(O.T.) Ongoing amazement.

[BillR]

John, I appreciate that all three FAQs contain useful information. I
have read them. Several times. In detail. _I_ think many of the
objections are _not_ flippant (being only rarely flippant myself of
course).

As far as I know, the only section that *does* generate controversy is
the definitions page:

http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./Page3.html

and that's just too bad. This group has discussed that definition ad
nauseum and it's not going to change in order to satisfy a
malcontented minority.

As far as the Netiquette and "How to avoid getting flamed" portions,
they are just common sense and are (or at least were) in fact linked
to in other F.A.Q.s.

Oh. So more than one section _has_ stirred controversy. (And what
about your most(?) recent addition to the FAQ? Non-controversial? I
didn't think so, but then I was dismissed.) So too has the way in
which the FAQ has been applied in this ng at times.

To be fair, part of the problem is that the site contains much of the
information that one would otherwise expect to appear in the FAQ. [Reference was to Pricelessware site]

Furthermore, as one of the outspoken "enforcers" of a particular
viewpoint, your weekly post is a magnet for dissension.

Bill, you need to do a reassessment. I haven't been "enforcing" very
much lately because I just don't have the time. Regardless, if I *did*
have the time, I certainly WOULD. As for being a spamcop, my ISP's
newsfeed filters out the spam so I usually no longer see it unless
somebody else replies to it.

I don't object to your being a spam cop as long as you do it
accurately. First, you sometimes leap to the conclusion that
something is spam without providing any support when such a conclusion
is far from obvious to me. Second, you and I differ slightly about
acceptable topics within this group and substantially on how to
encourage relevant participation.

IIRC, just this morning I saw unnecessary enforcement. So less
frequent than before? Yes. Infrequent enough? No.

As I've said many, many times in the past, the F.A.Q. I wrote was only
created after *extensive* discussion and voting in this group. What
you consider to be "controversial" and "opinions" are nothing of the
sort. Those items are derived from other F.A.Q.s and from (again)
extensive discussion here in the group.

I see. If you think something is correct and others don't, then there
is no controvesy and no opinion? I will agree that such perceptions
are somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but you are taking it a bit
far.

John, I hope you will continue to maintain your FAQ and participate in
the ng. The FAQ provides useful information. It also includes FACTS
that are not. You also often provide good information when you post,
but I find other posts objectionable.

As both the FAQ maintainer and an outspoken person with strongly held
opinions/beliefs, your weekly post is going to be a magnet for
dissension. You have my sympathy, even empathy, because were I trying
to maintain a FAQ like yours, I would receive a similar reception: not
enough praise and too much criticism (that I think unwarranted). I,
too, probably would be offended by the Anti-FAQ. Fortunately for my
emotions, I'm on the outside looking in and get to toss a few stones.
(I try to avoid heaving rocks, however.)

BillR

 

[Duddits]

So John should give in and stop posting? No, I don't think the trolls
should have that easy a win.

No, he should ignore the trolls.

 

[Vic Dura]

C. There is only one definition for freeware:

"Freeware is programming that is offered
for your use at no cost, monetary or
otherwise. You may use freeware for as
long as you wish."

About what aspect of that *definition* (note the singular) do you
disagree?

The "otherwise". It too vague. Does it include for example: the
metered connect time to your ISP or phone company, or
postage to have a floppy or CD mailed to you?

"Otherwise" can be twisted to include anything a net-cop wants to use
so as to justify bludgeoning someone into compliance or excluding
discussion of something deemed "not free".

 

[Andy Muppett]

[snip]
|Bill, you need to do a reassessment. I haven't been "enforcing" very
|much lately because I just don't have the time.

And people are glad you don't have the time. ACF has been a pleasure to
read without you.
[snip}

Indeed, snip.

Anything said by a sock puppet using troll is irrelevant.

You just never learn, do you, John-Boy?

As an ex-ACF troll with less time for such amusements nowadays, I
still view the group with affection and occasionally stop by to read a
few posts.

My impression was that, although it took you many years to learn what
anyone with a normally developed ego would have learned in a week,
you'd nonetheless acquired a minimal amount of self-control and no
longer posted prime troll-bait on such a regular basis.

But what do I see here today?

The post title:

"Ongoing Amazement. *SOCK PUPPET TROLL ALERT*"

with your name beside it.

Still the same old Drama Queen, eh, John?

Now, as I said, my trolling days are over. But I have to admit that
the sight of such an irresistible title with your name beside it sent
the blood coursing through my veins as of old!

For a moment I wanted nothing more than to run a stick along the bars
of your cage, just for the pleasure of seeing you spring up yapping
and snarling as in the good old days.

