Paganini: a rogue server ?

[llp]

As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the paganini
server and concern the fr hierarchy.

A recent example of perfectly themed messages for which a cancel was
issued via the paganini server:

Some messages (from the "gegeweb.eu" server)
<***@hotmail.com>
<***@hotmail.com>

Some cancels:
<***@hotmail.com>
<***@hotmail.com>

A further step in the censorship that Olivier and Ivo (?) want to
establish has just been taken.
Messages denouncing these abusive cancellations on fr.usenet.abus.d
have also just been deleted under a fallacious pretext.
This group was expressly created to talk about this.

The cancels (examples):
<***@news.usenet.ovh>
<***@news.usenet.ovh>
<***@news.usenet.ovh>
<***@news.usenet.ovh>


Of course, the scope of these rogues cancel is very limited
as no well-configured server will honor them.

But I think it's important to point out to the server admin
community and to the users of these servers what the paganini
server has become.
As well as its conception of usenet access: "a PRIVILEGE"
(see <uql3i6$hhm8$***@paganini.bofh.team>)

Sincerely

[Anonymous]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:52:32 +0100

Paganini: a rogue server ?

Ivo can cancel whatever he wants on his server.

Are you ever going to stop this concern trolling wankfest?

As well as its conception of usenet access: "a PRIVILEGE"

Ivo is correct. Usenet access is a privilege, not a right. And Ivo is allowing anonymous, unauthenticated access while you do not. He is clearly supporting free speech, while your actions don't. When you open up and allow unauthenticated access (which you won't do) then you might have a point. By requiring authentication you are far more restricting users than Ivo does. Ivo only restricts after the fact. You do by default.

I don't just say this because I am using Ivo's server. I say it because you are a hypocrite.

Ivo ==> gives open, anonymous access.
llp ==> requires signup and identification of users, and can deny such requests in secret with no accountability.

Ivo can only deny access after the fact. Llp censors up front. So Llp can lie and deny any censorship is going on while Ivo must admit he is blocking an article. So who is being duplicitous and shady here?

Llp is trying to get the only anonymous Usenet peer (paganini) de-peered. And llp is hypocritically complaining about censorship while trying to get the true free speech peer censored.

The toxic concern trolling is a form of abuse.

[victor]

Post by Anonymous

Paganini: a rogue server ?

Ivo can cancel whatever he wants on his server.

Ivo controls his own server which includes allowing cancels to be
posted. I really don't see any issue with that as it is up to each server
to use the cancels or not. Servers should stay up to day as they can.

But an issue with the actual cancels as they are used to just delete
messages the maker of the cancels doesn't like which is clear is
censorship. Never saw an answer from the senders of these cancels if they
cancel on the opinions in the messages. Looks like it is clear that they
do.

If you ask they don't answer just say you are someone else. I think
they can't defend what they do.

[Marco Moock]

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

[Ray Banana]

Post by Marco Moock

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

There are basically 4 types of servers when it comes to cancel
processing:

1. Those that process all cancel messages
2, those that process no cancel messages at all
3. those that only process cancel messages only when the target article
has a cancel lock and the cancel message has the corresponding cancel
key.
4. those that process cancel messages when the target article
has a cancel lock and the cancel message has the corresponding cancel
key or the target article has no cancel lock.

There is no information available on the net on what servers have
implemented which type of cancel processing and why.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Marco Moock

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels. He's
complaining about third-party cancels that are issued as an abuse
countermeasure because they are acted upon at a few specific servers
that aren't set up to act upon NoCeMs due to age.

We all understand what the issue is. Anybody can issue NoCeMs or cancel
messages as abuse countermeasures, as long as the issuance itself isn't
in such great quantity that it's a denial of service attack which is its
own form of abuse. Any News administrator can act on these. It depends
on the reputation of the issuer of the countermeasure whether they
should be acted upon.

There has never been anything for us to discuss. Accept them, don't
accept them. The News administrator makes that choice. If the user
doesn't care for the way the News administrator presents Usenet to him,
then he should become a user on another server.

[llp]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Marco Moock

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels. He's
complaining about third-party cancels that are issued as an abuse
countermeasure because they are acted upon at a few specific servers
that aren't set up to act upon NoCeMs due to age.
We all understand what the issue is. Anybody can issue NoCeMs or cancel
messages as abuse countermeasures, as long as the issuance itself isn't
in such great quantity that it's a denial of service attack which is its
own form of abuse. Any News administrator can act on these. It depends
on the reputation of the issuer of the countermeasure whether they
should be acted upon.
There has never been anything for us to discuss. Accept them, don't
accept them. The News administrator makes that choice. If the user
doesn't care for the way the News administrator presents Usenet to him,
then he should become a user on another server.

I don't share your analysis.

There was a time when this kind of problem was quickly solved (on the
fr hierarchy at least) because nobody would have put up with these
rogue cancels and no administrator worthy of the name would have
continued to host such a crazy canceller.

Let me remind you that the problem isn't cancels against real spam.
It's cancels for imaginary offenses of opinion disguised as the
fight against spam or flood.
Like many of the server administrators here, I'm taking part (by
issuing nocems or rejecting spam at source) in the fight against
real spam.

On the other hand, I fight, and will continue to fight, against
censorship and the petty censors who would like to silence anyone
who doesn't support them.

Sincerely

[victor]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Not this again.

With llp it's always the same, flame war after flame war, he can go on
for years, please don't participate in his trolls, they are not even
original or funny, complete waste of time.

As always you do not try to defend your cancels of legitimate messages
you just accuse anyone that brings it up of being the problem.

I will ask again and be shocked if I get a real answer. Are these
cancels for messages that you do not agree with the opinion of the poster?

[R Daneel Olivaw]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Not this again.

With llp it's always the same, flame war after flame war, he can go on
for years, please don't participate in his trolls, they are not even
original or funny, complete waste of time.
And so EOT for me :)

llp's sig says "Admin of news.usenet.ovh" and I assume that means he can
ignore any cancel messages he wants to on that server, it also means
that anyone who cares about the cancelled messages in the "fr heirarchy"
should use that server as well.
I'd ask what the problem is, except that I don't speak French and really
don't care which .fr messages are deleted and which ones survive.

[immibis]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Marco Moock

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.

Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
third-party cancels invalid.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
We all understand what the issue is. Anybody can issue NoCeMs or cancel
messages as abuse countermeasures, as long as the issuance itself isn't
in such great quantity that it's a denial of service attack which is its
own form of abuse. Any News administrator can act on these. It depends
on the reputation of the issuer of the countermeasure whether they
should be acted upon.

