1  2  |   Order by index

Mar 31, 2001, 1:31am

Does anyone know how to filter someone out in Outlook? I could do that with
Agent, but now I use Outlook, I don't know how to do it. Due to the
insulting attitude of some people, posting here or sending me insulting
emails, I want to restrict my reading. crEepS keep on insulting Roland, any
newbies that come in here, whatever touches his/her/their autist feelings.
I AM GETTING SICK of this. I understand that people with sick minds should
be allowed to function in the community. But not at everybody's expense. So
if you know how to set up a filter in Outlook, your contribution is welcome.

XelaG

Mar 31, 2001, 1:47am

Make sure the subject message from the sender is highlighted, then click
Message, and Block Sender. To remove blocked senders, click Tools, Message
Rules, Blocked Senders List.

Hope it helps.

-BirdMike-

[View Quote]

Mar 31, 2001, 4:49am

Thank you :)

[View Quote]

Mar 31, 2001, 7:12am

OMG man yer ellipsis count is way down you didn't SLEEP or somethin did
ya? :)

[View Quote] > Welcome to the 'next level'... :-)...
>
> Most people who use the NG(s) (that I have any dealing with) for the
> exchange of ideas and info usually end up filtering (B)eep and 'his
> type'. There will always be those who don't mind the dribble (and some
> who encourage it - takes all kinds I guess) but the NG wasn't set up
> for that type of nonsense and it gets tired real quick...
>
> I'v had (B)eep and a number of others filtered for years now... The
> posts I'm left with are either informative or at least not a waste of
> my time (I'v yet to miss out on anything important with the filters in
> place - mainly because those filtered don't add content, they just run
> others down)... Even those I don't agree with have the common sense to
> present themselves like adults...
>
> Like anywhere else, there will always be those who have nothing of
> import to say but feel they need to add their 2 cents and usually at
> the expense of others (seems this is the only way they can prove to
> themselves they matter).
>
> I now don't have to listen to it... The NG(s) are of use again... :-)
>
> PS: I know you asked about Outlook but for those Readers who use
> Netscape... You can find the options for filtering by clicking on
> 'Edit|Message Filters'. Then just create a 'New' Filter. Simple
> enuf'...
>
[View Quote]

Mar 31, 2001, 3:24pm

Check out :
news://andras.net/3AC4DEE4.7FDF7F91%40oct31.de

<eg>
Andras

Apr 1, 2001, 10:14pm

Can't help with Outlook but I do agree with you concerning the crEepS. Sad these
newsgroups degenerate to chat rooms. Simple monitoring to break flame brigades
and chat sessions would not be hurting anyone's rights... they always have the
right to enter a chat and crEep.


[View Quote] > Does anyone know how to filter someone out in Outlook? I could do that with
> Agent, but now I use Outlook, I don't know how to do it. Due to the
> insulting attitude of some people, posting here or sending me insulting
> emails, I want to restrict my reading. crEepS keep on insulting Roland, any
> newbies that come in here, whatever touches his/her/their autist feelings.
> I AM GETTING SICK of this. I understand that people with sick minds should
> be allowed to function in the community. But not at everybody's expense. So
> if you know how to set up a filter in Outlook, your contribution is welcome.
>
> XelaG

Apr 2, 2001, 2:38am

wow, we are not going nuts I see.. Eeps imbecility is widely known. Well, I
just wonder what he's doing in this world, and why he is allowed to post...
don't bother to answer, crEEP, you're filtered.

[View Quote]

Apr 2, 2001, 5:32pm

Don't make me start my anti-censorship rantings again. THAT is why he's
allowed to post
[View Quote]

Apr 2, 2001, 7:07pm

Anti-sensorship? Geesh!

Why should Eep have the right to abuse people just because he holds
different views to them? This thread, and the others like it that have
cropped up recently, are all about Eeps lack of respect for OTHER people's
right to free speech. That's when people forfeit their own rights ... like
when criminals bet banged up in jail for adversely affecting other people's
lives.

