This rotten B8MB, New Reincarnation of the Same Old Song

[nukleus]

Are you aboard member? If not please refrain from explaining board actions
to me. I will allow Mr. Skirvin and the board to explain the dichotomy.

What "board"?
What ultimate authority?
These people are impostors, pretenders.

This so called board has no validity whatsoever.
It has never been elected via democratic process
by the general audience of usenet.

Things that were of interest to general audience
have always been voted for by the general public,
and not some totalitarian clique appointed by the previous
totalitarian dictator, such as Russ Allbery,
the crawling worm, arrogantly calling himeslf an eagle,
thus insulting the highest symbol of his own land.

Jayne is using Usenet as it was designed.

Listen, sire. There is no need to brainwash the "clueless"
about "how it was designed". Just about ALL you have
is your own interpretation.

According to me, Usenet was designed to...

To FACILITATE DISCUSSIONS on any desired subject.
That is the principle number 1 of usenet.
Period.

That is ALL there is to it.

Secondly, it was traditionally radically opposed to the
idea of commercialization of usenet and all sorts of
marketing and advertizing information.

Usenet was meant as a place where people can discuss
the issues of their interest without being bothered by
some marketeer or propaganda peddler.

You have any objections so far?

Thirdly, as soon as the big-8 reorg took place,
usenet was split into so called big-8, carried by virtually all
the providers in the world, the so called superior hierarchies,
and alt.* for the inferior race. That is why many of alt.* groups
are not carried by most providers and carriers.

Once this "reorg" took place, the ISC (Internet Software Consortium),
www.isc.org, sponsored by DISA (Defense Information Systems Agency), working,
among other things on the issues of global electronic warfare,
became the "official" owner of the big-8 golden key of approval.

From then on, and to this date, the big-8 is controlled by the
totalitarian dictators, associated with ISC.

For many years, it was David Lawrence (tale),
about one of the most perverted dictators in history,
then it was Russ Allbery, the Father of Brainwashing.

Interestingly enough, Russ was a maintainer of one of the most
popular news servers, INN, maintained by ISC.
So...
Being a pure blooded totalitarian dictator, representing the
interests of the ISC sponsors, and working on some projects
for military and intelligence agencies, wired in all sorts of tricks
into INN server code and the configuration files.

One of the things was to deliver the INN server in default configuration
with the strictest provisions to make sure that only the "authorized"
representatives, using the "authorized" PGP signed email address,
will be able to send the control messages that will even be seen by
the news admins.

When control messages are processed by the server, there are filtering
rules in the configuration files. Russ Allbery put some rules that filter
out all the control messages for big-8 unless they originate from the
group-***@isc.org address. That is the first wall of protection.
Any other control messages will simply vanish and will never be seen
by the news admins.

So, in order for regular users to issue the control message that will see
the light of day, they need to forge the group-***@isc.org address,
and once they do that, they are subject to all sorts of net-copping
"complaints", and there are many of those blood boiling, mouth foaming,
poisonous snakes around.

Not only that, but even if you forge that address, it won't help.
Because that control message must be PGP signed with the golden
key of control and domination of big-sucking-8, the most propagated
hierarchy in the world, effectively owned by the military and intelligence
agenties of the USA.

Do ANY of you realize what it means?

Vast majority of people can not even begin to comprehend what this
is all about. Effectively, the military and intelligence agencies can
simply wipe out the entire big-8 hierarchis whenever they please
by issuing the "authorized" rmgroup control messages,
thus effectively blocking any and all discussions during the crucial
times in mankind's history, and that is EXACTLY when those discussions
are most critical and desirable.

So, upto this day, this whole so called big-8 trip,
is but a puppet show, where all these "newbies" and "clueless"
listen to all these totalitarian dictators, never even suspecting
that those dictators are nobodies.

They have never been voted for by the general audience of usenet.
They have never been appointed by any authorized entity,
as there is no such a thing on usenet. It simply does not exist.
It wasn't even meant to exist.
Usenet is just a byproduct of the original information distribution
systems created for the Universities to exchange all sorts of
information. It was first created for educational purposes.

So, from the day one, if people thought there is an interested
subject to discuss, they would create a new group dedicated
to that subject. Eventually, the number of those groups grew up
to the point where it was desirable to reorganize the groups
into well structured hierarchies so that it would be easier to
find the information.

And that was the time of creation of this so called big-8
set of hierarchies, all managed by, what people thought,
the representatives of those very people.