If somebody leaves a list of credit card numbers on an open FTP server
with the password "password", it's still considered abusive to download
them and buy things with them, even though it's technically possible to
do so. (And you will go to jail for it)

[D]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 22:54:58 +0100, immibis <***@immibis.com> wrote:
snip

Post by immibis
do so. (And you will go to jail for it)

that's exactly what the tutanota advertisers have been saying all along
<***@dizum.com> "you're all going to jail"

(using Tor Browser 13.0.9)
https://gizmodo.com/tuta-email-denies-connection-to-intelligence-services-1851022465

Post by immibis
Encrypted Email Service Tuta Denies It's a 'Honeypot' for Five Eyes
Intelligence
For years, Tutanota (which recently rebranded to "Tuta") has been a trusted
email provider. A former Canadian cop has accused it of being a honeypot.
By Lucas Ropek
Published November 15, 2023 | Comments (1)
Photo: Mehaniq (Shutterstock)
There are only a handful of trusted end-to-end encrypted email providers.
Of those, Tuta (which has long been known as "Tutanota" but recently
rebranded ) is one of the more well-known. This week, the company found
itself on the defensive after being labeled a "front" for law enforcement
and intelligence services. In an attempt to clear its name, the company
released a statement denying that it's a honeypot operation, after a former,
highly placed Canadian intelligence official alleged in court that was the
case.
The cop in question, Cameron Ortis, formerly ran a "highly secret unit"
within the Royal Canadian Mountain Police, but is now on trial for allegedly
having attempted to sell government intelligence to criminals, CBC reports.
Related Content

Parents Push Congress for Stricter Social Media Laws
DuckDuckGo's New Free Program Beta Promises to Strip Ad Trackers From Your

Emails
Ortis has denied that he was actually attempting to sell state secrets. In
his testimony, which was made public this week, Ortis instead said that he
was involved in a special operation. As part of that operation, agents used
Tuta, which he described as a "storefront"--or a kind of honeypot--to lure in
prospective criminals for surveillance, he said. CBC describes the former
...according to Ortis, [another agent] briefed him about a "storefront"
that was being created to attract criminal targets to an online encryption
service. A storefront, said Ortis, is a fake business or entity, either
online or bricks-and-mortar, set up by police or intelligence agencies. The
plan, he said, was to have criminals use the storefront -- an online end-to-
end encryption service called Tutanota -- to allow authorities to collect
intelligence about them.
"So if targets begin to use that service, the agency that's collecting that
information would be able to feed it back, that information, into the Five
Eyes system, and then back into the RCMP," Ortis claimed, in reference to
the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance, of which Canada is a prominent
member. Ortis has claimed that some unnamed Five Eyes foreign agent
introduced him to the honeypot operation and that he didn't notify his
superiors at the RCMP about it. Follow-up questions about the whole thing
have mostly led him to say things like "I don't recall," and "that's
something I can't talk about."
Tuta has vehemently denied the allegations against it. In a blog post
published Monday, the company stressed that there was no "backdoor" in its
This weekend Tutanota was called a "storefront" and a "honeypot" -
without any evidence. Tutanota - or now Tuta - is the encrypted email
service with a focus on privacy, open source and transparency. It is not
linked to any secret service and there is no backdoor included. It is not
even necessary to trust our words, as our entire client code is published
so that anyone can verify that there is no backdoor.
In its statement, Tuta added that it would be watching Ortis' "case with
great interest" and that it was "actively working with...[its] legal team
to fight" the "slanderous claims" that had been made against it.
It should be pointed out that Tuta does host its client-side code on
Github, though the company has never fully open-sourced its server-side
code. The company has stated that this shouldn't matter since all of its
encryption occurs on the client side, and that's what counts when it comes
to user privacy.
It's not clear what evidence (if any) Ortis has that Tutanota is a
"storefront," as he's claimed. So far, he's provided none. The story is
interesting, however, for its connection to a verified episode involving
law enforcement's attempts to backdoor a well-known privacy service. One
of the people that Ortis is accused of spilling government secrets to is
Vincent Ramos, the former CEO of Phantom Secure--an encrypted phone company
that police say frequently sold its devices to drug cartels and other crime
syndicates. It was previously reported that the FBI once tried to force
Ramos to install a backdoor into his software so that the agency could spy
on Sinaloa Cartel members. Canadian law enforcement was notably involved in
the investigation into Phantom Secure and Ramos and assisted with his
arrest. In 2019, Ramos was sentenced to nine years in prison.

[end quote]

good guys vs. good guys . . . "put down your books and pick up a gun"
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=stand+for+the+flag+kneel+for+the+cross+meme

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Marco Moock

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.

Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
third-party cancels invalid.

Could you put on another sockpuppet that makes you look like less of a
moron?

Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
the ability to use the key.

The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

[Nothing to do with anything discussed]

Post by immibis
If somebody leaves a list of credit card numbers on an open FTP server
with the password "password", it's still considered abusive to download
them and buy things with them, even though it's technically possible to
do so. (And you will go to jail for it)

You are fortunate indeed that nobody has made it illegal to operate a
that brain of yours whilst being stupid.

[Automated Spam Filter]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
You are fortunate indeed that nobody has made it illegal to operate a
that brain of yours whilst being stupid.

An article with zero semantic content has been detected. Please do not
clog the system with such articles.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Automated Spam Filter

Post by Adam H. Kerman
You are fortunate indeed that nobody has made it illegal to operate a
that brain of yours whilst being stupid.

An article with zero semantic content has been detected. Please do not
clog the system with such articles.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to be a 'bot, you'll cross the
Breidbart Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable spam. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.

Just learn to use your killfile. Ask me. I'm here to help.

[llp]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Marco Moock

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.

Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
third-party cancels invalid.

[cut]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
the ability to use the key.
The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.

If a server is using Cancel-Lock, third-party cancel will be rejected.

So, yes, Cancel-lock is relevant to protect a message from third-party
abusives cancels. In fact, that's why it exists at all :-)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Marco Moock

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.

Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
third-party cancels invalid.

[cut]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
the ability to use the key.
The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.

If a server is using Cancel-Lock, third-party cancel will be rejected.
So, yes, Cancel-lock is relevant to protect a message from third-party
abusives cancels. In fact, that's why it exists at all :-)

If a server is using Cancel-lock, then it processes 1st and 2nd party
cancels with the appropriate key. Use of the key means that the News
administrator can process these cancels with confidence that they are not
abuse as he has not set up 1st and 2nd parties as trusted cancellers. This
is why it has nothing to do with 3rd party cancels.

A News administrator can still decide that he trusts a 3rd-party canceller
and process his cancels, without processing any other cancels from
untrusted parties.

As little need as there for this discussion, there is absolutely no need
to discuss Cancel-lock with regard to 3rd-party cancels. Either a server
is set up to process all cancels or no cancels or cancels issued by
trusted cancellers only.

[llp]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Marco Moock

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.

Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
third-party cancels invalid.

[cut]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
the ability to use the key.
The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.

If a server is using Cancel-Lock, third-party cancel will be rejected.
So, yes, Cancel-lock is relevant to protect a message from third-party
abusives cancels. In fact, that's why it exists at all :-)

If a server is using Cancel-lock, then it processes 1st and 2nd party
cancels with the appropriate key. Use of the key means that the News
administrator can process these cancels with confidence that they are not
abuse as he has not set up 1st and 2nd parties as trusted cancellers.

Yes.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
This is why it has nothing to do with 3rd party cancels.

This conclusion has nothing to do with what you said earlier.
On the contrary, your previous comments demonstrate that
3rd party cancels will be rejected.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
A News administrator can still decide that he trusts a 3rd-party
canceller and process his cancels, without processing any other
cancels from untrusted parties.

He can decide what he wants. But no serious newsmaster will do it,
because it's an open door to abuse. There is no authenticated cancel
outside cancel-lock.
To authorize a third party to delete articles, there are nocems.
And these are truly authenticated.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Marco Moock

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.

Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
third-party cancels invalid.

[cut]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
the ability to use the key.
The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.

If a server is using Cancel-Lock, third-party cancel will be rejected.
So, yes, Cancel-lock is relevant to protect a message from third-party
abusives cancels. In fact, that's why it exists at all :-)

If a server is using Cancel-lock, then it processes 1st and 2nd party
cancels with the appropriate key. Use of the key means that the News
administrator can process these cancels with confidence that they are not
abuse as he has not set up 1st and 2nd parties as trusted cancellers.

