Boycott the so-called ac fwebring

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sietse Fliege
  • Start date Start date
S

Sietse Fliege

It seems obvious that a lot of a.c.f.-ers object to the rtfdos webring
being called acf webring for no good reason whatsoever and without any
legitimation whatsoever.

I'ld gather that many would want to have its name changed and
make their objection quite clear here in a.c.f. *for as long as that's
not the case*.

To avoid the clutter of many anti-acfwebring posts I suggest :

One daily post explaining the objections.
It would contain a list of the nicks/names of all who object.

The list could be obtained by everybody filling in one's name/nick in a
form on a website.

What do you think?
 
It seems obvious that a lot of a.c.f.-ers object to the rtfdos webring
being called acf webring for no good reason whatsoever and without any
legitimation whatsoever.

I'ld gather that many would want to have its name changed and
make their objection quite clear here in a.c.f. *for as long as that's
not the case*.

To avoid the clutter of many anti-acfwebring posts I suggest :

One daily post explaining the objections.
It would contain a list of the nicks/names of all who object.

The list could be obtained by everybody filling in one's name/nick in a
form on a website.

What do you think?
Click to expand...


Why not add an amendment to the FAQ stating the objections?

Regards,
 
Why not add an amendment to the FAQ stating the objections?
Click to expand...

Why not an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the use of
newsgroup names in webrings?

I know I'm not a regular here, I'm only following the NG since a
few months. And, indeed, I probably shouldn't be sticking my nose
into discussions like this in the first place.

But seriously people, I think we should try to see some things in
proportion. People have pointed out that there should be certain
guidelines for sites to be allowed to the proposed ACF/rtdos
webring. Alright, that's a point rtdos hasn't taken into account in
this early phase, but I'm sure he will do something about it
(right, rtdos?).

It would be great if we could avoid Corliss-type nitpicking and
negativism about positive initiatives like these, no? Don't try to
bring down the whole concept before it has had some time to iron
out the not-so-good ideas. And especially, don't get to the point
where you start "organising" objections to initiatives of this
kind. This is something for Amnesty International, but they protest
against the *bad* things in life.

Just my 2 cents,
Wald
 
Steve said:
Why not add an amendment to the FAQ stating the objections?
Click to expand...

Not much wrong with that, but :

The shameless unprecedented hijacking of the a.c.f. name is a serious
offence.
I suggest that those who agree would be better served by one daily post
dedicated to expressing their objections.

One post per day is not too much.
It could actually spare us from a lot of clutter, as I argued.
 
Wald said:
Why not an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the use of
newsgroup names in webrings?
Click to expand...

To the what? The Constitution, what's that? ;)
I know I'm not a regular here, I'm only following the NG since a
few months. And, indeed, I probably shouldn't be sticking my nose
into discussions like this in the first place.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt know why not? I am not Blinky.
But seriously people, I think we should try to see some things in
proportion. People have pointed out that there should be certain
guidelines for sites to be allowed to the proposed ACF/rtdos
webring. Alright, that's a point rtdos hasn't taken into account in
this early phase, but I'm sure he will do something about it
(right, rtdos?).

It would be great if we could avoid Corliss-type nitpicking and
negativism about positive initiatives like these, no? Don't try to
bring down the whole concept before it has had some time to iron
out the not-so-good ideas. And especially, don't get to the point
where you start "organising" objections to initiatives of this
kind. This is something for Amnesty International, but they protest
against the *bad* things in life.

Just my 2 cents,
Wald
Click to expand...

Rtdos has already explicitely stated his goal.
Literally: "to divide a.c.f."
He hijacked the a.c.f. good name and uses the so-called acf webring in
order to promote that goal.

He may post in a.c.f. whatever he likes. No prob.
He may start a web ring following his own lines. No prob.

He should however not be trying to pull this stunt.
 
Sietse Fliege said:
Rtdos has already explicitely stated his goal.
Literally: "to divide a.c.f."
He hijacked the a.c.f. good name and uses the so-called acf webring in
order to promote that goal.

He may post in a.c.f. whatever he likes. No prob.
He may start a web ring following his own lines. No prob.

He should however not be trying to pull this stunt.
Click to expand...