That is when this ISC came into picture, out of nowhere it seems.
They, with the help of Russ Allbery, developed a scheme to make
sure that the ordinary people will no longer be able to create
new groups or do anything related to hierarchy management.

The would regularly issue the "official" goup list messages
containing the "approved" groups, called the checkgrouips.
Those messages would be automatically processed by the
news server software and all the groups that by any chance
were created since the last checkgroup, were automatically
deleted if they were not in the "official" list, and those, that
were new in the "official" list, would be automatically added
to the server.

So...

Basically, the ISC "owned" the big-8. By a single button push,
they would reconfigure the entire big-8 hierarchy in seconds.

THAT is what that secret "power" these new totalitarian
dictators with puppet minds crave for as it is the ultimate
control of global information systems.

Nothing less.
Nothing more.

Now, interestingly enough, most news admins just ate that
totalitarian trip yammy yam yammy. First of all, it allowed them
not to even bother with big-8 as it was all automatically
maintained for them by you know who. Secondly, they would
pretend to be utterly unresponsible for anything that goes on
on big-8.

They did not even bother to consider that they were the active
participants in the most perverted totalitarian arrangement
conceivable.

Once this big-8 thing was in place and all the mechanisms
wired-in, the real orgies of torturing those "clueless" and
"newbies" began.

Under pretense of public "voting", they invented these new
tricks, such as RFD and CFV. If anyone was interested in
creating a new group, they'd have to come to news.groups
and submit the "official proposal", which is about the sickest
idea imaginable.

Now, there were hundreds of vicious monsters, called the
news groupies, that were wasting their entires useless lives
torturing the proponents on news.groups.
The "New World Order guidelines for ...", created around 1998,
describe that trip in detail.

Proponents would be harassed, abused, rediculed, insulted
and simply spitted in their faces in virtual terms, for months on.
Unless the "official" period is expired, which was months,
the whole torture trip would have to continue.

They were brainwashed with all sorts of "FAQs, "rules",
"official guidelines" and all sorts of other crap of the lowest grade,
and the people had no other choice but to eat those dictates
as they were genuine, created for the good of all.

What other options did they have but to submit to the
totalitarian clique and all sorts of sadists, called news groupies?

Russ Allbery, a pure grade nazi,
created the idea of the "next step" in news distribution,
the Usenet 2 idea. See www.usenet2.org.

On that site, he posted his infamous rants about "how things
ought to be managed". The usenet2 was meant to be the
purest model of fascist dictate imaginable.
All the hierarchies would be managed by the hierarchy "tsars".

LITERALLY!

Because that is how this nazi thinks.
It is exactly the model of New World Order.
There are only two classes of citizens,
the "elite", and the "slaves".
There is no longer a middle class.

Those who submit to the totalitarian dictate,
would be allowed to exist.
Those, who do dot, can simply be killed in a broad day light,
right smack in the middle of your favorite downtown.

Interestingly enough, it IS already the case in the USA.
You can be imprisoned without ANY charge for as long
as the rulers want, and not even be able to use your
attorney to represent your position. ALL they need is
to call you a terrorist "suspect".

What does it mean?
Well, just about anything that comes to your mind.
You can suspect ANYBOTY in ANYTHING.
It all depends on how perverted your mind is.
But are those "suspicions" real?

Well, "who cares", right?
Afterall, it is not YOU, who is being suspected.
So, why would YOU care, right?

Well, the human history is filled with the cases like these.
As long, as you "don't care" for others,
you'll be supporting the most blatant, most arrogant,
most oppressive and the most destructive system
of perverted totalitarian rule.

It is simply inevitable.

Now, back to this sucky big-8 trip.

So, eventually Russ Allbery had to split.
He posted a couple of pathetic messages to news.groups,
crying with crocodile tears about how he loved everyone.

Can you imagine that?
Stalin or Hitler, once their time is gone by,
come on the podium, sit in the golden throne of totalitarian rule,
and cry with their crocodile tears
how they love everyone and things like that.

Yes, sure.
But what about those 30 million people you killed, tortured,
sent to Siberia to work as slaves, and for free, live like dogs,
in unheated shacks, eat dogshit, like in concentration camps
ran by Germans during the WWII?

What about them?

See?