And if I - a reformed troll, remember - felt such an uncontrollable
urge, how many practising trolls must have been galvanised by your
unmistakeable battle-cry?

You know the old saying, John-Boy - A leopard can't change its spots?

I'm thinking that perhaps there's some truth in the old cliché.

I see that without the slightest shred of evidence you even accused
"Foust" (does he mean "Faust", I wonder?) of being Mavis Chillum in
your usual paranoid fashion.

He/she isn't. I am, or rather, was.

I must admit that I'm *very* disappointed in you John-Boy. And just
when I though you'd acquired a modicum of wisdom and maturity!

Here we are, back to square one, with you posting prime troll-bait and
backing it up with false and completely unfounded accusations, just in
case the trolls failed to bite.

It would seem that you're still every bit as desperate for attention
as you were in your old John-The-Spam-Killer incarnation!

Of course, the entire:

(O.T.) Ongoing amazement

thread that you started was, of itself, a most accomplished piece of
troll-baiting. But the:

*SOCK PUPPET TROLL ALERT*"

refinement was the touch of a true Master!

As was the false and utterly unfounded accusation that this "Foust"
clown who doesn't know Goethe from Garbo was really the sublime Mavis
Chillum!

Well, you'll see that I couldn't let that pass, John-Boy.

I just had to say something.

I hope this word to the not-so-wise will have the desired effect, or
further steps may be necessary.

In any event, I shall be keeping a close eye on you, John-Boy.

A very close eye indeed.

Ethel Mooner

 

[Mister Charlie]

says...
[snip]
|Bill, you need to do a reassessment. I haven't been "enforcing" very
|much lately because I just don't have the time.

And people are glad you don't have the time. ACF has been a pleasure to
read without you.
[snip}

Indeed, snip.

Anything said by a sock puppet using troll is irrelevant.

You just never learn, do you, John-Boy?

As an ex-ACF troll with less time for such amusements nowadays, I
still view the group with affection and occasionally stop by to read a
few posts.

My impression was that, although it took you many years to learn what
anyone with a normally developed ego would have learned in a week,
you'd nonetheless acquired a minimal amount of self-control and no
longer posted prime troll-bait on such a regular basis.

But what do I see here today?

The post title:

"Ongoing Amazement. *SOCK PUPPET TROLL ALERT*"

with your name beside it.

Still the same old Drama Queen, eh, John?

Now, as I said, my trolling days are over. But I have to admit that
the sight of such an irresistible title with your name beside it sent
the blood coursing through my veins as of old!

For a moment I wanted nothing more than to run a stick along the bars
of your cage, just for the pleasure of seeing you spring up yapping
and snarling as in the good old days.

And if I - a reformed troll, remember - felt such an uncontrollable
urge, how many practising trolls must have been galvanised by your
unmistakeable battle-cry?

You know the old saying, John-Boy - A leopard can't change its spots?

I'm thinking that perhaps there's some truth in the old cliché.

I see that without the slightest shred of evidence you even accused
"Foust" (does he mean "Faust", I wonder?) of being Mavis Chillum in
your usual paranoid fashion.

He/she isn't. I am, or rather, was.

I must admit that I'm *very* disappointed in you John-Boy. And just
when I though you'd acquired a modicum of wisdom and maturity!

Here we are, back to square one, with you posting prime troll-bait and
backing it up with false and completely unfounded accusations, just in
case the trolls failed to bite.

It would seem that you're still every bit as desperate for attention
as you were in your old John-The-Spam-Killer incarnation!

Of course, the entire:

(O.T.) Ongoing amazement

thread that you started was, of itself, a most accomplished piece of
troll-baiting. But the:

*SOCK PUPPET TROLL ALERT*"

refinement was the touch of a true Master!

As was the false and utterly unfounded accusation that this "Foust"
clown who doesn't know Goethe from Garbo was really the sublime Mavis
Chillum!

Well, you'll see that I couldn't let that pass, John-Boy.

I just had to say something.

I hope this word to the not-so-wise will have the desired effect, or
further steps may be necessary.

In any event, I shall be keeping a close eye on you, John-Boy.

A very close eye indeed.

Ethel Mooner

Gee. Glad to see you've given up trolling.

 

[Vic Dura]

Still the same old Drama Queen, eh, John?

Now, as I said, my trolling days are over. But I have to admit that
the sight of such an irresistible title with your name beside it sent
the blood coursing through my veins as of old!

For a moment I wanted nothing more than to run a stick along the bars
of your cage, just for the pleasure of seeing you spring up yapping
and snarling as in the good old days.

..
..
(much very funny commentary snipped)

ROTFLMAO!!!

That's really funny! ) I nearly asphyxiated myself I was laughing
so hard!