Excuse me? My goal was not to divide acf. JC has already done that.
But neither was my goal to unify acf, however to provide an extra
service to acf readers. I could careless if you boycott my ring or
visit the ring. That's your choice. No, I did not hi-jack the name
either. Like someone suggested, let the bugs work out before you be
critical of the concept and idea of the acf webring. It is not gonna
start out perfect and it is not gonna be perfect (as much as JC claims
his FAQ is).
 
Sietse Fliege said:
It seems obvious that a lot of a.c.f.-ers object to the rtfdos webring
being called acf webring for no good reason whatsoever and without any
legitimation whatsoever.

I'ld gather that many would want to have its name changed and
make their objection quite clear here in a.c.f. *for as long as that's
not the case*.

To avoid the clutter of many anti-acfwebring posts I suggest :

One daily post explaining the objections.
It would contain a list of the nicks/names of all who object.

The list could be obtained by everybody filling in one's name/nick in a
form on a website.

What do you think?
Click to expand...




The correct rtdos webring:

http://e.webring.com/hub?ring=rtdos


The correct acf webring:

http://q.webring.com/hub?ring=acfwebring
 
Sietse Fliege said:
Not much wrong with that, but :

The shameless unprecedented hijacking of the a.c.f. name is a serious
offence.
I suggest that those who agree would be better served by one daily post
dedicated to expressing their objections.

One post per day is not too much.
It could actually spare us from a lot of clutter, as I argued.
Click to expand...


I endorse the group. No one said I had to endorse the FAQ for which I
do not agree. The FAQ is not binding to the group. It is not the
charter of the acf nor is it the bylaws of the acf.
 
Sietse Fliege said:
Rtdos has already explicitely stated his goal.
Literally: "to divide a.c.f."
He hijacked the a.c.f. good name and uses the so-called acf webring in
order to promote that goal.

He may post in a.c.f. whatever he likes. No prob.
He may start a web ring following his own lines. No prob.

He should however not be trying to pull this stunt.
Click to expand...

I must say I haven't read _such_ a statement, then again, I probably
missed it. Could you point me to it?

Anyway, if this is true, then the situation is even more sad. Why all
this hostility, people, action-reaction, eye for an eye, bullshit for
bullshit.
Maybe I'm naive, but people, try to bear with each other, offer freeware
and be polite if things are not completely right.

Just my 2 cents
Wald
 
Wald said:
Why not an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the use of
newsgroup names in webrings?

I know I'm not a regular here, I'm only following the NG since a
few months. And, indeed, I probably shouldn't be sticking my nose
into discussions like this in the first place.

But seriously people, I think we should try to see some things in
proportion. People have pointed out that there should be certain
guidelines for sites to be allowed to the proposed ACF/rtdos
webring. Alright, that's a point rtdos hasn't taken into account in
this early phase, but I'm sure he will do something about it
(right, rtdos?).

It would be great if we could avoid Corliss-type nitpicking and
negativism about positive initiatives like these, no? Don't try to
bring down the whole concept before it has had some time to iron
out the not-so-good ideas. And especially, don't get to the point
where you start "organising" objections to initiatives of this
kind. This is something for Amnesty International, but they protest
against the *bad* things in life.

Just my 2 cents,
Wald
Click to expand...


Agreed.
 
Wald said:
I must say I haven't read _such_ a statement, then again, I probably
missed it. Could you point me to it?

Anyway, if this is true, then the situation is even more sad. Why all
this hostility, people, action-reaction, eye for an eye, bullshit for
bullshit.
Maybe I'm naive, but people, try to bear with each other, offer freeware
and be polite if things are not completely right.

Just my 2 cents
Wald
Click to expand...


I'd like to be pointed out to it to. I never meant to divide the group or
unify the group but to provide a service.
 
Steve said:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:08:28 +0100, "Sietse Fliege"
Click to expand...
Why not add an amendment to the FAQ stating the objections?
Click to expand...

I don't know that a list of objections is even needed. Just include a
firm statement that the webring is NOT associated with the newsgroup,
and that the name was just ripped off by an individual. Nothing - no
objections - there to argue. Just two facts, and those facts are really
the crux of the issue.
 
One post per day is not too much.
It could actually spare us from a lot of clutter, as I argued.
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself.
One post will cascade into dozens. Much the same as any post
announcing the location of an a.c.f. FAQ.
IF you insist, please mark it OT so that it can easily be killfiled.

tim
 
Wald said:
I must say I haven't read _such_ a statement, then again, I probably
missed it. Could you point me to it?
Click to expand...