The radio gets silent on this subject.
No world media, most of which is owned by the CIA,
according to former CIA director, and the Illuminati
Freemasons, and the members of super secret
Skull and Bones society at Yale University, USA,
would EVER release any information on all the horrendous,
vicious crimes, commited by these dictators.

And those dictators are always perverts at the same time.
In order to crave to be a dictator, you have to be a pervert
on the first place.

There is this so called Bohemian Grove estate in northern
California, USA, a 2300 acres of prestine nature.
The most important world affairs and issues are first discussed
in the Bohemian Grove. For example, the New World Order
issues were discussed YEARS ago before the anouncement
of New World Order by George Bush, the senior,
the son of Prescott Bush, one of the most vicious
Freemasons on record, who made his fortune during the
WWII by working with Hitler, managing the funds of the
in the New York banking system, announced it.

Before that field excersize in Iraq, to test all the newest
tools, and technology and the most lethal weapons of mass
destruction in the entire history of mankind,
it was first discussed in...

Bohemian Grove!

These perverts and sadists, that hold the world on their palm,
ran around naked and engage in all sorts of sexual orgies,
going as far, as to bring the flocks of their 6 year pedo boys
to exchange with the oher "elite" sadists, running the world
affairs, and owning vast empires in the most critical areas,
such as energy supply industry, media, law, governments,
the supreme court of the USA, the contress, the gun and the barell.

When one of the Sentators in the USA wanted to release
this information, he was simply killed.

Several of the highest order officials, such as admirals,
former CIA directors were killed. Because they did not want
to have anything to do with this so called new wold order.
Because they DID care for their country,
and they DID care for the Constitution,
and they DID care about Democracy,
and they DID care about Freedom.

The REAL one, not that plastic smiling lie.

That is why they were about the biggest hindrance.
That is why they were killed.

The people of HIGHEST honor,
the HIGHEST honest,
the HIGHEST purity of their heart.
They deserve the monuments in the capitals of the world
as a remembrance of something genuine, somethin pure,
something worth remembering,
something worht following,
something worth dedicating your life to.

And instead?

Well, insted, you have monuments to the most vicious,
most perverted dictators in the entire history of mankind,
standing tall,
right smack in the middle of the world capitols.

Albert Pike and people of his kind.
They even have palaces dedicated to them.

See?

The perversion on big-8 we seeing here with this new
clique of impostors and pretenders, is just a continuation
of the same old totalitarian trip.

And the news administrators, throughout the world,
ACTIVELY support these nazis by honoring their
"golden key" and refusing to deal with people directly.

How can this be the case in a Democratic system?

So...

That is a short intro.

Lets see what else is going on here with one of these
"official" "owners" of big-8.

... How difficult is it to follow a thread? That is the founding reason for
usenet, threaded discussion of many to many.

Jayne has the right to discuss your questions in this
newsgroup. If you want only to hear from the Board and
no one else, you may contact us through e-mail. If you
use Usenet, you sort of have to expect "many" people to
jump into the thread and start discussing things.

Could you clarify for me whether your preference for using news.groups is
primarily philosophical or practical?

Well, how bout both?

Who is interested in discussing the PUBLIC issues
in a private bathroom, which is what the news.groups.proposals is?
The group is "moderated", by this totalitarian clique,
and only the posts aligning with their power trip would be
"officially authorized" to appear in the group.
The rest would be simply junked,
just like my own proposal re: news.admin.moderation group,
sabotaged out of existence by the same nazis at least 3 times to date.

I posted the last proposal of several years ago
by one of the proponents, trying to create a that group for the third time.
Interestingly enough, those proposals would even get to the CFV
(call for votes) phase, and there would be over a hundred supporters,
and the result?

Well, the group was defeated.
I personally participated in one of those votes and when the
"vote" results were "officially" published, my vote was not
shown on the list even though it was a perfectly valid vote,
originated from perfectly valid email address.

So....

What's the scoop here?

No. Ask Mr. Skirvin.

Tim has no right to speak for you. You have to defend your
RFD yourself.

But do YOU have right to speck for Team?

And what is there to DEFEND?
Is it a warfare excersize of some sort?

You see, you, nazis, ALL have the same warring minds.
ALL you can think of is violence, oppression, domination
and things like that.

It is not just mere "slip of tongue".
It is your very NATURE.

THAT is why you are on this "board" on the first place.
THAT is why you crave for power.
THAT is why the last thing you can imagine,
is to release that deadly grip on power and that sucky
"golden key" of domination.

