Hello Docmill,

In a msg of , Nospam.4.Docmill{at}spamgourmet.Com wrote to All:

 >> They are screening, at the FidoNet node that "gates" the FidoNet
 >> message area called MooseChat to-and-from the alt.moose.rights UseNet
 >> newsgroup.  You're replying to a message informing you of that, dude.
 >>
 ND> Last I checked, it was still usenet.

What was?  Two different message areas plus a gateway were mentioned.
Lessee, now:  alt.moose.rights is a UseNet newsgroup, and MooseChat
is a FidoNet message area or "echo".  The newsgroup is still UseNet
and the echo is still FidoNet.

 ND> It's still usenet.  Who said I wanted to reply to Fidonet?

No one.  Still, using this message as an example, perhaps I can get
across why some folks might think the idea would interest you:  I'm
writing this message in a FidoNet message area that is "gated" to a
UseNet newsgroup.  I'm just assuming that if you post a follow-up to
something I write, that you might want me to read your follow-up.
It's not that "you're replying to FidoNet" so much that you're either
"replying to me" or at least ensuring that I can easily see your
follow-up post.

 >> been "gated" to alt.moose.rights, but your replies
contained "bad
 >> words" that meant your messages could not be gated back to MooseChat.
 >> So, you've taken the trouble to reply to some MooseChat messages, but
 >> the people you're following-up do not see your replies because of a
 >> few "bad words".  That seems a shame, because you seem
like someone
 >> who could either be witty (or make a point) without needing to use
 >> bad language.
 >>
 ND> I have no control on replies going anywhere other than this group.  Unless
 ND> I x-post them.

Sure you have control, or at least influence.  For example, you now
know that if you use "bad language" or sexually explicit images you
are guaranteeing that your alt.moose.rights post will not be gated to
the FidoNet MooseChat message area.  Of course, other than wanting
the person whose message you are "following-up" to see your post,
there is no real reason you should care.

 ND> I'm not posting to fidonet.org people.

Why not?  It's not like we have the rep that AOL had.  

 >> Friendly sort, aren't you?  I've an alternative suggestion.  Since
 >> MooseChat participation is falling, and since alt.moose.rights was
 >> doing a great imitation of an almost dead newsgroup before the
 >> fidonet.org "gating" of MooseChat started a small
amount of synergy
 >> between the two message areas, why not try and compromise?

 ND> What are you taking personally?

Who's taking anything personally?  If I was getting all personally
involved and emotional, you'd know it because I'd probably slip and
start typing with an Italian accent!

 >> Why not give up a few words, which your message shows you obviously
 >> do not need in order to be witty, and help both message areas stay
 >> alive?
 >>
 ND> Give up a word or 2 to be critisized by an unseen group that filters free

I doubt anyone meant to criticize you personally.

 ND> speech to satisfy their sense of a usenet for everyone.  OK flog me.

Huh?  FidoNet cannot affect UseNet, but wait a minute;  I'm going to
guess that you have a "thing" about censorship, right?

Well hey, there's plenty of that going on in UseNet.  First off, even
the a.m.r newsgroup is affected by spam filters.  Then, there are the
moderated newsgroups, where messages have to be approved before they
get posted. Then, there are newsgroups that have their charter being
enforced by folks running cancelbots.

The interesting thing is that, in all those cases, the majority of
the newsgroup participants using those newsgroups approve of those
actions.

It's the same thing with MooseChat.  Participants reached an informal
consensus on what the gateway policy should be before it started
gating between these two particular message areas.

The other little detail is that, though some FidoNet nodes do offer
unfiltered UseNet newsgroups, in this case MooseChat is still a
FidoNet message area that happens to share a theme with
alt.moose.rights.  Well, actually we would have preferred the old
alt.moose newsgroup, but after traffic died-off many sysadmins assumed
that alt.moose was just a "place holder" for alt.moose.rights etc and
stopped configuring it with write privileges.  My slightly convoluted
point is that no one in FidoNet is censoring the alt.moose.rights
newsgroup _and_ that MooseChat participants have the arrangement that
they prefer.  So, where's the harm?

 ND> Sorry, I don't plonk, and if you think, I can make this reply come from
 ND> alt.test.

Sure, for whatever that's worth.

My understanding is that, if your article was propagated throughout
alt.moose.rights and was "gated" to MooseChat, my reply would still
just go to alt.moose.rights.  I'm partly basing this on the idea that
anyone who can write functional software to convert bank-and-forth
between two network's different message formats would know what
they're doing.

 >> Meanwhile, as an example of possible compromise, I've managed
 >> what is apparently the appropriate UseNet attitude of being obnoxious
 >> without using any words that would cause FidoNet admin types any
 >> grief.  Are you up to that challenge, too?  
 >>
 ND> Sure, let's see if we can't make the fido admin grin,

Grin?  I dunno?  I don't think we've written anything overly amusing,
though some people might get a kick out of seeing who can do a better
job of "yanking the other guy's chain".  I doubt it, though.

 ND>                                              and think they have
 ND> another day of usenet policy in hand.

FidoNet does not equal UseNet.  Far as I know, no FidoNet admin types
would even dream of trying to change UseNet, or any other part of the
Internet.  It also seems like no one else feels any strong urge to
join in our little discussion, either.  Are we boring, or what?

 ND> (Bastards)

I've often wondered if that insult was a reflection of the person, his
or her mother, his or her parents, or the entire family.  Then again,
who uses the term in it's exact literal meaning these days?  Various
FidoNet executives have certainly been called worse in private message
areas, but I don't think they were any more power-mad than the execs
of other BBS networks.  Why, some UseNet newsgroup moderators and
e-mail mailing list moderators also seem like "fascists" or a
reasonable facsimile thereof.  Thing is, until you actually wear
the hat, you never actually know how you would handle a similar
situation.  People may think they know, but that's usually wishful
thinking.

 ND> 

Darn.  The most I can manage is this  


Respectfully yours,

                 Guido Testosteroni

-
Support Family values and visit a CyberMafia franchise today!

-+-
 + Origin: Testosteroni Salvage Inc.      (1:249/127.2)


---