People hide behind the internet like this because its safe. Its pathetic and
runs the danger of spawning a generation of over-opinionated, gutless idiots
who can only express themselves in such a non-confrontational environment.
Eep is simply the most affected person that most of us (that can lead a
functional life in the real world) have experienced so far. The link that
Andras has taken to posting onto these threads (heh heh ... nice one Andras)
about Eeps exploits in other newsgroups indicates to me FAR too much time
spent staring at a screen to express his opinions instead of facing the
world and standing up for his beliefs. Its f**king sad! REALLY f**king sad!

Everyone has the ability to filter Eep if they wish, but that's like moving
home to avoid noisy neighbours. It shouldn't be our problem to sort out ...
its his problem and if need be, he should be restricted from affecting other
people's lives in this way!!

Anti-censorship is idealistic crap ... and it takes a VERY weak-minded
person to need to feel the need to hide behind that for a little validation.

Sorry it had to be your post I latched on to, Wing. Its the culmination of
ploughing through endless threads of "twitf**kwit" garbage from a lowlife.
As far as I am concerned you put yourself out there to be shot at by
bringing such a subjective topic into an unadulterated flame war.

Grims



[View Quote]

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
use.

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.

Moria



[View Quote]

Apr 2, 2001, 7:55pm

We had the chance to kick him out, but many of us thought it was wrong
so...

[View Quote]

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
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.
>

Moria

Apr 2, 2001, 9:02pm

[View Quote] > Why should Eep have the right to abuse people just because he holds
> different views to them?
Same reason everyone else is allowed to abuse Eep for not agreeing with him.

>That's when people forfeit their own rights ... like
> when criminals bet banged up in jail for adversely affecting
> other people's lives.

Uhhhhhhhhhh? Since when is discrediting those that don't agree with you in
any way possible a crime? Please, lets not overcrowd the prisons more until
we take over Iraq and turn it into what Australia used to be.

> People hide behind the internet like this because its safe. Its pathetic
and
> runs the danger of spawning a generation of over-opinionated, >gutless
idiots
> who can only express themselves in such a non->confrontational
environment.

Okay, what generation are you referring to? The internet really only became
what it is in the 1990's, making today's middle and high school students the
only ones developmentally influenced by it. Being one myself, I can tell
you, you're lucky if you can get ANY opinions out of most of us, and as far
as being able to express themselves in a non-confrontational environment,
the class wuss has disappeared. Simply because we haven't been raised in the
Utopia our parents presented, a sexless, viiolence free world where all
humans are paper cutouts and therefore there is no race, no religion, no
NOTHING to differentiate between groups with, doesn't make us defects, but
it sure as hell assures that there aren't going to be many wusses coming
into the world unable to make decisions for themselves.
> Eep is simply the most affected person that most of us (that can lead a
> functional life in the real world) have experienced so far. The link that
> Andras has taken to posting onto these threads (heh heh ... nice one
Andras)
> about Eeps exploits in other newsgroups indicates to me FAR too much time
> spent staring at a screen to express his opinions instead of facing the
> world and standing up for his beliefs. Its f**king sad! REALLY f**king
sad!
>
> Everyone has the ability to filter Eep if they wish, but that's like
moving
> home to avoid noisy neighbours. It shouldn't be our problem to sort out
....
> its his problem and if need be, he should be restricted from affecting
other
> people's lives in this way!!
>
> Anti-censorship is idealistic crap ... and it takes a VERY weak-minded
> person to need to feel the need to hide behind that for a little
validation.
>
> Sorry it had to be your post I latched on to, Wing. Its the culmination of
> ploughing through endless threads of "twitf**kwit" garbage from a lowlife.
> As far as I am concerned you put yourself out there to be shot at by
> bringing such a subjective topic into an unadulterated flame war.
>
> Grims
>
>
>
[View Quote]

Apr 2, 2001, 9:07pm

Impressive. However, I wasn't going the free speech route, AW is an
international community. When did I make a reference to the Constitution
anyway?
[View Quote]

Apr 2, 2001, 9:24pm

My bad, didn't finish replying in last message.
[View Quote] It doesn't matter how much time he spends staring at a computer screen, it
makes him no lower than you or I.