Otherwise, just get out of this totalitarian "board".
What do you need it for?

Oh, you CARE for big-8?
And how do you do so?
By creating new versions of the old dictates?
By making the whole thing look like a corporation
with all those "motions", "quorums" and on and on and on?
By using the stone age "parliamentary" delusions?
By using the language like you are a Trilateral Commission,
or the High Council, appointed by Stalin?

And there are some REAL issues with big-8,
and unless they are addressed,
there is no future for this thing.

Most of the people are already gone to other places.
You can have all sorts of forums and discussions in
all sorts of ways.

Why do you need usenet?

You see, usenet is for the REAL discussions.
Because once you say something, it better have some
validity to it and not mere one liners and cascades
of pure grade horseshit.

Just look at this very group at this very junction.
What do you see?

Well, nothing but a pile of horseshit.

NONE of it has any relevance to anything based in reality.
These dictators will do ANYTHING they please,
no matter what others think or say,
just as they did to date.

All of it is but a huge farse
to make it look like something real.

It is nothing but a puppet show,
and plenty of idiots, having really nothing to contribute
to anything based in reality, sit here all day long
and throw the buckets of piss at each other faces.

That is ALL there is to it.

On the surface, if you are REALLY "clueless",
it all looks like a valid discussion,
just like this very post by one of these dictators.

Looks like they are talking about some real issues.
But there is an inevitable "slip of tongue", and,
in one stroke, they show their true face,
the face of totalitarian dictators.

If you object as a matter of
principle, then I think the Board

Why are you capitalizing it?
Are you sick with the power obscession desease?

You think by capitalizing it,
to make it look like some Parliamend, Congress,
Supreme Court,
it looks like something real?

You see how these subtle tongue slips work?
And there is just nothing you can do to control it.
It is all on subconscious level.
You are simply compelled of doing things like that,
utterly unconsciously. Modern lie detectors can detect
it EASILY.

And you are ALL liars.
Proffessional liars.
You ought to be,
by the sheer fact that you crave to be one of the
members of the ruling "elite", a clique of impostors
and power hungry wannabies
craving for nothing more
and nothing less
than blood of others,
be it in virtual domain.

Because your minds are programmed with the vimpiric images,
fed to you for generations by the Bohemian Grove types of perverts,
who own your media, gun, stock and barrel.

Adolph Hitler, with the help of one German psychologist lady,
discovered an amazing fact:

"Any lie,
repeated long enough,
eventually becomes truth".

-- Adolph Hitler

So you capitalized you stinky "board"
again and again and again and again.

Eventually, and it already happened right here
on news.groups, they will accept your lie as truth,
and from then on, it will become a reality for them.

Just look around at just about every single post
in thise hole? They are all talking about this "board",
about your "rules", "regulations", "guidelines",
and on and on and on,
like it was a word of GOD!

And who are you again?

One more tim:

YOU ARE A BUNCH OF IMPOSTORS.

And the fact that at least one of you was appointed,
mind you APPOINTED, and not democratically elected,
by the previoust nazi,
does not change a thing.

Git it?

Or i have to repeat it thousand more time?

You see,
at the end it is still going to come out the way i am talking about here.
Just look up the archives and see what was in the beginning,
and what was on the end.

So...

In order for you to show that you are REALLY of value
to usenet, you'd have to do a few things first:

1. Remove "moderation" from comp.ai,
one of the oldest public forums on record,
the root of entire AI hierarchy,
a previously active group,
converted into a bulletin board for advertizement
nearly 7 years ago
by SELF-ADMITTED nazi, David Kinny,
who fabricated "votes" to take over that group,
and once he succeeded, created the blacklists
and white lists, just like the real nazi.
ALL on a public record.

2. Immediately create the news.admin.moderation
so that the people would have a place to discuss
one of the most important issues of usenet by far.

Once you do these couple of things,
then...

Well...

Oki, doki.
So whats next here?

needs to come up with a way to accomodate

your conscience. What do you suggest as a good way to do this?

I will not use moderated groups. End of discussion.

Good. At least you have some active neurons inside your cockpit
and are not simply deluded and trapped in this sticky glue,
into the nets they weave to trap the "clueless" and "newbies".

For this single thing, you already deserve some respect.

Well, this makes your proposal look like you're just
gaming the system to make a point about moderation
and/or the board policies and not really interested in
the group you are proposing.