He started a thread with the subject: *POLL* acf webring (does it help?)
From that first post in that thread:
<quote>
I'm not doing this to unify acf. I could careless. In fact, I would
rather see it divided.
</quote>

His behaviour in this group lately, his flood of unreasonable attacks at
the FAQ, the creation of a new FAQ. his flood of adhominem posts
attacking John Corliss and now this sad excuse for a freeware web ring,
this all shows that he really means business: his goal is to disrupt and
divide the group.

If he wants to start a freeware web ring, fine.
There is nothing new about freeware web rings.
What is new is that someone is calling his one the acf webring.
He should just leave acf out of it.
That move is only meant to disrupt and divide the group.
if this is true, then the situation is even more sad.
Why all this hostility, people, action-reaction, eye for an eye,
bullshit for bullshit.
Click to expand...

Are you calling my post bullshit?
Maybe I'm naive, but people, try to bear with each other, offer
freeware and be polite if things are not completely right.
Click to expand...

If you want to be polite, don't call my post 'bullshit'.

The core-business here in acf should be posting about freeware.
Rtdos is flooding this group with a ridiculous amount of FUD.
 
Don't kid yourself.
Click to expand...

I am trying hard not to. But he, what do you know? :)
One post will cascade into dozens. Much the same as any post
announcing the location of an a.c.f. FAQ.
Click to expand...

The idea is this :
Everybody just once adds his name/nick to the list.
That list is posted daily.
The so-called acf webring is a taboo for everyone in that list, meaning
they do not ever post another word about it.
IF you insist, please mark it OT so that it can easily be killfiled.
Click to expand...

The daily post will always have the same subject. Maybe marked OT.
 
Blinky said:
I don't know that a list of objections is even needed.
Click to expand...

Nobody is talking about a list of objections.
The daily post would merely *state* the objections and *list* the
names/nicks of those who subscribe to the objections.
Just include a
firm statement that the webring is NOT associated with the newsgroup,
and that the name was just ripped off by an individual. Nothing - no
objections - there to argue. Just two facts, and those facts are
really the crux of the issue.
Click to expand...

We about agree what the objections are.
The exact wording is not important just yet.

What matters more is :
Rtdos loves the way everybody just goes on and on about it.
We should stop discussing his baby altogether.
The daily list is meant to facilitate that.
Just say once that you object (add your name to the list) and never
again post about it.
A merely statement in the FAQ is never going to stop these discussions.
 
"Sietse Fliege"
Wald wrote:
Click to expand...
If he wants to start a freeware web ring, fine.
There is nothing new about freeware web rings.
What is new is that someone is calling his one the
acf webring. He should just leave acf out of it.
That move is only meant to disrupt and divide the
group.
Click to expand...

Well, allright, let me take a safe distance from the
discussed webring
initiative. I just don't understand in any way why he
would try do pull
such a stunt. Too much time on his hands?
Frustration? Who will tell.
Are you calling my post bullshit?


If you want to be polite, don't call my post
'bullshit'.
Click to expand...

You've got me cornered on that one. I shouldn't have
used the term, true, end of line. Then again, I
didn't know the whole story.

What I do think: your post is part of a larger trend
here at ACF, where people seem to find it necessary
to take action against each other. Completely off-
topic, and in the end it is _very_ hard to see who
actually was the troll in the first place. This
situation has only been escalating lately, and I fail
to see how this is going to solve the problem.

The idea of organizing a daily webring-bashing thread
with a webform seems absurd to me. Please, man, don't
put your time in such a thing, just put something in
the FAQ and be done with it. While I do respect
your reasons, I'm afraid it's not the solution that
will get the place peaceful and on-topic again.
The core-business here in acf should be posting
about freeware.
Click to expand...

Fully agreed, naturally.
Rtdos is flooding this group with a ridiculous
amount of FUD.
Click to expand...

I think it's best to ignore it, then.

Regards,
Wald
 
Wald said:
While I do respect your reasons, I'm afraid it's not the solution that
will get the place peaceful and on-topic again.
Click to expand...

Nobody else seems to think it was a good idea either, so I will shut up
about it. :)
 
in said:
Nobody else seems to think it was a good idea either, so I will
shut up about it. :)
Click to expand...

I might think it's a good idea. I've still got a little hope it won't
be necessary, though.
 
Back
Top