>
> Everyone has the ability to filter Eep if they wish, but that's like
>moving
> home to avoid noisy neighbours. It shouldn't be our problem >to sort out
....
Bad analogy. Yes, it SHOULD be our problem to sort out, some people have the
common sense to weed out the flames and pick out the good part, kind of like
eating a lemon, unless you're REALLY weird, you don't eat the outer parts
(not sure what you'd call it). But you don't ask the fruit distributor to
peel them for you.


> Anti-censorship is idealistic crap ... and it takes a VERY >weak-minded
> person to need to feel the need to hide behind that for a little
>validation.
Call me names all you want, but censorship makes weaker minded people than
myself. I seek no form of approval, I'd be perfectly happy if I were in the
position of all the world's evil dictators combined-everyone hates me, so
what.


> As far as I am concerned you put yourself out there to be shot >at by
bringing such a subjective topic into an unadulterated >flame war.
>
Getting shot at doesn't scare me, we all hafta die sometime...

Apr 2, 2001, 9:38pm

[View Quote]
> Same reason everyone else is allowed to abuse Eep for not agreeing with
him.

I think you'll find that's a consequence of his actions ... not people
exercising their rights to abuse him. Like shooting back at the guy shooting
at you.


>
> Uhhhhhhhhhh? Since when is discrediting those that don't agree with you in
> any way possible a crime? Please, lets not overcrowd the prisons more
until
> we take over Iraq and turn it into what Australia used to be.

You missed the analogy, Wing. "Like" ... regarding forfeit of rights.


>
> and
> idiots
> environment.
>
> Okay, what generation are you referring to? The internet really only
became
> what it is in the 1990's, making today's middle and high school students
the
> only ones developmentally influenced by it. Being one myself, I can tell
> you, you're lucky if you can get ANY opinions out of most of us, and as
far
> as being able to express themselves in a non-confrontational environment,
> the class wuss has disappeared. Simply because we haven't been raised in
the
> Utopia our parents presented, a sexless, viiolence free world where all
> humans are paper cutouts and therefore there is no race, no religion, no
> NOTHING to differentiate between groups with, doesn't make us defects, but
> it sure as hell assures that there aren't going to be many wusses coming
> into the world unable to make decisions for themselves.

Actually I totally disagree. From what I can see of that generation (partly
due to them being given rights they can't handle thanks to that monstrosity
called "Political Correctness"), too many believe that they are prepared for
making decisions for themselves. That combined with the internet is a recipe
for disaster in my eyes. Despite your apparent animosity towards your
parent's generation, remember that these are the people who started WW2 and
ran with it for 6 years ... and we all know what started that, so don't slag
off what you don't know and apply juvenile stereotypes. The diversity was
there, but they didn't have the benefit of the experience of their older
generations like you guys do. You should be thankful that that generation
learned the lessons the hard way for you ... and respect them for it.

Besides, again, I thought I was clear when I used the term "runs the danger
of spawning" rather than the incorrect "will spawn". Calm down ... there's
no spite here LOL.

Apr 2, 2001, 9:48pm

[View Quote] Cool ... more to comment on LOL


> Andras)
time
> sad!
>
> It doesn't matter how much time he spends staring at a computer screen, it
> makes him no lower than you or I.

Ya see, it all ties in with the lack of social skills. Interaction with real
people rather than words on a screen and other players in games (a) isn't
natural and (b) creates people like Eep who, as I said, hide behind their
keyboard. What accountability is there? If you treat someone like Eep does
face-to-face, when you have NO idea who they are or what they're like, you
stand a good chance of getting pummelled! Big deal hiding behind a computer.


> ...
> Bad analogy. Yes, it SHOULD be our problem to sort out, some people have
the
> common sense to weed out the flames and pick out the good part, kind of
like
> eating a lemon, unless you're REALLY weird, you don't eat the outer parts
> (not sure what you'd call it). But you don't ask the fruit distributor to
> peel them for you.

