Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ GreyCloud ] on Thursday 04 May 2006 17:36 \__
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> __/ [ Roy Culley ] on Thursday 04 May 2006 00:46 \__
>>>>Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Monday 01 May 2006 09:16 \__
>>>>>>GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>Roy Culley wrote:
>>>>>>><snipped offensive stats>
>>>>>>>Grow up Roy. You are too old to act like a child on usenet.
>>>>>>Umm, how can stats be offensive?
>>>>>When the stats are annotated by just one person to include insults
>>>>>and observations, they can become hurtful. I noticed that Culley had
>>>>>labelled GreyCloud "offensive quote editor", or something to that
>>>>With your extensive search skills Roy, perhaps you should search for
>>>>why I added the "offensive quote editor" tag to GreyCloud.
>>>>You are still relatively new to COLA. I was a great fan of GreyCloud
>>>>before he started posting infantile responses. I then killfiled
>>>>him. When it was pointed out that he was editing quotes, to the
>>>>detriment of the quoted party of course, I decided to tag him as such
>>>>in the stats.
>>> Opinion: The stats posted should somehow be representative of the group's
>>> sentiments (yes, I'm new here, I know). Otherwise, these should be titled
>>> "Roy Culley's Stats". The Sender field is not enough; again, _in my humble
>>> opinion_. There is a certain danger when only one person gets a vote and
>>> is merely reflecting his/her killfile to the public while making it seem
>>> I *did* notice some of Grey's snipping and editing of quotes. I find them
>>> funny. Often enough, they serve the offended person right. If it involves
>>> a confrontation, this would be a fair weapon at times. Starting fresh
>>> threads with subject lines like "Peter Kohlmann is a [blank]" is not any
>>> better. From an archival perspective, it's far worse. It can be very
>>> As a last point, by adding ALL-UPPERCASE insults, you discourage openness
>>> and encourage anonymity. Anonymous posters have little or no boundaries.
>>> Thus, they insult, they practice prejudice, they use fowl language and
>>> they start "Peter Kohlmann is a [blank]" threads, knowing that Peter
>>> Kohlmann cannot hit them back in quite the same way.
>>> Think about it......
>>> Just my opinion,
>> Correct. I was feeding a known troll that started quote editing in
>> another newsgroup and was only feeding him his own medicine... the troll
>> didn't like it. Too bad. Tim Smith on the other hand trolled Culley
>> like an expert posting only parts of the quote editing that I had done
>> to this known troll. Culley knows better, he just has his panties in a
>> bunch because when you get right down to it,... I'm no longer any fun
>> for him so he now calls me names. Now which one is really acting
>> childish? He also fragged on a Larry Qualig, who is quite a generous
>> person. I take offense to those that rag on my friends.
> Yes, good point there about Qualig. The two of us were getting along
> perfectly well until friction, which excluded me altogether, began to
> surge (Culley forger contributed to this). As a consequence, Qualig
> defected and even changed teams. He began insulting Linux and its
> advocates, or at embraced apathy.
No nononononononon! Larry was /always/ on the other team!
> I don't know much about Bailo's history (they say he brought Relf), but I
> never found him harmful either. People change and you have to give them a
> second chance before making killfile recommendations.
> While I find Culley's stats helpful, I think that he sometimes takes too
> paternal a view and uses it like a child's toy to loudly say who he likes
> and dislikes. It's not his direct intention, but spinning this suitably,
> he is trying to educate us and tells some people to behave by having a
> script (ngstats.pl) and the quill to annotate with.
I have the greatest respect for you, Roy, but Roy C's been here a /very/
long time, and has always played for the right team. His stats are a
continuation of the good work which was done by Terry Porter initially,
and was later picked up by Roy. We came up with a 'quality' metric (I
was certainly one of the original instigators of the idea, although I do
not recall who first suggested it) in order to shed some light on the
troll-feeding and other poor behaviour. Roy has since further enhanced
this by adding some commentary on the behaviour of individual posters.
If you do not agree, you are, of course, completely welcome to create
your own stats, and annotate them as you wish... such is usenet :-)
> It's like that Seinfeld episode where Elaine is trying to get rid of her
> unjustifiably damaging medical file...
Roy is putting in effort on a regular basis which is appreciated by many
of us. Before this work was done, first by Terry, then by Roy, we could
only speculate or run our own quick hacks on our own newsspools to get a
feel for, for example, just how many postings sn*t, larryq, erikF and
others were making, and how people were responding.
I once again emphasize that I very much appreciate Roy's work, both Roy
S and Roy C.
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
"Everybody is talking about the weather but nobody does anything about it."
-- Mark Twain