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I haven't noticed Vic lowering himself to the level of personal attacks.
In fact, I have seen him actually admit if/when he is wrong. And no, I'm
not the president of his fan club.

Crissakes, Mike, the only thing Vic does in here is stalk John. That
constituted personal attack in itself.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

As both the FAQ maintainer and an outspoken person with strongly held
opinions/beliefs, your weekly post is going to be a magnet for
dissension. You have my sympathy, even empathy, because were I trying
to maintain a FAQ like yours, I would receive a similar reception: not
enough praise and too much criticism (that I think unwarranted). I,

You toss some stuff into a barrel. Let's say...apples and grapes. When
you're not looking, someone throws in some rotten apples and some sour
grapes. It's the latter you're always going to smell. It's shame that
no one person can *make* a system work, but anyone can disrupt it.

 

[Guest]

What next? Call the people you disagree with "stupid-heads"?

I think you mean, "rude ****sticks"

HTH, HAND

tim

 

[Foust]

[snip]
|I see that without the slightest shred of evidence you even accused
|"Foust" (does he mean "Faust", I wonder?) of being Mavis Chillum in
|your usual paranoid fashion.

I mean Foust. Family name and all that.

[snip]
|As was the false and utterly unfounded accusation that this "Foust"
|clown who doesn't know Goethe from Garbo was really the sublime Mavis
|Chillum!
[snip]

Big shoes and red nose that "honks" when you squeeze it. That's me.

 

[Andy Muppett]

So John should give in and stop posting? No, I don't think the trolls
should have that easy a win.

Idiot.

The very LAST things the trolls want is for Big John to stop posting
to ACF. John-Boy is every troll's dream made flesh, as I can testify
myself, being a semi-retired ACF troll. Clueless marks like JC with
massive egos and pea-sized brains only come along once in a lifetime.
Far from being a victory, it would be a major disaster for the trolls
if JC decided to stop posting (not that he would be capable of doing
any such thing, of course, as he relishes public battling with the
trolls even more than they do).

The victory would be ACFs. And *what* a victory! ACF would be calm and
peaceful again with no troll-baiting threads like this one; no
mincing, pouting Drama Queen shrieking: "MAVITH CHILLUM!!! THOCK
PUPPET TWOLL!!! THOCK PUPPET TWOLL!!!" (and no *real* Mavis, attracted
by his hysterical frothing and raving).

Big John is a troll-magnet. Always has been, always will be. What do
you think he started this thread for if not to provoke argument and
dissension?

The supreme irony in all this is that although Big John affects to
despise trolls, he actually needs them every bit as much as they need
him. Things have quietened down here recently and JC hasn't been
getting enough of an attention fix. So what does he do? Inaugerates
this troll-baiting thread, stamps his foot in a childish, paranoid
rage and screeches, "MAVITH CHILLUM!!! THOCK PUPPET TWOLL!!! THOCK
PUPPET TWOLL!!!".

And here we all are again.

Just like old times.

Ethel Mooner

 

[POKO]

Vic,
Normally I would never do that and if I did it would be delivered in a
humorous manner. It's just the bloody way you continually attack John.
It has become very annoying and old.
Regards,
So So POKO

 

[Vic Dura]

Crissakes, Mike, the only thing Vic does in here is stalk John. That
constituted personal attack in itself.

Wow, that hurts.

I suppose then the you don't consider my SimTel Freeware posts of any
value here. Or certainly not as valuable as your contribution to the
NG; and therefor I don't have the same right to criticize your (or Mr.
Corliss) position as you have to criticize my position.

Did I get that right? If not, feel free to enlighten me.

 

[Vic Dura]

Vic,
Normally I would never do that and if I did it would be delivered in a
humorous manner. It's just the bloody way you continually attack John.
It has become very annoying and old.
Regards,
So So POKO

I understand how you feel. I did not take it personally. I understand
your frustration and apologize for contributing to it. However, I feel
the same way about Mr. Corliss. It the bloody way he continually tries
to force his vision of this NG on others, particularly newbies. The
fact that many agree with him (and many don't) is not relevant as this
is an unmoderated NG, and will hopefully remain so.

Mr. Corliss's insistence on indoctrinating newbies as to his vision
was particularly aggrivating until he added reference to the "antiFAQ"
in his weekly newbies post. I thought that was very fair-minded of him
and I no longer have any objection to that post as long as it
continues to include the antiFAQ reference. So what are we differing
about here?

I'm sorry to say that I don't remember what started this thread. I
read off-line and don't keep previous posts, so at my age I sometimes
forget how we got where we are.