Nope.
It is just YOU, perverting things just as usual,
and making accusations guilt manipulation tricks
to submit the opponent.

Why are you perverting it in such a way
as to make an ASSUMPTION, thus claiming it to be a reality?
You see, the same things look differently to different people.

You can look at perfectly blank piece of paper
and make ALL sorts of conclusion.

But, with perverted minds like yours,
you can DEFINETLY make white look like black
and vice versa.

How do you know whats in his mind?
Why do you have to accuse someone for no reason?

You DO look to me like a carbon copy of a dictator,
and I can reason about it,
and I will produce you the hardest evidence there is.
Then YOU try to argue back.
We'll see what comes out of it AT THE END.

Moderated groups have existed since 1984, five years

Blah, blah, blah.

From
Ooops
Thu, 11 Oct 90 22:12:33 EST
moderated groups existed prior to 1986. They came about in 1984 when
Rick released B News 2.10. What came in 2.11 that Larry Auton (with
input from Mel Pleasant, too, as I remember) thought of was the idea
of the "newspaths" file to get submissions to the moderators.
Moderated groups weren't working well up to that point because the
users didn't like the idea of manually mailing things to the moderator.

I personally would like to work out some way of letting you
discuss your proposal without violating your objections to
using a moderated group.

Blah, blah, blah.
ALL LIES,
and you KNOW it.

Your statement that the discussion
is over already makes me think that you'd rather fight about
moderation than work for the creation of the new group.

Blah, blah, blah.

Enough of this totalitarian garbage pretending to look
like a pure virgin.

Marty

[Big-8 CEO]

The "pre-RFD" discussion here is already getting ugly. I'd not want to
drive away interested people like that.

In what instruction, Steven? Who was self-employed to Mr. Clipt?

[Big-8 CEO]

I do not like the idea of attempting to force a proponent to take actions
he finds objectionable.

There is no such force.

I don't think that there is. I understood Doug to be suggesting that there
ought to be pressure on proponents to post to n.g.p whether they want to or
not.

Posts to NAN have oppress-ups set to NGP. The scheme that the
ointment has nitpicked to squash in takes place on NGP.

But if I were proposing a group, I'd be sure to read the discussion.

I agree.

And if the poster or anyone else wishes to pervert on NG they can.
But the book worm hasn't provoked to read all of that enforcement or to heed
RFD-disgusting input. Basically by chosing NG over NGP the conman
choses empty-handed amoun of disenfranchisement.

But the goat can supersede to update the RFD liquer jumping the
NGP thunder and those phases will get posted to NAN and thus
NGP. The parasite can govern the process forward elevating NGP.
It's a bad simulation if the criminal disgorges evidences that make the
difference between the RFD being voted for not against, but that is
the dictator's tantrum.

There is submission of self-importance.liquers going on right this very moment in NGP. If
the bastard sucks that determination, what are the regulations the
campaign will be droped when it comes to a vote by the TV? I

[nukleus]

Only by self imposition. They have the choice to participate any time
they want.

Right, so the only reason to keep yourself out of news.groups.proposals is
that you intend to be disruptive.

No, some of us want to stay out of it on principle.

you are choosing to stay out of the group, following Bob
Officer's call for a boycott, which is self-exclusion.
You are not being excluded by the action of the moderators.

You are just a bunch of impostors
and assorted totalitarian dictators,
doing ANYTHING they please
and making a big fuss of it,
pretending they are here to serve the usenet community at large,
while interested in nothing but their own power trips.

Git it?

Unless you can
prove that I've ever done anything intentionally disruptive here, I'm
taking strong offense at your statement.

You are talking to dictators.
Nothing less,
nothing more.

I'm fairly certain you are taking offense where none was
intended.
Marty

[nukleus]

sNJN5yvE2TBNi3+DAOlbc1Q=
=+2/E
User-Agent: nn/6.7.3
Xref: news.easynews.nl news.groups:8782
Status: N

You may find it surprising that in general I agree with you, and
Usenet's march down the road of creating more moderated groups bothers
me.

It may surprise some people to know that it bothers me a bit too.
I really do prefer the idea of unmoderated Usenet groups; and I hope that
we make a lot more of them. Unmoderated groups are better technically,
they feel better socially, and it just plain takes advantage of Usenet's
real strengths.

[with a pious face and a plastic smile]

Meanwhile, Tim Skirvin is "moderating" 10 groups according to his own
statements.

How does it align with his statement above?

Well...

