moria // User Search

moria // User Search

1  2  3  4  5  |  

Filtering out crEepS

Apr 2, 2001, 7:35pm
Greetings Wing,

Its a shame a non-american has to re-educate an american about what their
constitution states..

I assume were talking the first amendment here, ratified 15th December 1791
which is usually, incorrectly, quoted as allowing free speech for all.

The first amendment actually states...

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives everyone in this country
the right to free speech, unrestricted by government interference.

Its actual words are :-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, I don't see here where the government (Congress) would get involved,
they don't own AW or this newsgroup and cannot dictate whether anyone person
can be banned or not, in accordance with the constitution. In fact it would
be as wrong for them to say that all must be allowed as to say anyone should
be banned, but were not dealing with the government here, this is a
privately owned newsgroup not subject to government control.

Theres nothing in the US amendments that impose this required level of free
speech on individuals or organisations, in fact in further discussions it
has been stated that :-

"But, generally, the government can't set rules about the content of
communications --what is being said. Certain exceptions to that rules exist,
including one for obscenity. This is called "unprotected speech." If
something is obscene, the government can regulate it, and criminalize its

Although the government is not permitted to censor protected speech, that
doesn't mean that people aren't liable for what they say and do, especially
when they say things about others that can damage their reputation, or are
inflammatory or objectionable."

Again the government cannot regulate either for or against, that is the
total extent of the first ammendment, not the so widley held view that the
First ammendment allows for free speech by all.

Next you'll be saying that the amendments also allow any citizen of the USA
the right to bear arms without quoting the rest of that amendment as well.

Please, before you jump on the bandwagon of free speech on the internet as
quoted by the populists, do your research and learn your own constitution
and ammendments.


[View Quote]

Filtering out crEepS

Apr 2, 2001, 7:57pm
apologies, a line was missed out of my post.. my bad:)

its quite an important one as well:)

The commonly held belief is that
> The first amendment actually states...
> The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives everyone in this
> the right to free speech, unrestricted by government interference.
> Its actual words are :-
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Filtering out crEepS

Apr 2, 2001, 10:25pm
Wing, greetings. :)

>Impressive. However, I wasn't going the free speech route, AW is an
>international community. When did I make a reference to the Constitution

By censorship statements, if you agree with the constitution of the USA,
then everyone has the right to censor, both individuals and organisations,
only the government has no right to censor, as has been proved in court.

Censorship is actually a by-product of people like eep making it a necessity
rather than a choice, as for some people they have so little control, their
freedom of expression is taken way beyond the bounds of common decency to
the point where it intimidates or threatens others right to freedom.

Mostly those claims are based upon a supposed first ammendment to the right
of free speech, which as I have shown doesn't actually exist. (and where I
perhaps mistakenly picked up your inference)

If it wasn't for people such as Creep there would be no need to censor,
unfortunately the people that defend him or are like him are what make it
necessary for all.

If you really don't want any form of censorship (including that by
intimidation and threat), then spend your efforts adjusting the incompetant
kids that make it necessary, not the rest of the world who can play by the
rules and use rational arguments without degenerating into abuse and
mindless spouting of four letter words to try and intimidate.

Anti censorship is a tool used by those too weak to address the real
problem, and by allowing the problem to continue make it more needed than it
should ever be and is often only used in cases of banning or moderation
(which is obvious), rather than across the board on all forms (which are
much less obvious).

I agree that in a perfect world, censorship is not needed and should be
fought against, however while there are intimidating idiots around who
prefer to hide behind anonymity and use threatening and insulting behavior
of the type we see here on a regular basis to provide their own form of
censorship, then it becomes a requirement.

Generally the type of person who is so insecure that they can only attempt
to communicate by insult and harrasment rely on someone other than
themselves standing up and shouting.. no censorship, first amendment etc.
Very rarely will they do that themselves, they just sit back and smirk as
someone takes over to defend them and fight for them, often realising as
much as anyone that the person doing the fighting has been suckered into it
and being laughed at by the person they think they are defending.