 

[Boomer]

Foust said:

|Foust (Mavis Chillum troll) wrote:
Wrong. FYI there are other people that don't like you.

|
|Indeed, snip.
|
|Anything said by a sock puppet using troll is irrelevant.
|
|

I MIGHT be a Sock Puppet, never gave it much thought actually.
However that does not change the fact that I am right. That
people are not happy with the your anal definitions of freeware.
Which are based on some outdated vote.

Hi deedee.

Did you say, "Changing that all the time sounds like something a
troll would do."

Message-ID: <Subject: Re: Are all of you aware of THIS usegroup?

 

[Boomer]

John Corliss said:

[snip]
|Bill, you need to do a reassessment. I haven't been
|"enforcing" very much lately because I just don't have the
|time.

And people are glad you don't have the time. ACF has been a
pleasure to read without you.
[snip}

Indeed, snip.

Anything said by a sock puppet using troll is irrelevant.

I wonder what "who" it's going to be next time.
deedee was sock before this one. <sigh>

 

[John Corliss]

| (snip)
|B. Are you speaking for the group now?

No sir I am not. Neither are you.

No sir, I am not. Never have claimed to either.

|C. There is only one definition for freeware:

| "Freeware is programming that is offered
| for your use at no cost, monetary or
| otherwise. You may use freeware for as
| long as you wish."
|
|About what aspect of that *definition* (note the singular) do you
|disagree?

For me any ways it's the word "otherwise" The way I was raised if you
didn't have to pay money for it [and it was legal] than it was free. It
was as simple as black and white.

The way *I* was raised if you traded work for work, you were paying
for something. That's known as "bartering". Having to look at ads that
you have no interest in is work. Having to scroll more often because
your screen real estate has been sacrificed to ads is work.

|If you are disagreeing with the definitions of *OTHER TYPES OF
|SOFTWARE* on the definitions page, be specific rather than making such
|generalized remarks. Which of the definitions do you disagree with and
|specifically what is it that you disagree WITH? The onus is on YOU to
|provide details. Otherwise, we have nothing further to discuss.

I see it like this. Freeware is an umbrella term. Under this umbrella
there are many different flavors. Adware, Liteware, CDware etc. These are
still Freeware. They are legal and cost no money to use.

As I said, there are other ways to pay for things. As for CDWare, if
the software is not available on the internet to freely download, then
you are paying for the CD in the cost of the magazine. If the CD were
free, then you would be able to contact the magazine publisher and
have them mail you the CD for free.

No one disputes the fact that you have a different definition of what
freeware is. Some people agree with your definition of Freeware. Some
people don't.

However, most do. Not simply a matter of "some".
You are missing the point which is that if the definition of
freeware is allowed to become adulterated, this group will eventually
get flooded with commercial come-ons. There are many who seek to
weaken the definition of freeware so that they can exploit the term in
order to market something. This group is not a venue for commercial
solicitations and I'll do whatever I can to stop it from becoming one.
There's simply enough (actually way too much) advertising in the world.

|I fully expect that your next move as a troll is to either:
|1. fail to respond in a civil and productive fashion

I think I am pretty civil most of the time.

Calling me "anally retentive" is not very civil in my opinion.
Saying that "ACF has been a pleasure to read without you" is not civil
in my opinion.

|2. fail to respond at all.

Life as you know has a way of keeping one from posting to the newsgroups
they so love.

|Why don't you fool me entirely by doing something constructive instead.

Are you fooled yet?

Guess so. Thanks for your civil reply.

 

[Thip]

Anything said by a sock puppet using troll is irrelevant.

Sock puppet???????! ROFL......good one, John! I love it!

 

[POKO]

I understand how you feel. I did not take it personally. I understand
your frustration and apologize for contributing to it. However, I feel
the same way about Mr. Corliss.

Thanks for that - I hate it when I fight with folks online.
Best,
POKO

 

[tlshell]

The way *I* was raised if you traded work for work, you were paying
for something. That's known as "bartering". Having to look at ads that
you have no interest in is work. Having to scroll more often because
your screen real estate has been sacrificed to ads is work.

Not everybody has experience with bartering, and certainly we don't
all consider scrolling or clicking as work...it's just something you
do when using a computer. In any case, if you visit a website and see
ads, do you consider that "work" too?

I like the definition of freeware that was proposed: it's anything
legal that you don't have to pay for with money, and includes adware,
registerware, etc.

The pricelessware site would then have labels on everything that is in
these subgroups identifying them so that people who object to
particular types of freeware can avoid them.

No one is saying you can't have individual preferences on what you
have on your computer, just saying that the group would be enriched by
discussing more than simply freeware-with-no-attached-conditions, by
including those other types of freeware.

If there was a vote again, that's how I would go.