Would Bozo change its ways, given mutual blocking? Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with. "the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic) "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so" (Bozo lying) "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bozo being weird) -- Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1cc4:b0:435:b8a0:1fe9 with SMTP id g4-20020a0562141cc400b00435b8a01fe9mr25076839qvd.54.1651161776692; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:02:56 -0700 (PDT) > X-Received: by 2002:a81:1087:0:b0:2f7:da07:6d89 with SMTP id 129-20020a811087000000b002f7da076d89mr22852680ywq.412.1651161776309; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:02:56 -0700 (PDT) > Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:02:56 -0700 (PDT) > In-Reply-To: <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com> > Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=118.208.108.19; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi- > NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.208.108.19 > References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com> <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com> > User-Agent: G2/1.0 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Message-ID: <789c0c43-5460-420e-9936-edbeecd0e699n@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet > From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:02:56 +0000 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Lines: 60 > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:667650 > > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 3:06:41 PM UTC+10, palli...@gmail.com wrote: >> IEEE Bill strikes again - bill....@ieee.org wrote: >> ==================================== >> > >> > > Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. >> > >> > One has to wonder why John Doe would think that. >> ** Does he really have actual thoughts ? >> > Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to >> > giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a >> > second Capitol invasion. >> >> ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that. > > Not after he'd sworn his oath of office. He didn't pay any attention to it, but he had solemnly promised not to do things like that. > What he might imagine his rights to be doesn't really come into it - he labelled himself as an irresponsible idiot, and Musk should have enough sense to have noticed. You clearly don't, but that's a different problem. > >> > Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit. >> >> ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one? > > Or demented a fuckwits like you? Some people do get cut off by their information providers, and have to start posting under different pseudonym. > > We may be demented, but we haven't roused any kind of rabble that did any actual damage. Five people ended up dead because of the Capitol invasion. > >> > There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence. >> > Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking >> > they know what's best for everybody else. >> >> ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM. >> >> Self interest = single greatest human motivator. >> >> > Like John Doe thinking that he knows better than the inhabitants of the Ukraine about the proper reaction to a Russian invasion. >> >> ** See above.... > > You really do need to stop snipping other people posts in mid-sentence, which is to say it might be a good idea to read the whole sentence before you start typing somethig that is supposed to be a response. > >> > John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who recognise that he is a malicious moron. One can understand why. >> >> ** Spoils his moronic fun. > > Not really. He seems to get off on re-posting his moronic assertions from other threads. > >> > So if anybody posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so? >> > Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars. >> >> ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community. >> >> Big shame the internet is like the Wild West. >> >> > Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented. >> >> ** Don't count on it.... > > I've had a lot of exposure to schemes that weren't though out in enough detail to work at all. John Doe's ideas aren't even spelled out clearly enough to constitute any kind of scheme. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Sydney > > >
OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
Started by ●April 26, 2022
Reply by ●April 28, 20222022-04-28
Reply by ●April 28, 20222022-04-28
The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from > breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is > CLUELESS...And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:02:31 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t4fdf6$su5$1@dont-email.me>. Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):> Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing > except insults to this group.Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio to USENET (**) has been 57.4% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET. ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at least 1157 articles to USENET. Of which 136 have been pure insults and 528 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings. ou0YM9VpaL8d
Reply by ●April 28, 20222022-04-28
Eddie wants so badly to nym-shift. That's a no-no here, Eddie! Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking... https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE See also... John Doe <always.look@message.header> (astraweb) Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com> Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com> Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked! Spanked Eddie... -- Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail > From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam > References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com> <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com> <789c0c43-5460-420e-9936-edbeecd0e699n@googlegroups.com> <t4fdf6$su5$1@dont-email.me> > Lines: 33 > Message-ID: <mVGaK.2134782$X81.1351930@usenetxs.com> > X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup > NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:09:38 UTC > Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:09:38 GMT > X-Received-Bytes: 1941 > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:667683 free.spam:18064 > > The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id > <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>: > >> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post... > > And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id > <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>: > >> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from >> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is >> CLUELESS... > > And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another > incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:02:31 -0000 > (UTC) in message-id <t4fdf6$su5$1@dont-email.me>. > > Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id > <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000 > (UTC): > >> Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing >> except insults to this group. > > Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio > to USENET (**) has been 57.4% of its posts contributing "nothing except > insults" to USENET. > > ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at > least 1157 articles to USENET. Of which 136 have been pure insults and > 528 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings. > > ou0YM9VpaL8d > > >
Reply by ●April 28, 20222022-04-28
The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from > breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is > CLUELESS...And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 29 Apr 2022 02:07:01 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t4fh84$p0c$1@dont-email.me>. Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):> Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing > except insults to this group.Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio to USENET (**) has been 57.5% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET. ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at least 1159 articles to USENET. Of which 136 have been pure insults and 530 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings. This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even follow the rules it uses to troll other posters. 7xNnKoU9olyP
Reply by ●April 28, 20222022-04-28