In most cases, they rely on their own form of censorship to take over the
situation. Censorship can take many forms, its not just banning from
posting or whatever, it also takes the form of intimidation not to post, and
intimidation by threat.

To cry censorship as an overriding catch-all actually diminishes the
arguments about censorship, and ultimately makes it more needed than it
should be. Only by action, and proof that action will and can be taken will
result in your utopia, which I agree with, that censorship should not be
needed, although it is allowed for in the US constitution.


Filtering out crEepS

Apr 3, 2001, 6:25am
[View Quote] If you wish:) it certainly won't make me insult you or threaten you, unlike

> The problem is that Eep actually makes rational arguments (usually).

If you can show me any argument hes rationally carried out without resorting
to insult or threat, I would be happier. It might not make me change my
mind, but I would certainly be happier. But I feel that you miss the point
here, were not talking content were talking common decency and respect for

>There are a few cases (maybe even a lot) where I've seen him overreact
quite a bit, but that is no reason to ban him from posting to these

Actually it is, were not talking content of the posts here, were talking
intimidation and in a lot of cases total lack of respect and bigotry (such
as telling someone whos native language is not english to go learn it. And
this from a person whos native language IS english and cant always use it
correctly themselves, and has stated many time their own belief that someone
who doesn't know a language should not have to learn it to be considered an
acceptable authority on it such as C or C++ or even VB)

> If you were debating something with a person in real life and they started
to yell at you and hurl >profanity, would you have their mouth sealed shut
by the government?

No I would either call the police (censorship I expect you would say, and
have them arrested, as swearing and profanity in a public place is an
arrestable offence), or if no police officer were present probably smack
them (and put myself at risk of arrest), and it's because you can't
actually smack them or have them arrested for unacceptable behaviour due to
the 'nets lack of accountability that people get away with sub-human
behavior and start yelling and hurling profanity. Basically it is rank
cowardice of the lowest level due to the belief that you are anonymous and

than it
> Anti-censorship is a wonderful policy and I fail to see how it is only
used by the weak.

Agreed to the first part, the wonderful policy bit, but all to often its
only used in those cases that people see as direct censorship and not
against indirect censorship (hence the weak, those unable to see censorship
in all its forms). You didn't actually respond to the sections of the post
that referred to indirect censorship.. does this concern you, or are you
only against censorship in its most obvious forms?

> By allowing a topic to be discussed, how are you failing to address a real

The problem is NOT discussion, its prevention of intimidation. eep never
discusses, he states his god like opinion, whether right or wrong then
attacks anyone who disagrees. That is not discussion, that is intimidation.

>I do recall several people posting things with far less content than Eep,
yet no one has tried so >hard to get those people banned... Why?

Again its not content thats under discussion here. I have never suggested
banning eep for content, even though I think that sometimes his content is
misleading and in error, I have only said I support censorship/ withdrawal
of privaledge/ what ever you want to call it against those who have an
inability to control themselves in an acceptable manner in a public place
open to all, ie without resorting to insult or intimidation.


> Though I don't agree with filtering everyone who annoys me, if you dislike
Eep so much, then use the filter feature on your newsreader.

Why should I be forced to filter threats, profanity and racism and bigotism
and allow them to exist for all to see except me? Theres no reason for me
to add the same cowardice to my life by hiding the problem and letting it go
away for me but leaving it for others to be affected by it. By inaction,
those who ignore the above problems are inherrantly as guilty as the
perpetrator of the same. By filtering eep I would become his accomplice in
his hate campaign and thats wrong.

> Don't take away our ability to converse with a knowledgable citizen just
because you dislike >the way he behaves sometimes.

Apparently knowledgeable, but unable to back up his statements because he
doesn't have the background knowledge to even understand what hes written
sometimes. Because someone can spout things per rote, doesn't mean they
understand them. In a small set of cases those that do are actually very
intelligent, and prove it with appropriate intelligent discourse to back up
their point, unfortunately most are just idiots with a desperate need to
think they are intelligent and can only back up their arguments with bluster
and insult.