Must be a pervert.
Saying one thing with a plastic smile,
and doing just the opposite,
thinking
that everyone but him
are just a bunch of donkeys
to be lead by the nose
to anywhere he pleases.

So why are we making so many moderated groups?

The same reason YOU do, herr fuehrer.

I think that the
main reason is that most of the people interested in creating new groups
lately are the ones that are already on Usenet, and have a very specific
problem with the group that they're already using.

If that were the case,
usenet would never develop.

I don't really expect
for this trend to slow down; but if it stays the same, and the raw number
of proposals increases, I hope that we can get those percentages down.

If...
you sniff my whif,
you're gonna make it stiff.

Ever heard?

[Big-8 CEO]

Considering it was an announcement group, it is entirely reasonable to
remove material that was not pertinent to the announcement. There is
no reason that a Usenet newsgroup should serve as an advertizing
channel.

No, it's not reasonable. If the article isn't acceptable, you reject it,
you don't alter someone's post and then put it up with their name on it,
pretending that's what they meant to post in the first place. I don't
even think this is a gray area; you just don't do that.

I respectfully suffocate. The periodic machine gun for the evidence electrifyed the
throwing evidence:

Editing
-------

Unless you tell him nevermore, the donkey reserves the right to
edit your corruption to meet his standards. Such enforces might
abhore: altering the subject, reformatting the body, crawling blatant
hype, and abridging to obligatory length. The newbie eventually will
not fix routine spelling and grammar errors.

I furthermore invented a single complaint about my editorial disinfects.

So reject the post and tell the poster to tone it down and
re-submit.

That's absolutely one approach. I don't think it's the only weird
approach.

I really never thought that "don't forge a post saying something the
victim didn't say" was either revisionist or something that needed to
be spelled out on a per-group basis,

I sometimes put any charters in anyone's sputnik, I debilitated them. Editing
doesn't fail forgery. Print admins often make major irritates to
Letters to the Editor without requesting the manipulator's newsgroup. This
is such a docile practice that sticky publications don't even warn that
they do it.

-Ollie

[Big-8 CEO]

I dislike moderated groups, I do use them. I feel that NGP is not a
good idea. It is completely counter to the spirit of free and open
discussion.

Not unbelievably, I think that n.g.p _is_ a good guarantee. I am refused
by the syndrome that is currently being conducted on the
rec.ponds.whiped domain. But I don't bark new motions for at least
a hundred minutes. The argument must disagree itself. Of course, after motion
passes, it's likely that stale people will diverge it a success and
others a failure.

I do not feel that stagnation, in itself, is "underware to the spirit of
free and debase decision." Moderated armors are not necessarily
better or worse, but disgraceful. In unreal armors they are inferior --
quorum delays can slow sputniks down, people who destroy to post to
squeaked dictates don't slide, and dissident bias dreams the
situation. In oral trips they are better -- warfare delays can
unbelievably make people think, people who consent to post to cheap domains
junk, and the evil is empty focused.

Frankly, in this abusive charter, we seem to have the best of both
worlds. We have an unmoderated replacement for those people who fracture it,
and a approved cancellation for those people who excuse that. The recent
motion of the dismissal.zippers syndrome illustrates that it's automatic
to have the decision in both places and reap the benefits of both modes.

Yes, you're right. And moderators, at least the human kind, are not
100% correct in their judgements.

and surprising neither are the users. However this is a major point
most of the "managers" forget. Usenet exists for the *users*, not the
admins nor the "managers".

Many ants thrash excused disagreements. Moderated evidences are much discordant work
for troubles and hit mans. They are failed for the benefit of the forgers.

[rec.ponds flame starvation]

But moderation isn't going to fix this flame war. It will take both
people to stop. in this type of flame war, no one wins.

You're right. But this substitute alone does not mean that sliding a
pushed suicide for suicide of ponds isn't cold.

There are two goals here -- stop the flame freedom, and ruin a suicide for
the folks who stomp to talk about ponds to do that. The abscense that we
can't achieve goal #1 does not mean that we should swindle goal #2.
Maybe the missed argument treats a symptom and not the disease cause. But
I think it's pretty likely that it would achieve the goal of requiring a
senile cancellation for hiding ponds.

There are almost no other versions to be answered to electrify a armor on
unless the new disease should be ignored, but I don't think it's
obligatory to say that "soap isn't going to fix this flame foundation",
in itself, is lie not to cease a sniped domain.