Yes.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
This is why it has nothing to do with 3rd party cancels.

This conclusion has nothing to do with what you said earlier.
On the contrary, your previous comments demonstrate that
3rd party cancels will be rejected.

Why would a server operating Cancel-lock reject a 3rd party cancel with
the Cancel-lock process? If there's no key (or no purported key), then
why is the cancel message being sent to the Cancel-lock process at all?

That makes no sense.

It's like saying that a newgroup control message for a newsgroup in a
hierarchy that requires it to be a signed control message (per rone's
control.ctl as modified by the News administrator) but lacks the
hierarchy administrator's key gets sent for processing regardless, and
only then is it rejected for lack of a key. It makes more sense that it's
checked first that it matches the criterion for a signed control message
and THEN gets sent for processing.

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman
A News administrator can still decide that he trusts a 3rd-party
canceller and process his cancels, without processing any other
cancels from untrusted parties.

He can decide what he wants.

Bonk

So I didn't get it wrong.

Post by llp
But no serious newsmaster will do it,
because it's an open door to abuse. There is no authenticated cancel
outside cancel-lock.

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

Post by llp
To authorize a third party to delete articles, there are nocems.
And these are truly authenticated.

[llp]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Marco Moock

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.

Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
third-party cancels invalid.

[cut]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
the ability to use the key.
The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.

If a server is using Cancel-Lock, third-party cancel will be rejected.
So, yes, Cancel-lock is relevant to protect a message from third-party
abusives cancels. In fact, that's why it exists at all :-)

If a server is using Cancel-lock, then it processes 1st and 2nd party
cancels with the appropriate key. Use of the key means that the News
administrator can process these cancels with confidence that they are not
abuse as he has not set up 1st and 2nd parties as trusted cancellers.

Yes.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
This is why it has nothing to do with 3rd party cancels.

This conclusion has nothing to do with what you said earlier.
On the contrary, your previous comments demonstrate that
3rd party cancels will be rejected.

Why would a server operating Cancel-lock reject a 3rd party cancel with
the Cancel-lock process? If there's no key (or no purported key), then
why is the cancel message being sent to the Cancel-lock process at all?

That makes no sense.
A server that uses cancel-lock will, of course, check that the cancel
that arrives has the right key. And that's why the third-party cancel
will never succeed in this process: the third party doesn't have the
right key.

[cut - Irrelevant comparison]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman
A News administrator can still decide that he trusts a 3rd-party
canceller and process his cancels, without processing any other
cancels from untrusted parties.

He can decide what he wants.

Bonk
So I didn't get it wrong.

Post by llp
But no serious newsmaster will do it,
because it's an open door to abuse. There is no authenticated cancel
outside cancel-lock.

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp
To authorize a third party to delete articles, there are nocems.
And these are truly authenticated.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out of
this discussion.

[llp]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out
of this discussion.

Ok.
Have a nice day

[immibis]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out of
this discussion.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll cross
the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.

Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out of
this discussion.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll cross
the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.
Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

It took you days to come up with that unoriginal thought.

[immibis]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out of
this discussion.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll cross
the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.
Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

It took you days to come up with that unoriginal thought.

Longer than it took you to realize you were talking about something you
knew nothing about?

You know, I'd never heard of Cancel-Key or Cancel-Lock before this
thread, either. Unlike you, I was able to figure that out.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out of
this discussion.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll cross
the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.
Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

It took you days to come up with that unoriginal thought.

Longer than it took you to realize you were talking about something you
knew nothing about?
You know, I'd never heard of Cancel-Key or Cancel-Lock before this
thread, either. Unlike you, I was able to figure that out.

It's in every single article you post through Ray's server, sweetcheeks.
It has to do with 1st and 2nd party cancels only, not 3rd party cancels.
3rd party cancels are not verifiable with cancel lock.

No, you still haven't figured it out.

[immibis]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out of
this discussion.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll cross
the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.
Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

It took you days to come up with that unoriginal thought.

Longer than it took you to realize you were talking about something you
knew nothing about?
You know, I'd never heard of Cancel-Key or Cancel-Lock before this
thread, either. Unlike you, I was able to figure that out.

It's in every single article you post through Ray's server, sweetcheeks.
It has to do with 1st and 2nd party cancels only, not 3rd party cancels.
3rd party cancels are not verifiable with cancel lock.

That's right. 3rd-party cancels fail the cancel-key test, because they
are illegitimate, sweetcheeks. Servers which check the cancel-key/lock
will not accept them, honeybun.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out of
this discussion.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll cross
the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.
Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

It took you days to come up with that unoriginal thought.

Longer than it took you to realize you were talking about something you
knew nothing about?
You know, I'd never heard of Cancel-Key or Cancel-Lock before this
thread, either. Unlike you, I was able to figure that out.

It's in every single article you post through Ray's server, sweetcheeks.
It has to do with 1st and 2nd party cancels only, not 3rd party cancels.
3rd party cancels are not verifiable with cancel lock.

That's right. 3rd-party cancels fail the cancel-key test, because they
are illegitimate, sweetcheeks.

You're still incredibly confused due to your serious reading comprehension
problem. "Legitimate", according to your proprietary definition, isn't
a prerequisite in the standard for issuing a cancel control message. Syntax is.
Your stupid opinion is irrelevant.

Post by immibis
Servers which check the cancel-key/lock will not accept them, honeybun.

You fail to understand the basic principle of Usenet: News administrators
run Usenet. The issuer of the cancel message does not run Usenet. A
News administrator, and not you, makes the rules for the server he
administers. Use of cancel lock to accept first and second party cancels
has nothing to do with whether he chooses to process third-party cancellers
from a canceller that he's decided to trust.

As llp pointed out, it may not be a best practice given that the
mechanism isn't set up to verify the canceller's identity. Regardless,
it's possible to act upon these cancels.

This is how Usenet works. It's never illegitimate to send a control
message. Despite "control" in the name, there is no obligation for the
News administrator to act upon it.

Same with checkgroups issued by a hierarchy administrator. A news
administrator chooses how to offer Usenet to his users, not the
hierarchy administrator. He has no obligation to process checkgroups. He
can choose to create a newsgroup locally that the hierarchy
administrator does not recognize, and he can choose not to create
specific newsgroups the hierarchy administrator does recognize.

The hierarchy administrator may be doing all sorts of goofy things that
are not popular among News administrators that have created newsgroups
in that hierarchy. Just because he has issued a control message doesn't
make it legitimate. The only requirement is good syntax. It doesn't have
to be acted upon by a News administator.

To understand how all this works, you have to distinguish in your mind
the difference between the person issuing the control message and the
person acting upon the control message. They are two different actors.

I'm sure you won't. It's beyond your understanding.

[Seamus]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
You fail to understand the basic principle of Usenet: News administrators
run Usenet. The issuer of the cancel message does not run Usenet.

That's right, my little sugar dumpling. You don't get to run Usenet by
sending cancel messages, cupcake.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
As llp pointed out, it may not be a best practice given that the
mechanism isn't set up to verify the canceller's identity. Regardless,
it's possible to act upon these cancels. >
This is how Usenet works. It's never illegitimate to send a control
message.

You already gave me permission to run a bot that cancels all your
messages, cutiepeach, so you don't need to repeat it, unless you are
trying to remind me to get around to it, buttercup?