And you accuse ME of a bad analogy LOL. Although comparing Eep to a lemon
makes me smile.


> Call me names all you want, but censorship makes weaker minded people than
> myself. I seek no form of approval, I'd be perfectly happy if I were in
the
> position of all the world's evil dictators combined-everyone hates me, so
> what.

Wasn't aimed at you ... or anyone in particular. You're far too touchy
(which kinda helps make my point about surviving in the real world).


> bringing such a subjective topic into an unadulterated >flame war.
> Getting shot at doesn't scare me, we all hafta die sometime...

LOL ... no answer to that.

That's it from me on this (unless someone goes for my throat LOL).

Grims

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
>anyway?


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.

Moria

Apr 2, 2001, 11:08pm

[View Quote] I take offence than you feel you cannot call someone by their (assumed) name. Shall I call you Snoria because I disagree with your post(s)?


> 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.

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

> 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).

Anti-censorship is a wonderful policy and I fail to see how it is only used by the weak. By allowing a topic to be discussed, how are you failing to address a real problem? 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?


> 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.

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


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.

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.


-Agent1

Apr 3, 2001, 6:07am

I consider that newsgroups should be open for weak and strong, knowledgeable
and less knowledgeable, English speaking or foreign. Exactly for that
reason, to protect this freedom of speach, there are some minumum
requirements. It is sometimes in the defence of freedom of speach that one
needs to restrict abuse: for example, it is forbidden in the Netherlands
where I live to foment and incite racial hatred, whether by speach or other
means... no matter how intelligent or knowledgeable a person is, rules of
common decency and respect apply to him/her. When a person systematically
abuses others, he/she degrades to a lower life-form socially. We all have
out tempers and disagreements, but there must be some limit of decency which
should not be trespassed.... Making freedom of speach an absolute axioma is
absurd.

XelaG

[View Quote]

Apr 3, 2001, 6:25am

[View Quote] If you wish:) it certainly won't make me insult you or threaten you, unlike
some:)

> 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
others.

>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
newsgroups.

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
immune.

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
problem?

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.

>
behavior
>

> 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
so.:)

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.

Moria

Apr 3, 2001, 7:54am

Censorship is a tough issue. It's needed, yes, but the power to censor corrupts
to some extent. Just as Gamemasters tend to abuse their authority, and
bandleaders, and pimps [g], any time someone has even a little power over
someone else there is a temptation to abuse that power.

I was sort of the mayor/janitor/entire-civic-center of AW for a while, simply
because nobody else was willing to do it I guess. (Well at least nobody who Ron
thought could be trusted.) And I did abuse that a coupla times in small ways,
then felt guilty about it--possibly because I was raised to treat people as
peers and give them respect. The ironic thing is that the only times I got
called down for abuse of power (1) I did not (knowingly at least) abuse power in
the cases in question and (2) I basically became the focus of a group of people
who were seeking an authority figure to resent--but I had no real *authority*
nor did I want any particularly, I just really had responsibilities.

But I digress. [g] Let me see if I can make a point. (Forgive me please, I've
been playing Black and White almost exclusively all day and night...and before
that too.) In newsgroups censorship doesn't mean that much because you can
filter those you find offensive. But in other situations it does mean a lot,
and really even in newsgroups it's possible that young kids could be exposed to
things that their parents do not approve. If you don't think that's important,
most likely you are not a parent.

Soooo, as I see it there are two possibilities: either let it be a free-for-all,
or let someone run it. If you happen to like the person running things, all is
well for ya. If not, you can always start your own newsgroup or whatever.
PERsonally, when I ran the AW newsgroup, I ran it by pretty much the same rules
as we used on Compuserve. I censored personal attacks and cursing. Personal
attacks have driven a lot of folks out of this and other discussion groups. Eep
is guilty of that, and I find it hard to believe that whatever relevant
arguments he makes counterbalance that. And cursing is just not necessary in a
public discussion area IMO. In my home, and other situations where it is
allowable, I have one of the foulest mouths you'll experience. But in public
discussion areas, that just has no place as far as I am concerned. Eep's not
only guilty of that, he manages to combine the two pretty often.