> To put a new spin on this... Since I don't like what you're saying, and
think you are acting in a stupid way, I should get AWCI to ban you from
posting... Then I won't have to deal with your opinions.

Sure if you want, but again youve totally missed the point, its not
content, its style. If you can prove I have sworn at you or intimidated you
or threatened you or used racist comments against you, I would expect it..
but then possibly I believe in others points of view as well, not just my
own, so its wouldn't be an option:)

> I agree Eep could change some things about his "technique" when it comes
to posting, but other than that, I will fight for him and any other
intelligent citizen who wishes to post here.

The crucial word there was I believe intelligent citizen:)

That is your right and I respect you for it, and you will have no problem if
I think your doing the rest of intelligent humanity a disservice by doing

In fact I think personally your doing eep a disservice. :) By defending
his right to act in his way, you are giving him the green light to assume
his attitude is acceptable. The more he believes it the more likely he is
to use it face to face with someone in real life, at which point he will get
a smack in the mouth or arrested. Now if hes intelligent enough to know its
not acceptable in real life, then hes also intelligent enough to know its
only because of the anonimity of the 'net he can use it to intimidate and he
really is a low life relying on others to let him get away with it. If hes
not intelligent enough to know its the nets annonimity and does use it in
real life, then all those that stuck up for his right to say what he wants,
no matter how unacceptable will be guilty of letting him down when he does
get that smack.

Remember we can be as guilty by commision as by ommision in all cases.


Filtering out crEepS

Apr 4, 2001, 8:57pm
[View Quote] dream on newbie troll.

(proud member of eeps killfile list)

Filtering out crEepS

Apr 5, 2001, 5:06am
LOL too right, in fact that castle I built out there is still there..
surprised the heck outta me when I went back:))

So is the maze underneath it, and ya know??? perhaps I never stopped trying
to build Meridian.. am now playing with a set of bots for RPG style gaming,
who knows.. maybe one millenium:))


[View Quote]

Re: newbiness (was Re: AW name history)

Mar 31, 2001, 3:54pm
actually hes laughing at you eep, as are most of the rest of us:)

most of us who actually WERE around in the early days know that the only doc
we had was that provided by Dataman, including the one you quote as his, and
the one you incorrectly assume was his, well before you even found AW.

Most of us at that time also bought the book by Ferraro and spent hours
talking to people from Worlds Inc to find out how it worked.. of course
they were happy to talk to us then because there wasn't someone constantly
slagging them off in the newsgroups or online.

So lets sum up here.. the doc existed before you arrived, and yet he copied
your work.. ermmmm I don't think so, BUT the pages are very similar after
the point you state, and yet yours followed his.. let me see who was
copying who?

The fact that, like with so many other things, you saying something doesnt
make it fact.

Suck filter crEEP and go play on the other games newsgroups where your held
in even less esteem than here, which is zero.


[View Quote]


Apr 1, 2001, 3:16pm

> If I were you, I wouldn't jump to conclusions. Things do happen for a
> reason. Not that it matters.. Half of this newsgroup has you filtered.
> :D
> SW Chris

Thank you for the apology, oftimes things like that do happen when theres a
server error in transit or similar.

As you say, don't worry about crEEP's comments, most newsgroups he posts to
consider him a newsgroup newbie and a troll:)


Re: newbiness (was Re: AW name history)

Apr 1, 2001, 6:57am
[View Quote] Try to cut out the previous posts that are not relevant to your reply

As you have said yourself, Datamans page was created first and bears a very
similar look to yours which was created AFTER, so the copying was obviously
done by you who produced your page later.