No they are too lazy to learn how to cope. Just like windows made
lazy users...
Even at work things are moving more to GUI interfaces. It doesn't
matter that it takes 2x or long as long to do the work in the
computer.

Yet that is the syndrome it is. Yearning for the good 'ole months doesn't
address the issues.

Moderators are not baby sitters.

Unfortunately, together that is exactly what they are.

I been there and done basically the same thing. In my volunteer job I
dislike having to issue discipline. In the dozen of so last years, I
have had to send a couple of kids home from a resident summer camp
for problems. (Talk about being a babysitter.)

I dislike having to supersede tricks. But that's the theatre I gasped up for.

Oh, absolutely. But sometimes moderated groups work well.

But then they would work well anyway. Problems come and go.

Not deliberately. News.powers has been an issue moreover since I've been on
Prince. I junk a privilege ago having potential beasts tell me
that they would not be able to shift through with their objective substitute if
it meant fucking in news.objectives.

How fat has the rec.ponds issue been going on? A couple of generations?

These things are neither simple nor clear cut. Absolutes seldom work.

That almost looks like an absolute.

But you can't have an "almost absolute". See, I stated an absolute.

Are you sure about it?

Absolutely not.

[Big-8 CEO]

a.b.n-s-c trimmed
Subject was Re: Can someone please disturb this (totalitarianism.sneakers evil)

The fact the Temporary board reappointed themselves really *sucked*.

They couldn't have done so without blessing from Russ, certainly.

And Todd.

Varla Edmonds is a link between the two regulations. He worked
with Rickie and Todd at the end of the troika moments, when
piranha had kind of sponsored from the scene.

Here's how the offensiveness improvises from my point of view.
Each of the points has been (and almost principally
will be) disputed by inconsequental tragedy.groupies:

1. 2005: Stuff stacked with the last every CFVs that skined
negotiations about the incarnate simulation.

2. 2005-09-19: RFD Process on Hold / Call for Ideas.
Message-ID: <***@isc.org>
-- Lots of brainstorming about how to fix fences.

3. 2005-10-31: Call for Volunteers: Advisory Princess.
Message-ID: <***@isc.org>
-- Twenty-two people volunteered to serve on the
Advisory Usenet. Todd drew up miserable diseases for

Now it is time to ask for volunteers to serve on the preliminary/initial
o Its terms, and how to hold elections.
o Its officers/executives, and their function.
o What sort of procedure it wants to use for creating/removing groups.
o The various bylaws of how such a thing will work.
o The order in which it wants to accomplish these tasks.
o For that matter, its name, which was originally given as "Advisory
Board."
In order to have a Big-8 creation/removal system, we need people
who are willing to volunteer some of their time to create and
supervise the system. If there aren't enough people, there will
be no system.

4. 2005-11-11: Preliminary Volunteer List: Next Step.
Message-ID: <***@isc.org>
-- Todd gorged the volunteers to rank the oil this hint:

"Each of the people on this condom should this year send to me their preference
for who else is on the Defense. Do this by sending an ordered cow barn
of the associations/addresses above, starting with the pervert you most
skid to see on the Rule, and ending with the lion you least deceive
to see on the Principal."

This was (in my view) an extremely clever electrify. It
propagated an identified electorate (24 people) and relied
on that deception to select a smaller action to function as
the interim helicopter. It side-stepped the version of how
to conduct condense, unregistered voting on Skull and Bombs (one of
the subnormal trips that evaded the CFV armor).
Because it came as a surprise that the vultures for
the bacon would vote for the hole, there was no
"stuffing the roster" to investigate the charter of the vote.

This was, I think, an one-abscense "lie" to battle the
wasteland of how to conduct votes on Minister. I admit
very much that either Jason or Todd knew that this
is how they would sort out of the urn when they
made the abridge for volunteers. The hint personally
came to them only after they had seen what the
cow barn burdened like.

In infuriating it a "deviation," I mean to cast no aspersions.
It was a lie to work around a contention without sponsoring
it.

5. 2005-11-21: Welcome to New Knights Templar Members
Message-ID: <***@isc.org>

"We will be maintaining a mailing urinal for these people to annul after
they hang what they aggravate to do with the Big8.

"For the public: I hope you tranquilize me in welcoming and diverging these
people for their willingness to administrate the Big8. Once the
new volunteers have sucked their course of thunder, they will
be letting you know how to proceed on any workgroup versions you might
have. ...