On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 11:02:38 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:<snip>> >> > > Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. > >> > > >> > One has to wonder why John Doe would think that. > >> > >> ** Does he really have actual thoughts ?He certainly has his own delusions. It's unwise to dignifying them by calling them thought> >> > Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to > >> > giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a > >> > second Capitol invasion. > >> > >> ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that. > > > > Not after he'd sworn his oath of office. He didn't pay any attention to it, but he had solemnly promised not to do things like that. > > What he might imagine his rights to be doesn't really come into it - he labelled himself as an irresponsible idiot, and Musk should have enough sense to have noticed. You clearly don't, but that's a different problem. > > > >> > Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit. > >> > >> ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one? > > > > Or demented a fuckwits like you? Some people do get cut off by their information providers, and have to start posting under different pseudonym. > > > > We may be demented, but we haven't roused any kind of rabble that did any actual damage. Five people ended up dead because of the Capitol invasion. > > > >> > There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence. > >> > Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking > >> > they know what's best for everybody else. > >> > >> ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM. > >> > >> Self interest = single greatest human motivator. > >> > >> > Like John Doe thinking that he knows better than the inhabitants of the Ukraine about the proper reaction to a Russian invasion. > >> > >> ** See above.... > > > > You really do need to stop snipping other people posts in mid-sentence, which is to say it might be a good idea to read the whole sentence before you start typing something that is supposed to be a response. > > > >> > John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who recognise that he is a malicious moron. One can understand why. > >> > >> ** Spoils his moronic fun. > > > > Not really. He seems to get off on re-posting his moronic assertions from other threads. > > > >> > So if anybody posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so? > >> > Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars. > >> > >> ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community. > >> > >> Big shame the internet is like the Wild West. > >> > >> > Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented. > >> > >> ** Don't count on it.... > > > > I've had a lot of exposure to schemes that weren't though out in enough detail to work at all. John Doe's ideas aren't even spelled out clearly enough to constitute any kind of scheme. > > Would Bill change his ways, given mutual blocking?Will John Doe ever spell out how "mutual blocking" might work in enough detail to let anybody think that it could work? At the moment he all seems to be thinking that he'd like to have kill-filed particular posts so that nobody else could see them - which is censorship. Where the "mutual" comes from isn't clear. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●May 22, 20222022-05-22
A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET... No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you start, or in a thread branch you start. The same goes for you with respect to their posts. Therefore, there is nothing unfair about it. Mutual blocking does not prevent you from saying anything. You can always start a new thread. You can always post alongside of someone who has blocked you, unless you are mutually blocked by the person they replied to, too. In fact, mutual blocking would allow people who enjoy talking about vulgar things like urine to say anything they feel like saying. There would be no censors to stop them. None at all. As long as they don't get in trouble with law enforcement, they can say any the fuck thing they want. Why not? Mutual blocking would allow for the most civilized, or at least organized, conversations imaginable. No biased censors choosing for us what we can say and who we associate with. It would be done by intelligent people choosing for themselves who they want to associate with. -- Original post:> Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. > BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with > shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to > original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the > most unusual way. > > As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people > decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is > the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does. > > Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with > your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa. > > The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block > would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, > etc). > > For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for > all replies. > > Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see > posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who > are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another > person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to > prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent > them from interacting with it. > > Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means > freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give > up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.
Reply by ●May 23, 20222022-05-23
On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:> A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET... > > No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you > start, or in a thread branch you start....So, not USENET unmoderated, but an ownership model for each thread or subthread? Not really workable, unless you have a server at each node that can become a subthread owner. Basically, it's a fantasy that you can enter a public forum and tell the public, in detail, who can participate. The word that matters here, is 'public'.
Reply by ●May 23, 20222022-05-23
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:24 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:> A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET... > > No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you > start, or in a thread branch you start. The same goes for you with respect > to their posts. Therefore, there is nothing unfair about it.So you have to set up a list of people who can't post replies to a thread you started. That is censorship.> Mutual blocking does not prevent you from saying anything.It just stops you from posting your content in thread where it might be relevant.> You can always start a new thread. You can always post alongside of someone who has > blocked you, unless you are mutually blocked by the person they replied > to, too."Alongside" means in a different thread.> In fact, mutual blocking would allow people who enjoy talking about vulgar > things like urine to say anything they feel like saying. There would be no > censors to stop them. None at all.There aren't any now. If you make a habit to upsetting people your information provider may cancel your internet access but that's more dealing with a persistent nuisance than censorship.You aren't being censored on what you say, but rather because you upset too many people in the way you habitually say it.>As long as they don't get in trouble with law enforcement, they can say any the fuck thing they want. Why not?Your performance here is a pretty good example of "why not".> Mutual blocking would allow for the most civilized, or at least organized, > conversations imaginable. No biased censors choosing for us what we can > say and who we associate with. It would be done by intelligent people > choosing for themselves who they want to associate with.It's setting up a echo-chamber of like-minded people who are convinced that they are right, and don't want to hear any criticism. There are loads of moderated groups where John Doe could get what he's asking for, so he doesn't need mutual blocking, but he wants to keep on posting here, where there is an audience, through not one that always finds his ideas sympathetic, so he fantasies that he could change the rules in way that let him keep the sympathetic part of his audience here - Flyguy and Cursitor Doom - while stopping everybody else from pointing out that he's a right-wing idiot.> Original post..<snipped> -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●May 23, 20222022-05-23
John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6ei7q$tb0$5@dont- email.me:> A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET... >You are an idiot. "blocking" as you define it is censorship. That is why Usenet uses filters at the READER level. No imposition on a person posting. The onus is on you, John Dope. But you are not alone. Usenet is fully fool of idiots like you wanting others to be blocked from using the forum. S e d does not have a more stupid poster than John Dope.
Reply by ●May 23, 20222022-05-23
Gibberish, as usual... whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote: >> A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET... >> >> No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you >> start, or in a thread branch you start.... > > So, not USENET unmoderated, but an ownership model for each thread or > subthread? Not really workable, unless you have a server at each node > that can become a subthread owner. Basically, it's a fantasy that you > can enter a public forum and tell the public, in detail, who can > participate. The word that matters here, is 'public'.