The later sections were available well before you arrived in AW and formed
the basis of most experimentation regarding animation in the early days. It
also mentiones how to do something in C which with your accepted denial of
being a programmer you would have no idea how to do. It also goes into some
detail about the proporties of Truespace and COBTORWX, of versions before
your time, its also referred to in The New World Times, before your time.

Of course, all this thread has arrisen as an attempt by you to disguise the
fact that in your origional post you were WRONG about the name derrivation
of AlphaWorld and Active Worlds.

Two wrongs in one thread.. as I said, you screaming about something and
resorting to childish name calling doesn't make it right, it usually only
compounds the errors and proves that you have no rational argument to back
up your claims.

Do you want to call Mommy (your killfile) yet and say mommy the big bad man
is annoying me take him away I cant cope and killfile me yet? or try
further to defend your stance that your documentation wasnt copied from
people who actually knew what they were doing before you arrived and sink


Re: newbiness (was Re: AW name history)

Apr 1, 2001, 3:00pm
[View Quote] you

in which you added the introduction and... means you took my page and added
the introduction and everything upto.....

If you cant explain yourself in english then go back to school and learn it

Stop trying to bluster your way through with insults that have no relevance
except to try and make yourself seem big to anyone under 3 years old.

> Ah but they were, twitfuck. Try not to quote blank lines, idiot newbie
fuck. Drive through.

Nope, you left in the bit from 2 posts earlier, to reply to me, they should
have been snipped, and try to find a new insult, I'm starting to think you
can only come up with one or two based on this post, and they are so boring
and un-origional, all they do is rearrange three very short words you
obviously heard somewhere.

> Can you BE any more dense, Moria? I'm sure you can. Let's
see. What part of "added the introduction and basically everything up to
"Creating Your First
> RWX model"" don't you understand, twit? Dataman's original page did NOT
have those sections and were only added until AFTER my page went up (which
was most certainly not ripped off Dataman's page. If anything I MAY have
borrowed stuff from Grover's pages, but I link to his anyway. <shrug>

Exactly, your saying that the stuff after that which bears a remarkable
similarity to yours was taken from yours and only the intro was added after,
which is blatantly untrue, in fact youve even admitted it now, which means
if there is a major similarity then you copied.

> Consider this my last response to you. Buh-bye now!

Then why did you respond further below?

denial of
> <yawn>

Sorry to keep you awake, it must be hard for you trying to rearrange three
words into an insult that looks different each time you type it, and you've
obviously given up here 'cause you've used all of the arrangements

> <yawn> Irrelevant to my point, twit.

Nope see above, and by the way, you missed two of your three words off the
insult, try again.

> Sorry, I wasn't. I was simply pointing out the truth to the unsure

Nope, you started it and posted it wrong, when challenged you blamed Mauz's
history, suddenly trying to absolve yourself of yet another cock-up by you.

> <chuckle> You must have an odd definition of rationality, sport; I've been
CONSTANTLY backing up my claims but you're too fucking cluelessly inept to
see that.

nope, youve constantly been trying to slam people down who disagree by
swearing at them, you have NEVER rationally backed up a claim, I don't even
think you would know how to, and not just on this newsgroup but on all the
others you try and infest as well. Saying you back them up is completely
different from actually backing them up, a point you seem to have forgotten
from Discussion and Debate 101, assuming you ever went to class.

> <yawn> "Bye-BYE!"

Obviously yes, you did call mommy cause you cant back up anything you say
when challenged. Run away little boy and go play with your dolls, they wont
answer back when you swear at them, and they will believe everything you say
without question, which in the real world doesn't happen.

PS glad to see you didn't top-post on that reply.. a bit more practice and
you may not be considered a newsgroup newbie or a troll.


