From: Jenn on

"Leythos" <spam999free(a)> wrote in message
> In article <hplkoh$ip8$1(a)>,
> me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says...
>> Which rules? Are you talking about rules set in internet stone, or the
>> ones
>> people actually practice by what they actually do? :-) As far as I can
>> no
>> one considers any rules on ngs not subject to change on the fly. Have
>> you
>> had a different experience?

> You really are one of those people that believes you can do what you
> want as long as it pleases you.

I go with the flow. Most people complain about the rules to others while
they don't follow the rules themselves. I'm at the stage in my life now
where I'm pretty comfy with who I am, and I've earned the right to do as I
please, which doesn't really include doing anything harmful. As far as I
can tell, posting something that someone might take offense to because it
could be considered *off-topic* means nothing in the grand scheme of life,
or even ngs. Next week the topic and complaints will move on to the flavor
of the day.

> Did you know, while alt groups are sometimes free-for-all's, in a non-
> Alt group, there are charters that dictate the prescribed behavior, and
> that some ISP as well as Usenet providers will terminate your account
> for constantly violating the rules.

I don't think I'm worried since you've pretty much been participating in
this off topic discussion, and I don't believe you're going anywhere anytime

> In the early days a group started as an alt group and after months or
> years of being controlled by rules it could request to be moved out of
> the alt structure....

ok .. so?

> While you may believe that your desires actually mean something, acting
> against the rules show your contempt for the rest of us and the
> structure put in place, which seems to make you and BD a match.

hahaha oh come on ... by your own participation in this conversation you're
as guilty as you say I am ....

Jenn (from Oklahoma)

From: Jenn on

"Leythos" <spam999free(a)> wrote in message
> In article <hplkqv$j3m$1(a)>,
> me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says...
>> "Leythos" <spam999free(a)> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.26281ffed92878dc98a2a0(a)
>> > In article <GLydnWiPGZ4TySPWnZ2dnUVZ8mOdnZ2d(a)>,
>> > BoaterDave(a) says...
>> >> *Why* is her opinion unworthy? Tell me that.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Chaos is not what the Structure and Ideal of Usenet is about, read it
>> > for yourself and then follow the posts to determine if "I'll do it my
>> > way because I want to do it my way, even if everyone says it's wrong"
>> > is
>> > valid or just arrogance.
>> >
>> Do you consider the natural ebb and flow of human conversation to be
>> chaos?
>> (interesting thought)
> If it's not on topic in the group, then it's a form of chaos.

So if you really believe that.. why keep responding? :)

Jenn (from Oklahoma)

From: Jenn on

"FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)> wrote in message
> "Jenn" <me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in message
> news:hplkqv$j3m$1(a)
>> Do you consider the natural ebb and flow of human conversation to be
>> chaos? (interesting thought)

> A resemblance of order arising from the emergent behavior of entities in
> chaos.

wow man.......... that's deep <grin> no really.. it is............. :D

> If the entities weren't in chaos, they would be able to stay on topic -
> being constrained as it were.

Human nature demands that freedom allow it a choice.

> Entities with simple rules can display emergent behavior that appears
> complex, from the flocking of birds (boids) and schooling of fish, to
> butterfly migrations,

That is more along the lines of innate responses than it would be responding
to simple rules.

> to the lifecycles and behaviors of computer worms and viruses (which can
> carry spyware with them). This is probably why mathematical definitions of
> malware have taken a back seat to behavioral definitions.

There is a simple beauty to math .. it even has it's own ebb and flow...
more or less a parallel kindred existance.

> The fact that some AV or AM application doesn't see some malware shouldn't
> really surprise anyone.

... nice ebb and flow there taking the conversation back to being on topic.

Jenn (from Oklahoma)

From: ~BD~ on
Leythos wrote:
> People have been saying that Usenet is dying for a decade, and it's not
> any closer to dying today.
> You keep making excuses for not following the rules that have stood for
> a long time - you show your contempt for Usenet and the structure.

I make *no* excuses but I do think for myself.

> How can YOU feel that YOU are more important than something that was
> created and has worked well before you even learned it was here. Your
> belief that you have a right to change it tells a lot about you.

Maybe it's to do with my training as a pilot?!!!

Ever heard this?

"Rules are for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of wise men"

The saying has been attributed to Sir Douglas Bader

^ Brickhill 1954, p. 44. Note: (also quoted as "...for the obedience of
fools and the guidance of wise men.") In Reach for the Sky, this quote
is attributed to Harry Day, the Royal Flying Corps First World War
fighter ace.

There's a reference here in this thread (the last post, no pun intended)
which provides a good example of why pilots are taught to think for
themselves rather than blindly stick to rules.


In the UK a red light at traffic lights means 'stop'. In parts of the
USA I believe a red light allows one to "turn right on a red" - have
*you* ever done that, Leythos? I found it felt good to do that! :)

Dave - Restraining myself from saying more!
From: ~BD~ on
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> Why not respect Usenet yourself?
>>>>> Usenet is not a chat group that you can ramble on about any given
>>>>> subject in any given group - the GROUP NAME DEFINES THE DISCUSSION
>>>>> If you want to "Talk" with people about non-Anti-Virus things,
>>>>> then you should respect Usenet and how it was intended to be used
>>>>> and take your discussion to email.
>>>>> It's simple to follow Usenet methods, if you care.
>>>> Everyone has a different view! Here's an example:
>>>> <snip>
>>>> There, SeaNymph said ........
>>> "SeaNymph" is definitely not a person whose opinion should be used
>>> as a reference to describe how Usenet works.
>> That's like throwing down a gauntlet!
>> Perhaps you should consider saying that to her face, BTS.
>> *Why* is her opinion unworthy? Tell me that.
> Why should I? You yourself just called her "acid."

I just have an inkling that you might enjoy the freedom to do as you
wish - and say what you like - on Scorched-Earth.

Regardless of your view of me, I've always appreciated *your* posts and
you helped me a great deal in my early days in newsgroups. There are
some good folk there who are *not* geeks and have lives in the real world.

Aardvark went there from 24hsh to cause mayhem for a few days (he
thought) last Autumn - he is still there! He's knowledgeable about many
things and you might just enjoy the conversation! Mike Easter, too, has
stayed - he's forgotten more about computing than I have ever learnt! He
has helped me a great deal too and that is much appreciated.

SeaNymph? You'll not take to her though. Of that I'm sure!

Me? I'm off to my narrowboat again tomorrow to prepare here for our
summer cruise! More real life from now on for me, less frustration for
you ..... though I will take my laptop for when it rains! ;-)