[Sn!pe]

immibis <***@immibis.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by immibis
That's right. 3rd-party cancels fail the cancel-key test, because they
are illegitimate, sweetcheeks. Servers which check the cancel-key/lock
will not accept them, honeybun.

"sweetcheeks"? "honeybun"?

As I said previously: you are disagreeable.

[Ricardo Hernandez]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out
of this discussion.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll cross
the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.
Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

It took you days to come up with that unoriginal thought.

Usenet is a hard place, Adam. Look at your sacrifices and contributions.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Ricardo Hernandez

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out
of this discussion.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll cross
the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.
Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

It took you days to come up with that unoriginal thought.

Usenet is a hard place, Adam. Look at your sacrifices and contributions.

It's so odd that there have been no shortage of people slamming me, but
there's just this one fuckhead who hides behind would-be anonymizing
servers, setting up sockpuppet after sockpuppet to do so. It's amazingly
cowardly. You truly think this has thwarted my many teams of henchmen
from finding you in short order to beat you to death?

[Eric M]

Adam H. Kerman Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:07:45

Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's so odd that there have been no shortage of people slamming me,
but there's just this one fuckhead who hides behind would-be
anonymizing servers, setting up sockpuppet after sockpuppet to do so.
It's amazingly cowardly. You truly think this has thwarted my many
teams of henchmen from finding you in short order to beat you to
death?

I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

[immibis]

Post by Eric M
Adam H. Kerman Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:07:45

Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's so odd that there have been no shortage of people slamming me,
but there's just this one fuckhead who hides behind would-be
anonymizing servers, setting up sockpuppet after sockpuppet to do so.
It's amazingly cowardly. You truly think this has thwarted my many
teams of henchmen from finding you in short order to beat you to
death?

I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

He thinks all the people who write negative things about him are all the
same person.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by immibis

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's so odd that there have been no shortage of people slamming me,
but there's just this one fuckhead who hides behind would-be
anonymizing servers, setting up sockpuppet after sockpuppet to do so.
It's amazingly cowardly. You truly think this has thwarted my many
teams of henchmen from finding you in short order to beat you to
death?

I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

He thinks all the people who write negative things about him are all the
same person.

Don't be ridiculous. I have never in my life believed that a sockpuppet
is a person.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's so odd that there have been no shortage of people slamming me,
but there's just this one fuckhead who hides behind would-be
anonymizing servers, setting up sockpuppet after sockpuppet to do so.
It's amazingly cowardly. You truly think this has thwarted my many
teams of henchmen from finding you in short order to beat you to
death?

I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.

[Ray Banana]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.

And immibis is using E-S, too. Just saying ...

[immibis]

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.

And immibis is using E-S, too. Just saying ...

Oh hey, Ray. Since this user believes (<url0v6$39kqa$***@dont-email.me>)
it's fine for anyone to post cancels of any message for any reason,
since he trusts servers to ignore them, will it bother you too much if I
automatically post cancels to all of his messages?

Does the E-S server propagate them even though it doesn't process them
as cancels itself?

[Ray Banana]

Post by immibis

Post by Ray Banana
And immibis is using E-S, too. Just saying ...

it's fine for anyone to post cancels of any message for any reason,
since he trusts servers to ignore them, will it bother you too much if
I automatically post cancels to all of his messages?

You don't need my approval to do this.
Unless you intend to use E-S to post these cancel messages, that is.
In this case I would like to refer you to the E-S TOS.

Post by immibis
Does the E-S server propagate them even though it doesn't process them
as cancels itself?

Yes, of course it does.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by immibis

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.

And immibis is using E-S, too. Just saying ...

it's fine for anyone to post cancels of any message for any reason,
since he trusts servers to ignore them, will it bother you too much if I
automatically post cancels to all of his messages?

Sweety, Ray doesn't allow third-party cancels and most other control
messages to be posted through his server. He does allow first-party
cancels.

If you had technical skillz, you might set up your own News server. I'm
sure you could get several News servers to accept them. Just establish
your reputation as not a nutcase. Otherwise it's just those couple of
French News servers in question.

Post by immibis
Does the E-S server propagate them even though it doesn't process them
as cancels itself?

A control message is an ordinary Usenet article. It just has a Control
header.

Good luck on your project.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by immibis
it's fine for anyone to post cancels of any message for any reason,
since he trusts servers to ignore them, will it bother you too much if I
automatically post cancels to all of his messages?

Feel free to do so, because nobody accepts cancels. That horse left the
barn thirty years back and I wish you'd stop beating on it.

Post by immibis
Does the E-S server propagate them even though it doesn't process them
as cancels itself?

If it's properly configured, yes.
--scott

[Eric M]

Adam H. Kerman Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:13:59

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.

This is intersting, Dizum is far worse than Google that has been heavily
filtered, I'm not looking for any logic anymore :)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.

This is intersting, Dizum is far worse than Google that has been heavily
filtered, I'm not looking for any logic anymore :)

Attacking me isn't a form of abuse. It cannot be compared to the NoCeMs
issued as countermeasures against abuse that originated at Google
Groups, hundreds of thousands of articles at a time, plus the drug spam
and the advertising.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Eric M
Adam H. Kerman Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:13:59

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.

This is intersting, Dizum is far worse than Google that has been heavily
filtered, I'm not looking for any logic anymore :)

Get real! Dizum generates nowhere even remotely close to the Google
spam of the previous few months.

Anyway, it's up to Ray to decide if he carries Dizum posts or not.
It's not upto you, Adam, me or anyone else.

Likewise, it's upto the admin of your server (Yamo?) to not carry
Dizum posts, *if* that's what he's doing.

[Eric M]

Frank Slootweg a écrit le Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:42:20 dans

Post by Frank Slootweg
Get real! Dizum generates nowhere even remotely close to the Google
spam of the previous few months.

There was a discussion not long to determine where the spammers
will go after Google, Dizum seems to be an alternative.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Anyway, it's up to Ray to decide if he carries Dizum posts or not.
It's not upto you, Adam, me or anyone else.

Well can I still say what I want, or do you want to censor me ? :)

Post by Frank Slootweg
Likewise, it's upto the admin of your server (Yamo?) to not carry
Dizum posts, *if* that's what he's doing.

Yes, and I'm happy with that. On the fr.* hierarchy the Dizum posts
were cancelled for years but the bot that did it stopped working
unfortunately.

[Ricardo Hernandez]

Frank Slootweg a écrit le Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:42:20 dans

Post by Frank Slootweg
Get real! Dizum generates nowhere even remotely close to the Google
spam of the previous few months.

There was a discussion not long to determine where the spammers
will go after Google, Dizum seems to be an alternative.

Unlikely for numerous reasons.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Anyway, it's up to Ray to decide if he carries Dizum posts or not.
It's not upto you, Adam, me or anyone else.

Well can I still say what I want, or do you want to censor me ? :)

Post by Frank Slootweg
Likewise, it's upto the admin of your server (Yamo?) to not carry
Dizum posts, *if* that's what he's doing.

Yes, and I'm happy with that. On the fr.* hierarchy the Dizum posts
were cancelled for years but the bot that did it stopped working
unfortunately.

That's incorrect. Following that grand French tradition, it surrendered
first, then it quit working.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Eric M
Frank Slootweg a écrit le Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:42:20 dans

Post by Frank Slootweg
Get real! Dizum generates nowhere even remotely close to the Google
spam of the previous few months.

There was a discussion not long to determine where the spammers
will go after Google, Dizum seems to be an alternative.