Re: newbiness (was Re: AW name history)

Apr 1, 2001, 3:01pm
[View Quote] Yeah, sorry it was late, I must have missed some figures and a minus symbol
from the front.. sorry my bad typo :))


Re: newbiness (was Re: AW name history)

Apr 4, 2001, 8:55pm

but at the end of the day I remember someone else coming along and saying,
it don't matter as long as we keep AW as the initials:))))

You grouched about Active Worlds for ages, but what choice was there?? :))


[View Quote]

Re: You can't even spell

Apr 5, 2001, 5:02am
ahhh yes, but a "zee" and a "zed" are completely different:)))))


[View Quote]

another count

Apr 30, 2001, 6:31am
hmmmm that musta been me and the strange language was english (grin)


[View Quote]

to eep

May 15, 2001, 4:20am
actually, it is, as is coloured. Both are English. Not American English
Just English:)


[View Quote]

to eep

May 15, 2001, 7:25pm
youre heading desperately quickly towards idiot again.


[View Quote] > I opened a dictionary, typed the word, nothing showed it being a word, I
> what I was told to do, who is the ignorant one now? I was told to open a
> dictionary and it would be there.

to eep

May 16, 2001, 4:01am
lol am going to give you one last piece of info, which you may or may not
take to heart:)

check just one word of your post and see whether I have reason to believe
your still an idiot..

that word is..

[View Quote] > bitch

PS a dictionary may help you here, and as a clue its the same error whether
your using English or American English.


to eep

May 16, 2001, 8:24pm
well you still dont get it do you..

I AM NOT FEMALE... duhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!


[View Quote]

Final solution to everything.

May 12, 2001, 4:54am
LOL, what your saying is:))

Don't feed the trolls:))



[View Quote]

to moff

May 12, 2001, 6:46pm
Thats because thats exactly what he is:)


[View Quote]

to moff

May 13, 2001, 1:56am
[View Quote] Then stop acting like one


to moff

May 13, 2001, 1:57am
Well said:)


[View Quote]

to moff

May 13, 2001, 1:58am
[View Quote] > That is what I referred to "sit down with a dictionary and learn some new
> descriptive words" I took that as "big words", we use what language is
> needed

When you understand the difference between descriptive words and big words,
you may just progress from idiot to troll.

Good luck, you are the weakest link, goodbye


to moff

May 13, 2001, 2:48pm
[View Quote] yep

> What have I done to make myself an idiot?

read the rest of your post

> I said some
> things that were towards the real idiots (Chucks Party, JFK2) I am
> to think you are the weakest link? Agreeing with a few people doesn't
> you a big help. I used "descriptive" words as well as "big" words, the
> "big words" doesn't mean anything different than "descriptive words"

bzzzzzzzztt wrong! Until you realise thats not the case, you will remain
an idiot. Theres some very big words (big means long) that are not very
descriptive, and some very short words (not swear words) that are very
descriptive like "red"

,> it
> doesn't mean they are actually longer or anything like that, just means
> aren't commonly used words, because there are other words that mean the
> that are more common.
bzzzzttttt wrong.

> Off topic but I don't want to repost.
> In past post you agreed that wing was a "foul-mouthed kid". Prove it.
> or two swear words does not make you foul-mouthed. I am sure you have
> one here and there.

sure, but not here in public, and not in real life in public, I have a
vocabulary that allows me to express myself without having to resort to
using swear words.

Many people I know will resort to swearing in private, but most people have
the common decency to not inflict their immaturity on others in public.



to moff

May 13, 2001, 6:59pm
[View Quote] Why? are your opinions so much more accurate or important than mine? Are
you the police here? Do you want to be? Cause if you do, you need to read
the charter and determine whether you and others swearing is in breach of it
or not.

No one else who is
> mature seems to care about it besides Ananas, and as you can see in a past
> post, she/he DID state a reason that was logical.

Yep:) oh and its a he, and actually was a very similar reason to the one I
stated, which is why I agreed with his post.

You insult most humans on
> Earth by saying they are immature for swearing.

and you assume to much, just cause you think something doesnt make that
into a majority, have you ever heard of the silent majority and know what it
mans? I doubt it:) You MAY be right, but to assume is to be an idiot.

Most people on Earth
> including yourself has sweared once in their life. That must make you
> immature too huh?

