Yeah, a CROSSPOST FILTER, not a blacklist block. Sure it is
> only for you, but it isn't an outright blacklist.
>
> >>He apparently lacks the intelligence to note he has been
> >>blocked.
Beyond
> >>that, ALL posts to athe alt.support* groups are dropped
> >>automatically, regardless of sender, on talk.origins. He
> >>also was the reason that rule was put into effect.
>
> He's still refering to the crosspost filter. So you have yet
> to present any evidence he is blocking you from T.O.
> totally.
>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------
> >>-------please
note
> >>above tha DIG does not mentioned complaints from other
> >>news groups,
simply
> >>he belivesthat my opinion of evolution are
> >>distatsteful..evidence of
content
> >>censorship..
>
> Having seen similar complaints about you and reading your
> postings in groups OUTSIDE of T.O., which look off-topic or
> inappropriate for those groups, I'd say you are wrong in
> saying he is only doing this because he disagrees with you.
> You are either a malevolent poster in these non-T.O. groups
> or you have EXTREMELY poor judgement. Either way, I think
> the moderator is justified in taking the steps he did. Until
> you learn better usenet etiquette (like learning what is
> appropriate to post to a newsgroups, regardless of what the
> charter says), you are going to continue to run into these
> kinds of problems.
>
> Frankly, if you make it to a CFV, I suspect it would be
> voted down by readers from OUTSIDE of T.O. because you so
> misused their groups, and they are afraid you would make
> things even worse, or even because of spite. Then I can see
> you truly making their groups hellish, to the point they
> create moderated versions of their groups just so they can
> block you out totally.
>
> ru
>
> --
> My standard proposals rant: Quality, usefulness, merit, or
> non-newsgroups popularity of a topic is more or less
> irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. Usenet
> popularity is the primary consideration.

[Jabriol]

"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0307230723.72eaa0b@posting.google.com...
> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f1db6c1$0$19581$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
>
> > "Susan S" <otoe@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:3g1rhvolkd9525qptdmiccgt8vu5cnd8n3@4ax.com...
>
> > > And I firmly believe that should Mr. J choose to post to
> > > t.o., without crossposting, he would see his message
> > > there. Do not think, Jabriol, I post anything in support
> > > of your outrageous behavior.
> >
> > nor did i implied it. Behaviour is in the eye of the
> > reader, has been discused in this ng. as for your first
> > comment about crosspost, would be that all crossposting
> > should be banned, this would make it fair. for me
not
> > to crosspost, while per example Ed Conrad can, it simply
> > not fair.
>
> This is largely irrelevant to what Susan said. And Ed is not
> widely admired for *his* crossposting to irrelevant
> newsgroups, either.
>

It is, but I do not expect you to understand, because that is
not your intent. as for Ed, DIG does not ban him, because from
T.O pont of view Ed make creationist look like clowns.He and
Phil provides comic relief to the group.

I get banned because my posts are dangerous, and TO do not
like for their beliefs to be thrown into a bad light.

> > > You have behaved badly and it seems only right that DIG
> > > should choose to punish that behavior.
>
> > again behaviour is in the mind of the reader, he claimes
> > that I can post what I want, only to T.O. demostrate the
> > he was not punishing my
behaviour,
> > would have been to totally ban me from the start.
>
> What is this nonsensical sentence supposed to mean,
> exactly...?
>

a tard would not understand..

> > But this would create a dilema, for him on TO.
>
> > As Ru mentioned, it was what I wrote. this mean the
> > Content of what I
was
> > writing and to who I writing it to was the problem, not my
> > behaviour per
se.
>
> Heh.
>
> On Usenet, what you write and who you wrote it to *is* your
> behavior. It's as simple as that.

ah no it is not simple as that. Behaviour is ascribe to
and implied.

I say homosexual behaviour is wrong. A homosexual would say,
nothing is wrong with his behaviour.

being gay, is it bad or not?

who defines what is good behaviour or what is evil behaviour?
based on what?

morals?

majority?

a single entity like a moderator?

>
> > > Most of us would also do so, in some way. Note that I
> > > did not say that DIG was wrong in what he did, just that
> > > I did not know about it until recently.
>
> > which support my original claim that DIG does not follow
> > the group
charter.
> > If he does not do so, why should anyone else?
>
> Since he's moderator, it's his choice as to whether he wants
> to change his policies or not. If *you* were moderator,
> you'd have the same choice.

irrevellant. next you going to say it was DIG
speech-writer fault eh?

>
> Once again, if you don't like DIG's moderation
> policies, leave.

uh.. do you see Talk.Origin in the header? try to be a bit
more consistent.

>
> And if you want to post a RFD, follow the proper guidlines
> for writing one.
>
> -Chris Krolczyk

which would have no effect because DIG will not accept a RFD
outside of T.O.

I am Outside of T.O. I can not post to T.O If I wrote one, It
will be conviently lost in Cyberspace.

DIG has a content moderation Ban as well. News.groups agree
that he has one.