I don't think so, but no-one knows for sure, so we'll see.

Anyway, if the spam starts again, the admins can take similar action
as they did for the Google Groups spam.

And once again, stuff you don't like isn't spam, it's just stuff you
don't like.

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
Anyway, it's up to Ray to decide if he carries Dizum posts or not.
It's not upto you, Adam, me or anyone else.

Well can I still say what I want, or do you want to censor me ? :)

Yes, you can say what you want and i can say what I want if I don't
agree with it (all within limits).

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
Likewise, it's upto the admin of your server (Yamo?) to not carry
Dizum posts, *if* that's what he's doing.

Yes, and I'm happy with that. On the fr.* hierarchy the Dizum posts
were cancelled for years but the bot that did it stopped working
unfortunately.

Like for the other cancels, canceling stuff you don't like isn't the
right way, but 'we' have been there umpteen times, so there's not need
for yet another round.

[Eric M]

Post by Frank Slootweg
Anyway, if the spam starts again, the admins can take similar action
as they did for the Google Groups spam.

I'm sure they will, but what about free speech for spammers ? :)

Post by Frank Slootweg
And once again, stuff you don't like isn't spam, it's just stuff you
don't like.

I totally agree with that, but there can be real abuse in a text message.
I don't mean just insults, I mean saying someone is pedophile with his
physical address (this is only an example that I saw years ago, from
Dizum).

Post by Frank Slootweg
Yes, you can say what you want and i can say what I want if I don't
agree with it (all within limits).

That's great, I have nothing against this.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Like for the other cancels, canceling stuff you don't like isn't the
right way, but 'we' have been there umpteen times, so there's not need
for yet another round.

There has been repeted abuse from Dizum, maybe they manage this better
than before (they didn't do it at all so it can only get better).

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
Anyway, if the spam starts again, the admins can take similar action
as they did for the Google Groups spam.

I'm sure they will, but what about free speech for spammers ? :)

Post by Frank Slootweg
And once again, stuff you don't like isn't spam, it's just stuff you
don't like.

I totally agree with that, but there can be real abuse in a text message.
I don't mean just insults, I mean saying someone is pedophile with his
physical address (this is only an example that I saw years ago, from
Dizum).

That would be a case for law inforcement. Canceling (read: *trying* to
cancel) - or filtering it at the server level - this stuff isn't going
to make it go away.

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
Yes, you can say what you want and i can say what I want if I don't
agree with it (all within limits).

That's great, I have nothing against this.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Like for the other cancels, canceling stuff you don't like isn't the
right way, but 'we' have been there umpteen times, so there's not need
for yet another round.

There has been repeted abuse from Dizum, maybe they manage this better
than before (they didn't do it at all so it can only get better).

See above.

[Marco Moock]

Post by Frank Slootweg
That would be a case for law inforcement. Canceling (read: *trying*
to cancel) - or filtering it at the server level - this stuff isn't
going to make it go away.

Making it harder to inject that is indeed a way to have less of that.
Since aioe is down and mixmin doesn't allow unauthenticated posting,
such stuff in de.* decreased significantly.

[Eric M]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
I totally agree with that, but there can be real abuse in a text message.
I don't mean just insults, I mean saying someone is pedophile with his
physical address (this is only an example that I saw years ago, from
Dizum).

That would be a case for law inforcement. Canceling (read: *trying* to
cancel) - or filtering it at the server level - this stuff isn't going
to make it go away.

Dizum is an anonymizer, that's where the problem is.They have no logs so
they can't give them to the justice. UDP was made to put pressure on rogue
servers, but with no cancels, no UDP, no law.

[Ricardo Hernandez]

Post by Eric M
Adam H. Kerman Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:13:59

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.

This is intersting, Dizum is far worse than Google that has been
heavily filtered, I'm not looking for any logic anymore :)

Any doofus could use google.

Dizum enables free speech and uplifting banter.

[Ricardo Hernandez]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's so odd that there have been no shortage of people slamming me,
but there's just this one fuckhead who hides behind would-be
anonymizing servers, setting up sockpuppet after sockpuppet to do so.
It's amazingly cowardly. You truly think this has thwarted my many
teams of henchmen from finding you in short order to beat you to
death?

I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.

Ray has a good sense of the value of his posters. Even you.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Eric M
Adam H. Kerman Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:07:45

Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's so odd that there have been no shortage of people slamming me,
but there's just this one fuckhead who hides behind would-be
anonymizing servers, setting up sockpuppet after sockpuppet to do so.
It's amazingly cowardly. You truly think this has thwarted my many
teams of henchmen from finding you in short order to beat you to
death?

I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

Why would he want to change servers (for this 'reason')? Just filter
what you don't want, 'problem' solved.

[Eric M]

Frank Slootweg a écrit le Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:08:51

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

Why would he want to change servers (for this 'reason')? Just filter
what you don't want, 'problem' solved.

This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved differently
than Big8 usenet.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Eric M
Frank Slootweg a écrit le Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:08:51

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

Why would he want to change servers (for this 'reason')? Just filter
what you don't want, 'problem' solved.

This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved differently
than Big8 usenet.

It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
usenet" have to do with anything?

FYI, I don't like most (all?) Dizum posts/posters, so I filter Dizum.
As I said, 'problem' solved.

But each admin is free to (not) carry whatever does (not) please hir
and likewise, each user is free to filter whatever does not please hir.

Bottom line: Again you're basically advocating to censor stuff you
don't like. It's not going to work.

[Eric M]

Frank Slootweg a écrit le Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:41:31 dans

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved differently
than Big8 usenet.

It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
usenet" have to do with anything?

You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

Post by Frank Slootweg
FYI, I don't like most (all?) Dizum posts/posters, so I filter Dizum.
As I said, 'problem' solved.

But people answer to people using Dizum, so your filter is useless.

Post by Frank Slootweg
But each admin is free to (not) carry whatever does (not) please hir
and likewise, each user is free to filter whatever does not please hir.

Yes, of course, according to the laws of his country.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Bottom line: Again you're basically advocating to censor stuff you
don't like. It's not going to work.

It's not what I don't like, it's a server that has a long history of
abuse (exactly like Google, but you did not cry to censorship when
people cleaned the Google shit), do they still have "sewer output" in
their path ?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved differently
than Big8 usenet.

It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
usenet" have to do with anything?

You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
. . .

[A B]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved
differently than Big8 usenet.

It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
usenet" have to do with anything?

You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic
in public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more
vigilant on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good
speech, lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship
wouldn't have kept my family alive.

I always thought you were Iranian.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
. . .

[Eric M]

Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.

If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?

Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.

[Retro Guy]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.
If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?
Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.

Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
power restrict speech.

Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.

It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
<insert issue here>.

I'm married to an Australian, I have these conversations now and then with
her family.

[D]

Post by Retro Guy

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.
If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?
Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.

Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
power restrict speech.
Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.
It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
<insert issue here>.
I'm married to an Australian, I have these conversations now and then with
her family.

some words are more generic and open to interpretation than others,
e.g. "free", "gay", "good", "evil", "god", "hate", "right", "wrong"
can mean anything to anyone at anytime . . . politics and religion

[llp]

Post by Retro Guy

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have an
european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.
If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?
Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.

Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
power restrict speech.
Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.

They don't even think about it. They think it will keep them
in power or influence.

Post by Retro Guy
It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
<insert issue here>.

I agree with you.

But you also have this kind of person in the USA, don't you?
I think of the "woke" or the cancel culture followers.