Never said I wasn't, but then I don't have a problem with that:)

So, I still say your an idiot, but you are slowly progressing towrds troll.
keep trying.


to moff

May 14, 2001, 5:24am
don't flatter yourself, your not worth replying to generally, and if you
do get your account back, you (and jfk2) are on the permanent ban list from
any and all worlds I have caretaker in so that your idiocy and sadness
doesnt infect other parts of the AW universe. Can't be bothered to filter
you here cause you still make me laugh at you.

I notice that for the most part you and jfk have resorted to answering your
own posts in order to try and get some sort of recognition.. maybe that
says something.

M a k however still has hope, hes progressing up the evolutionary tree,
where as youve already sunk to the lowest level of hypocrite and sad idiot.

Hey, so I insult him, and he kinda insults me back.. its a two way thing
and hes getting much better at it. His last post had a real good dig caused
by a misplacement of words in my own post.. I thought that was good:)


[View Quote]

Rumors are they real or not???????????????

May 17, 2001, 5:48pm

firstly, no-ones got a problem, as far as I am aware, about dreamland park,
except for the constant spamming of this newsgroup by someone which leads to
everyone else saying.. stuff it, if thats the type of person they have
there, I'm not going.

Secondly, if you have a problem with someone in dreamland park, I suggest
you deal with it in their community newsgroups, we sure as heck don't want
another blood fued going on in here.

Honestly, most of us don't give a damn about trivia like the tirades
recently in here, let alone in another universe.

Lets see... we have one user spamming the newsgroup with adverts and
another telling us theres a situation where people are slinging mud at each
other.. is this a place I want to go and check out...

nahhhhhhhhhhhh not worth it.

Great advertising for dreamland.. keep it up:)


[View Quote]
<snipped for brevity>

Newbie Guide to the Newsgroups: Take 2 (VERY long!)

May 18, 2001, 5:21am

yep should deffinately be on a fixed link to the newsgroups and updated
regularly with new characters as and when they arrive:)


[View Quote] <snipped for brevity>

Posting in HTML

May 18, 2001, 1:55pm
since this came up in a number of threads I am posting some of the reasons
why HTML posting is not a good idea, although to the best of my knowledge
people only ask for non-html because of common courtesy not because its a

Why you shouldn't:-

1) generally HTML posts are advertising.. although you may have HTML
posters and readers not everyone has, so some of your audience won't get to
see them.

2) in these days of virii, its now possible to embed a virus in HTML or in a
JPG and so, those who are concerned about such things wont get to see the
posts, cause if you read a newsgroup post in html with a virii in it you
have got it before your anti-virus can kick in. Those who know will have
deleted it before it downloads so theres no risk.

3) if you post in HTML you can recieve in HTML making it much more likely
that you will get a virii from a newsgroup.

4) its an inflated message size.. a 1k post with a link to a 48k image is
much more likely to be read than those that see a 48k post and just delete
it cause its obviously HTML.

5) some people kill over a certain message size or kill anything in HTML so
its just not downloaded.

6) some people still have to pay to download headers and messages by the
minute so anything over a 1 or 2k post will be auto filtered out.

7) because of the virus risk, some ISP's filter out HTML before it even gets
to the possibility of downloading it.

If you want your posts to actually be read, then posting in HTML is a bad
way forward cause a lot of your potential audience won't actually ever see
its there:)

Why you might:-

1) you don't give a damn about virii and are happy to get one or transmit

2) you don't give a damn about anyone else possibly getiing one.

3) you don't give damn about people having to pay more to read your posts.

4) you're doing it to get a rise out of people.

5) youre a newbie and don't realise any of the above.

Personally I don't care cause my ISP filters HTML from newsgroups before we
see them, so I see none of them:)

Hope this helps.


Posting in HTML

May 18, 2001, 3:37pm
see point 4 and point 6:)


[View Quote]

1  2  3  4  5  | is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn