|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
This is a very brilliant proposal. Immediately we should go on to implement
this rules on this list.
But what will be with the ESKIMOS ?
BR
Frank
FelixTY wrote:
> How about a fixed board of directors of bashers? So that these very few
> guys
> have the right to bashed. They should be qualified in the first place of
> course.
> And then set a maximum number of back and forth replies from the
> protagonists
> like three from each side plus the spammers original post included is
> four.
> The sending of these messages should be self numbered by the writers to
> keep track
> for evreyone. Or if already three guys bashed the spammer already first,
> no one else
> is allowed to join the foray!! Like ooop!!m we are closed in this
> episode, better
> luck next time!!!
>
> Gary Fritz wrote:
>
> > Ron Augustine <RonAug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > As stated previously: When one or two brief Posts from someone
> > > who may or may not intend to contribute something of value results
> > > in 30 or 40 posts containing personal attacks, slanderous comments,
> > > and racial & ethnic slurs -- something is wrong.
> >
> > Agree 100%. The sheer volume of bashing is far greater, and in my
> > opinion far more offensive, than the original posts they bashed.
> > In my opinion the back-and-forth insults, profanity contests, and
> > general level of abuse are a worse problem than the spam.
> >
> > I'm no fan of spammers, and I never have been. I've been on the
> > Internet since it was called ARPAnet back in the early '80s, and I
> > remember how nice it was before the marketeers descended upon us like
> > a flock of vultures. But I also remember how nice it was when people
> > on the net behaved like civilized adults, and didn't resort to
> > screaming, swearing, and name-calling whenever they disagreed with
> > someone. Spam is not the only source of annoying noise on the net.
> >
> > Bill Eykyn's posts were self-promoting ads, no question. They
> > definitely pushed and probably exceeded the limits of acceptable
> > content. But I for one found his posts fairly interesting, if you
> > sifted out the hype. I certainly benefited more from his posts than
> > I have from the shouting matches that resulted from them.
> >
> > How many of you bashers scream epithets into the phone when a
> > telemarketer calls? Assuming you do, would you do it if you
> > inflicted your venom onto hundreds of innocent bystanders at the same
> > time? That's EXACTLY what you're doing with your posts to the list.
> >
> > A private (and civil) note to the poster saying "That content isn't
> > appropriate for XYZ reason" is probably going to be at least as
> > effective as a public screamfest -- it may not work, but the
> > screaming often doesn't either -- and it's far less annoying to the
> > rest of the list. If the personal contact doesn't work, then I
> > suggest you appeal to the list owner. If he feels it's
> > inappropriate, he can deal with it. It's his list. If he doesn't
> > feel it's inappropriate for his list, then your issue is with him,
> > not the spammer.
> >
> > If you feel you MUST do something public to save helpless newbies
> > from the evil clutches of the spammer, then at least have the decency
> > to do it with some class. Your message will be a lot more effective
> > if it's delivered in a rational style, without all the abuse and
> > personal attacks. And you won't drive away a lot of valuable and
> > helpful list members in the process, as you are now.
> >
> > Gary
|