Hoo boy, I guess I could have just summarized all this by saying "IMO public
discussion groups should be run the way we used to do it on Compuserve!" But my
guess is that will never happen because the folks in charge of AW are not, and
have never been, big on online discussion. And never will be most likely.

Oh and BTW Eep behaved for the most part in the newsgroup I ran, because I told
him I would band him if he didn't. :)

Apr 3, 2001, 7:56am

Oops make that BAN...

[View Quote] > [snip].... band him if he didn't. :)

Apr 3, 2001, 8:31am

Yes, make that BAN :)

[View Quote]

Apr 3, 2001, 9:44am

"agent1" wrote

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

But this is the bone of contention here ... the whole reason for the thread.
Plenty of people here believe that the level to which Eep takes the
overreation moves his comment into abuse. If we were dealing with Eep in a
real-world environment, face-to-face, I would bet that Eep wouldn't be
anywhere near as abusive as he is. It would be pretty intimmidating to have
a whole room of people reacting angrily to your comments rather than a large
number of posts in a newsgroup.


> 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.

Its not his opinions on the subjects that people have a problem with. We
have been through this discussion time and time again. Yes, sometimes he has
valid input ... and sometimes it is not so valid. Eep comments on everything
that he disagrees with (which if fine) ... but when someone disagrees with
HIM, he abuses them. People who can't exist in a civilised society are
ejected from that society ... (through natural selection, prison, etc.).
Does this forum not deserve to be run under the same rules as, and therefore
reap the same protection and benefits from other aspects of "life"?

On a similar note to your point, if you can be ejected from public worlds
such as Alpha World for using foul and abusive language and/or abusing
others, why not here?

Grims

Apr 3, 2001, 10:03am

What is interesting is that Eep was almost banned in the Worldbuilders newsgroup for
all the same reasons for this discussion, and was warned that
he would be if he continued the personal attacks. Then he tried it in Andras's
newsgroups and was warned by Andras that if he continued, he would be
banned. Now he is trying it here.... See the pattern? It would appear that Eep has
a deep seeded need to be the center of attention. If he can't get it one way, he
will try another. Since Eep never starts a discussion or topic unless it is either
bitching about something or flaming someone, it would appear that Eep has very
little creative thought that is positive in nature. Unlike Andras for instance, who
brings out new utilities, and even a new way for multiple OP's. And others who are
creative in a multitude of ways. While it can't be argued that Eep's world is the
epittomy (spelling?) of 3.1's capabilities, he doesn't seem to be able to express
himself appropriately in social situations. It would also appear that he loves the
attention that we bring on him be discussing his behavior now. In fact, I wouldn't
be surprised if he was sitting back and laughing his ass off watching us rant about
him...At least he got our attention focused on him...And that is what he is after
anyway.

Just my .02.

Holistic1


[View Quote]

Apr 3, 2001, 10:13am

Hmmm ... although its a low form of attention. If he gets a kick out of this
type of attention, then there is definitely something wrong there.


[View Quote]

Apr 3, 2001, 10:13am

Oh I'm not ranting, the guy doesn't upset me. I actually like to wind him up and watch
him chase his tail. ;)

[View Quote] > [snip] In fact, I wouldn't
> be surprised if he was sitting back and laughing his ass off watching us rant about
> him...[snip]
>
> Holistic1
>
[View Quote]

Apr 3, 2001, 10:17am

LOL...

Holistic1

[View Quote] > Oh I'm not ranting, the guy doesn't upset me. I actually like to wind him up and watch
> him chase his tail. ;)
>
[View Quote]

Apr 3, 2001, 10:18am

Some would say that any kind of attention is better than none at all. :)

Holistic1

[View Quote] > Hmmm ... although its a low form of attention. If he gets a kick out of this
> type of attention, then there is definitely something wrong there.
>
[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index