[Eric M]

Post by llp
But you also have this kind of person in the USA, don't you?
I think of the "woke" or the cancel culture followers.

Republicans are BURNING books :

<https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-united-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>

[def]

Post by Eric M

Post by llp
But you also have this kind of person in the USA, don't you?
I think of the "woke" or the cancel culture followers.

<https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-unit
ed-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>

I don't see anything wrong with disposal of trash that attempts to warp
the minds of innocent children into things they cannot be. You can't
change how you were born, no matter how much surgical butchery occurs.

Attempting to force something like that on children is simply wrong. Let
kids be kids. Nut job social agendas do not belong in schools.

[Retro Guy]

Post by llp

Post by Retro Guy

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have an
european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.
If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?
Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.

Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
power restrict speech.
Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.

They don't even think about it. They think it will keep them
in power or influence.

Post by Retro Guy
It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
<insert issue here>.

I agree with you.
But you also have this kind of person in the USA, don't you?
I think of the "woke" or the cancel culture followers.

Yes, absolutely. More and more we have people advocating to stifle speech in
the U.S. It's sad to see people pushing for their own rights to be limited.

Fortunately, so far anyway, it's more difficult to ignore a constitutional
amendment than if such did not exist.

[immibis]

Post by Retro Guy
It's sad to see people pushing for their own rights to be limited.

Do you think I should have any responsibilities at all? For example
should I have the responsibility to not punch you in the face? It's sad
to see that you want to limit your won face-punching rights!

[Retro Guy]

Post by immibis

Post by Retro Guy
It's sad to see people pushing for their own rights to be limited.

Do you think I should have any responsibilities at all? For example
should I have the responsibility to not punch you in the face? It's sad
to see that you want to limit your won face-punching rights!

By that logic, since murder is illegal in many places, it should also be
illegal to drink water.

Your words don't infringe on my rights, but punching me in the face does. I
don't have the right to not be offended.

Since you set Followup-To to alt.dev.null I'll assume you've made your
points and are done. As I stated earlier, it is a difficult subject to
discuss between Americans and non Americans. I'm glad you have the freedom
to express your views, and that I do also.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by llp

Post by Retro Guy

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have an
european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.
If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?
Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.

Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
power restrict speech.
Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.

They don't even think about it. They think it will keep them
in power or influence.

Post by Retro Guy
It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
<insert issue here>.

I agree with you.
But you also have this kind of person in the USA, don't you?
I think of the "woke" or the cancel culture followers.

Alas, yes we do. It's the anti-woke too. Two months ago, presidential
candidate Nikki Haley -- a religious conservative -- stated that she
opposed anymous speech on Web forums and would regulate it to prohibit
it. That's contrary to the First Amendment.

[Eric M]

Post by Retro Guy
It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
<insert issue here>.

It's difficult because your country is doing this :

<https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-united-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>

So free speech for who ? :)

I don't know where to redirect as I don't really know the Big8, feel free
to go where it's proper.

[Retro Guy]

Post by Eric M

Post by Retro Guy
It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
<insert issue here>.

<https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-united-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>
So free speech for who ? :)

I agree that this is an issue. Most of what is reported as book "banning" in the
U.S. currently is removing books from schools. The books are still available to
purchase or read.

Seeing what you link to supports the idea of, "What happens when the other side
controls speech?"

The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's more difficult
to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.

I don't want people I agree with to be censored, and I don't want people I disagree
with to be censored.

[Eric M]

Post by Retro Guy
The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's more difficult
to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.

And you're about to reelect Trump, the world is looking at you.

Post by Retro Guy
I don't want people I agree with to be censored, and I don't want people I disagree
with to be censored.

This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can get
people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

[Retro Guy]

Post by Eric M

Post by Retro Guy
The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's more difficult
to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.

And you're about to reelect Trump, the world is looking at you.

Let's hope so.

Post by Eric M

Post by Retro Guy
I don't want people I agree with to be censored, and I don't want people I disagree
with to be censored.

This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can get
people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

Words don't kill. If I told you to kill someone, somehow I think you
wouldn't do it.

Our brief discussion here is a great example of my statement that it is hard
for an American to have a discussion about free speech with someone who is
not American. We have a different view of whether the government should have
the power to control speech.

Post by Eric M
But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

Really? I wasn't aware that I should feel unsafe, which I don't.

[D]

Post by Retro Guy

Post by Eric M

Post by Retro Guy
The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's more difficult
to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.

And you're about to reelect Trump, the world is looking at you.

Let's hope so.

always liked trump, not as a politician but as a person; last politician that
i do remember liking was jfk . . . ike's farewell address was pretty good too

Post by Retro Guy

Post by Eric M

Post by Retro Guy
I don't want people I agree with to be censored, and I don't want people I disagree
with to be censored.

This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can get
people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

Words don't kill. If I told you to kill someone, somehow I think you
wouldn't do it.

but if he can hear voices in his head guiding his actions, best steer clear...

Post by Retro Guy
Our brief discussion here is a great example of my statement that it is hard
for an American to have a discussion about free speech with someone who is
not American. We have a different view of whether the government should have
the power to control speech.

Post by Eric M
But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

Really? I wasn't aware that I should feel unsafe, which I don't.

fear merchants have always found a lucrative market in this world . . . they
sell protection in the form of weaponization, militarization, indoctrination

[immibis]

Post by Retro Guy

Post by Eric M
This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can
get people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

Words don't kill. If I told you to kill someone, somehow I think you
wouldn't do it.

If your boss told you to turn this valve because the sewage tank needs
to be emptied and he ignores the fact that someone is trapped in the
drain, do you turn it, or do you protest and lose your job, then your
house, then your food supply?

[llp]

Post by Retro Guy

Post by Eric M

Post by Retro Guy
The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's more difficult
to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.

And you're about to reelect Trump, the world is looking at you.

Let's hope so.

Post by Eric M

Post by Retro Guy
I don't want people I agree with to be censored, and I don't want people I disagree
with to be censored.

This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can get
people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

Words don't kill. If I told you to kill someone, somehow I think you
wouldn't do it.

If it's "Martial", i'm not sure of his answer ;-)
(Sorry, private usenet-fr joke)

Post by Retro Guy
Our brief discussion here is a great example of my statement that it is hard
for an American to have a discussion about free speech with someone who is
not American. We have a different view of whether the government should have
the power to control speech.

But this is not the opinion of all French people.
The 1881 press law was very permissive.
Unfortunately, these freedoms are being restricted year by year with
new laws that solve nothing.
But we're out of the scope of this group.

Post by Retro Guy

Post by Eric M
But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

Really? I wasn't aware that I should feel unsafe, which I don't.

We're in far greater danger here :-(
A citizen does not have the right to defend himself.
The notion of self-defense is almost impossible to implement; you
almost have to wait until you're dead to have the right to shoot back.

[D]

On Wed, 28 Feb 24 18:05:02 +0000, Eric M <***@gmail.com> wrote:
snip

Post by Eric M
This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can get
people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

the russians are coming . . .

[immibis]

Post by Retro Guy

Post by Eric M

Post by Retro Guy
It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course
for <insert issue here>.

<https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-united-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>
So free speech for who ? :)

I agree that this is an issue. Most of what is reported as book
"banning" in the U.S. currently is removing books from schools. The
books are still available to
purchase or read.
Seeing what you link to supports the idea of, "What happens when the other side
controls speech?"
The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's more difficult
to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.

They don't seem to be having any problem with it. They can't pass a law
saying a certain book is illegal, but they have no problem passing laws
preventing the book from even being mentioned in places where people
might learn of its existence.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Eric M

Post by Retro Guy
It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
<insert issue here>.

<https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-united-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>
So free speech for who ? :)

There is no question that certain Christians, in freely exercising their
own religion as a civil right, believe they have the right to impose
their religious viewpoint on other people and can tell other people what
they cannot read. Members of the public have gone after school
librarians and public librarians for choices made in selecting books for
the collection.

Post by Eric M
I don't know where to redirect as I don't really know the Big8, feel free
to go where it's proper.

[immibis]

Post by Retro Guy
Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
power restrict speech.
Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.

When evil people are in power, they're going to restrict speech just as
well no matter whether you restricted them from speaking when they
weren't in power or not.

Post by Retro Guy
It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
<insert issue here>.

Maybe your refusal to accept their opinion just indicates closedmindedness.

[Retro Guy]

Post by immibis

Post by Retro Guy
Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
power restrict speech.
Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.

When evil people are in power, they're going to restrict speech just as
well no matter whether you restricted them from speaking when they
weren't in power or not.

Post by Retro Guy
It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
<insert issue here>.

Maybe your refusal to accept their opinion just indicates closedmindedness.

There is a difference between accepting their opinion and agreeing with
their opinion.

Everyone should have the right to express their opinion, but that doesn't
mean everyone else must agree with it.

[anon]

Post by Retro Guy

Post by immibis

Post by Retro Guy
Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those
in power restrict speech.
Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn,
and suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.

When evil people are in power, they're going to restrict speech just
as well no matter whether you restricted them from speaking when they
weren't in power or not.

Post by Retro Guy
It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is
often the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of
course for <insert issue here>.

Maybe your refusal to accept their opinion just indicates
closedmindedness.

There is a difference between accepting their opinion and agreeing
with their opinion.
Everyone should have the right to express their opinion, but that
doesn't mean everyone else must agree with it.

+1!

[immibis]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.

That's exactly Eric's point. Counterspeech didn't stop Hitler.

[llp]

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.

That's exactly Eric's point. Counterspeech didn't stop Hitler.

But censorship (and all that goes with it) kept Staline and Castro
in power.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.

That's exactly Eric's point. Counterspeech didn't stop Hitler.

Hitler was literally arrested for attempting a coup. This didn't stop him.

Godwin

[anon]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We
have an european point of view, here you cannot say something
antisemitic in public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe
we are more vigilant on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good
speech, lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech.
Censorship wouldn't have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge
Analytica or Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way.
Maybe if Hitler had said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in
concentrations camps and my country will be in ruins in 12 years"
people wouldn't have vote for him, but he said everything would be
fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.

That's exactly Eric's point. Counterspeech didn't stop Hitler.

Hitler was literally arrested for attempting a coup. This didn't stop him.

Why was Hitler wrong for rekindling the spirit of nationalism in a
country whose traditions and customs were being abused and disregarded
by uninvited disrepectful immigrants? Churchill did the same thing for
Britain.

Germans are nice people, I grew up with German and Polish people.

--
Knock before you enter, ask before you take.

[Seamus Godwin]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.

That's exactly Eric's point. Counterspeech didn't stop Hitler.

Hitler was literally arrested for attempting a coup. This didn't stop him.

Also true. If they'd kept him locked up until he died, it would have.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Godwin

Hitler was introduced into the topic several replies ago. Are you okay?
And fix the way your client handles blank lines in quoted text.

[D]

Post by Eric M
Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M
You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

all roads lead to rome

[immibis]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved differently
than Big8 usenet.

It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
usenet" have to do with anything?

You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

Counterspeech hasn't prevented America from inching ever closer towards
committing some atrocity of comparable magnitude, either.

[def]

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved
differently than Big8 usenet.

It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
usenet" have to do with anything?

You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We
have an european point of view, here you cannot say something
antisemitic in public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we
are more vigilant on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good
speech, lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship
wouldn't have kept my family alive.

Counterspeech hasn't prevented America from inching ever closer
towards committing some atrocity of comparable magnitude, either.

Murdering hundreds of thousands of natives and stealing their country
wasn't an atrocity? Then the "conquering" descendents surrender the
country to a bunch of third world invaders without firing a shot like
the French?

What kind of insane behavior is that?

Starting a "civil war" because Eastern bankers wanted their cut of the
slave trade revenue, using the pretense of "freeing slaves" wasn't an
atrocity? Then allowing the 13% descendents of the "freed slaves" to
totally destroy the foundation of business to buyer protocols by
robbery which goes unpunished?

Those kinds of atrocities?

[D]

Post by def

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved
differently than Big8 usenet.

It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
usenet" have to do with anything?

You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We
have an european point of view, here you cannot say something
antisemitic in public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we
are more vigilant on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good
speech, lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship
wouldn't have kept my family alive.

Counterspeech hasn't prevented America from inching ever closer
towards committing some atrocity of comparable magnitude, either.

Murdering hundreds of thousands of natives and stealing their country
wasn't an atrocity? Then the "conquering" descendents surrender the
country to a bunch of third world invaders without firing a shot like
the French?
What kind of insane behavior is that?
Starting a "civil war" because Eastern bankers wanted their cut of the
slave trade revenue, using the pretense of "freeing slaves" wasn't an
atrocity? Then allowing the 13% descendents of the "freed slaves" to
totally destroy the foundation of business to buyer protocols by
robbery which goes unpunished?
Those kinds of atrocities?

it's the good guys vs. the other good guys . . . that way, the good guys always win?
it does seem like this newsgroup is becoming more religious and political these days
and that's all fine and good; troll farms only switched servers since google croaked
using the same old sock puppets and psyops obfuscation tactics ... business as usual

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Eric M
Frank Slootweg a écrit le Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:41:31 dans

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved differently
than Big8 usenet.

It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
usenet" have to do with anything?

You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
on this kind of things.

I'm Dutch and live in The Netherlands, so I don't "have an american
point of view".

As to your example, you apparently have a misunderstanding about the
(correct) American meaning of "freedom of speech", because your example
has nothing to do with that. However, since many (most?) Americans also
do not know the correct meaning of "freedom of speech" (in an American
legal context), your misunderstanding is understandable.

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
FYI, I don't like most (all?) Dizum posts/posters, so I filter Dizum.
As I said, 'problem' solved.

But people answer to people using Dizum, so your filter is useless.

You can filter responses to posts from Dizum, but the question is if
that is desirable in all cases. When someone responds to unwanted
material, that does not automatically mean that that response is also
unwanted.

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
But each admin is free to (not) carry whatever does (not) please hir
and likewise, each user is free to filter whatever does not please hir.

Yes, of course, according to the laws of his country.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Bottom line: Again you're basically advocating to censor stuff you
don't like. It's not going to work.

It's not what I don't like, it's a server that has a long history of
abuse (exactly like Google, but you did not cry to censorship when
people cleaned the Google shit), do they still have "sewer output" in
their path ?

I don't see 'spam' (mostly - but not neccessarily- commercial content,
posted in bulk quantities) from Dizum.

As to "the Google shit": Canceling 'spam' isn't abuse, because it's
defined action *against* abuse. So there was no reason whatsoever to
"cry to censorship". So please don't let your misunderstanding
misrepresent my position.

And yes, Dizum still has "sewer" (not "sewer output") in their path.

[Eric M]

Post by Frank Slootweg
I'm Dutch and live in The Netherlands, so I don't "have an american
point of view".

You can have an American point of view everywhere in the world :)

Post by Frank Slootweg
As to your example, you apparently have a misunderstanding about the
(correct) American meaning of "freedom of speech", because your example
has nothing to do with that. However, since many (most?) Americans also
do not know the correct meaning of "freedom of speech" (in an American
legal context), your misunderstanding is understandable.

Explain to me (maybe in a better group).

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
But people answer to people using Dizum, so your filter is useless.

You can filter responses to posts from Dizum, but the question is if
that is desirable in all cases. When someone responds to unwanted
material, that does not automatically mean that that response is also
unwanted.

So I will see only a small part of what is written in the group and that's
not better.

Post by Frank Slootweg
I don't see 'spam' (mostly - but not neccessarily- commercial content,
posted in bulk quantities) from Dizum.

No, for the moment it's only for insults with multiple identities,
moderatly great.

Post by Frank Slootweg
As to "the Google shit": Canceling 'spam' isn't abuse, because it's
defined action *against* abuse. So there was no reason whatsoever to
"cry to censorship". So please don't let your misunderstanding
misrepresent my position.

Sometimes the limit is thin, in fr.* we had a guy who posted his
"mathematical discoveries" with Google, ten or twenty times a day, it
meant nothing and made the group unreadable, so we had to cancel him. Now
we don't have to do it anymore.

Post by Frank Slootweg
And yes, Dizum still has "sewer" (not "sewer output") in their path.

That's great.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
I'm Dutch and live in The Netherlands, so I don't "have an american
point of view".

You can have an American point of view everywhere in the world :)

True, but I don't have an American point of view (whatever that is),
but a European/Dutch one (whatever that is).

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
As to your example, you apparently have a misunderstanding about the
(correct) American meaning of "freedom of speech", because your example
has nothing to do with that. However, since many (most?) Americans also
do not know the correct meaning of "freedom of speech" (in an American
legal context), your misunderstanding is understandable.

Explain to me (maybe in a better group).

Simply put, according to the US First Amendment (to the US
Constitution), the *governement* can not censor, interfere with or
restrain free and public expression of opinion, but *other* parties can.
i.e. in your (snipped, don't do that!) example, antisemitic posts can be
acted upon by others (and by the law, if so defined).

Some background material:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press>

Besides this US Constitution "freedom of speech", there are other
concepts of "freedom of speech". See for example

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech>

So when someone claims "freedom of speech" they/you are well advised
to determine *which* kind of "freedom of speech" they/you are talking
about.

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
But people answer to people using Dizum, so your filter is useless.

You can filter responses to posts from Dizum, but the question is if
that is desirable in all cases. When someone responds to unwanted
material, that does not automatically mean that that response is also
unwanted.

So I will see only a small part of what is written in the group and that's
not better.

No, not of the group, but of the (sub)thread.

You can filter Dizum posts, responses to Dizum posts and whole
subthreads containing one or more Dizum posts.

See the tin filter documentation or just the simple comments in your
tin filter file (probably ~/.tin/filter):

# msgid=STRING Optional. Message-ID: line (e.g. <***@ether.net>) with
# full references.
# msgid_last=STRING Optional. Like above, but with last reference only.
# msgid_only=STRING Optional. Like above, but without references.

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
I don't see 'spam' (mostly - but not neccessarily- commercial content,
posted in bulk quantities) from Dizum.

No, for the moment it's only for insults with multiple identities,
moderatly great.

That happens in posts from many, many servers, also from 'non-rogue'
servers and in this very group, And these 'multiple identities' even
complain about 'spam' and 'abuse' and 'discuss' it with the admins. Go
figure!

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
As to "the Google shit": Canceling 'spam' isn't abuse, because it's
defined action *against* abuse. So there was no reason whatsoever to
"cry to censorship". So please don't let your misunderstanding
misrepresent my position.

Sometimes the limit is thin, in fr.* we had a guy who posted his
"mathematical discoveries" with Google, ten or twenty times a day, it
meant nothing and made the group unreadable, so we had to cancel him. Now
we don't have to do it anymore.

If the BI is above limit for the fr.* hierarchy or the group in
question, it is cancelable spam. If not, you'll have to (try to) filter
it or/and take it up with the admin in question.

Post by Eric M

Post by Frank Slootweg
And yes, Dizum still has "sewer" (not "sewer output") in their path.

That's great.

[Ricardo Hernandez]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
Frank Slootweg a écrit le Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:08:51

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Eric M
I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

Why would he want to change servers (for this 'reason')? Just filter
what you don't want, 'problem' solved.

This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved differently
than Big8 usenet.

It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
usenet" have to do with anything?
FYI, I don't like most (all?) Dizum posts/posters, so I filter Dizum.
As I said, 'problem' solved.

That's the beauty of usenet. Everyone is free to set their own limits
of enlightenment.

Post by Frank Slootweg
But each admin is free to (not) carry whatever does (not) please hir
and likewise, each user is free to filter whatever does not please hir.
Bottom line: Again you're basically advocating to censor stuff you
don't like. It's not going to work.

PKB

[immibis]

Post by Ricardo Hernandez

Post by Frank Slootweg
FYI, I don't like most (all?) Dizum posts/posters, so I filter Dizum.
As I said, 'problem' solved.

That's the beauty of usenet. Everyone is free to set their own limits
of enlightenment.

It's not beautiful, it's just the way it is. People are not even
informed that they are speaking into the void, or why.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by immibis

Post by Ricardo Hernandez

Post by Frank Slootweg
FYI, I don't like most (all?) Dizum posts/posters, so I filter Dizum.
As I said, 'problem' solved.

That's the beauty of usenet. Everyone is free to set their own limits
of enlightenment.

It's not beautiful, it's just the way it is. People are not even
informed that they are speaking into the void, or why.

FWIW, I consider public plonking both inappropriate and childish.

As to "or why": If I end an exchange, i.e. there was an exchange, I
will normally say so and why. If I killfile a poster, because for
whatever reason I don't want to see hir postings, I will *not* say so.

[Ricardo Hernandez]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Ricardo Hernandez

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop
out of this discussion.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll
cross the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted
has become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want
to be doing that through Ray's server.
Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

It took you days to come up with that unoriginal thought.

Usenet is a hard place, Adam. Look at your sacrifices and
contributions.

It's so odd that there have been no shortage of people slamming me,
but there's just this one fuckhead who hides behind would-be
anonymizing servers, setting up sockpuppet after sockpuppet to do so.

PJR needs inspiration. That's why he pokes people like you with sticks.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's amazingly cowardly. You truly think this has thwarted my many
teams of henchmen from finding you in short order to beat you to
death?

Death threats now?

[Ricardo Hernandez]

Post by immibis

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by llp

Post by Adam H. Kerman

. . .

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out
of this discussion.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll cross
the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.

Not to worry. Ray is consulting with Marco to fine tune scripts shaping
usenet content for the future.

Post by immibis
Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

It's more interesting to leverage the end results of scripting. Things
happen for the best sometimes.

BTW, I appreciate Ivo's service to the community. Thanks Ivo.

[Dutch Spammer]

Post by llp
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the paganini
server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Paganini is run by a Maori so why are you complaining about it? He can
do whatever he wants; It's his baby; Kim Dot Com lives there because of
all the Maoris he can meet.

Now go and wash your face paying particular attention towards your lips
before complaining here.