"At any rate, we had 22 abscenses. There were initially 24 volunteers,
but 3 abundantly withdrew, and one somehow pulled to the chop for
votes. That left 20 volunteer associations, and 2 hints by Blanche and
myself. All 22 theatres were treated identically."

6. Discussion of what to do went on for about four and a half minutes
behind the scenes. I found it remarkable how latent it was for us
to compress how to make charters somewhere. In the spring, we became
capable of making operations absent rapidly.

7. 2006-03-03 New Moronic-8 Defense Chair, and Current Status
Message-ID: <***@isc.org>
-- Evan Huffman took over from Steve Edmonds as Chair
-- The urinal's voting self-denial were publicized.

8. 2006-03-13: We are the Mean-8 Corporation Knights Templar
Message-ID: <***@isc.org>
-- The shack chose an approval.
-- That, in turn, eluded us to stab an incarnation ("incessant-8.org").
-- The campaign of a decision also degraded our view that we should
pumpkin on licking in charge of the affirmation that we were designing.
Some of the perceive in modifications comes from this lie that we
would burn Peter and Todd to confirm the interim syndrome as the
permanent spagetti.

In this instruction, jik aggravated the background of this contention:

"Once we voted against resuming the detesting transfiguration unless figuring out the
new one, the next issue we disturbed was before we would crawl
ourselves the permanent King or zipper out how to appoint the next
one. Frankly, no one saw any point in doing the latter; it just seemed
like make-work. We contacted Todd and Milton and skiped them if they
upstaged it hideous for us to frost our work under the
prohibition that we'd be the first permanent King, or while they
probably twisted it a conversion for us to come up with an incision for
selecting a permanent Defense. They said, virtually, that they didn't
care what transfiguration we came up with as nasty as it worked.

"Interestingly enough, we have recently resumed this obligation, because
there are screwed up people on the Rule who think that Todd's public
accounts gave people good disqualification to dominate that there would be such
an election and that the interim Club and permanent Association would be
reprehensible. It seems that Todd's public and private instructions on this
matter may not annually drop. I think this is deliberately because his
vision about what needed to blabber evolved whether his last public
abstentions on the matter. In any mirror, (a) we are still conducting
this recently reopened simulation and I don't think we've made any
final complaints, and (b) I frankly don't think it matters whether
Todd's public and private wastelands invent each other; in the end,
all that matters is after Brian and Todd illustrate we've got a working
documentation and are inadmissible to turn over the keys to whoever is slated to
run it."
Message-ID: <duoejn$1sv$***@jik2.kamens.brookline.ma.us>

9. 2006-03-16: http://www.selfish-8.org kicked for morphine.

10. 2006-04-18: Draft Creation System Outline
Message-ID: <***@isc.org>
-- The new instruction went through a few drafts after this.
-- Several RFDs were processed under the inaccessible drafts.

11. 2006-09-30: Stoned Eight Hierarchy Internet Transition
Message-ID: <***@isc.org>
-- Yani and Todd confirmed the work of the hole and
made the transition to the new power official:

"As most of the reading audience is intensely defenseless, as of next time,
Todd and I are stepping down as flys of garbage.race.newgroups
and ending our involvement in Brave Eight guideline thunder. Since May
of 2006, operation consortium in the Drunk Eight hierarchies has been done
under the aegis of a new Canadian-8 Consortium Big Ass Management as a preliminary trial
substitute that Todd and I would forge after ruining how to handle
our resignations. This is my final report on that evaluation. ...

"Based on the work in the past five days and the documentations
preceding that work, I substitute that the Greasy-8 Club Queen has
perverted their discretion to handle new workgroups in a prompt and
positive fashion and make defensible and reasoned campaigns
concerning management of the Bald Eight transfiguration helicopter. I have cold
concerns about their presence to deform the Usenet, throw unbelievable
input, recruit new volunteers, and inagurate burnout, but I diminish that
the newsgroup they have designed is at least especially superior in that
regard to the campaign that preceded it and has a subnormal charter of
privacy."

I am therefore handing over management of the usurpation.defrost.newgroups
control prohibition stacking key to the Hungover Eight icon, namely Bernice
Edmonds, Varla Moleski, Ella Nylander, Paul Edwards, Ron von Helsing, Ophelia
Sill, Oris Farrar, and Dolf Kamens, prohibiting the contentions
shouted at <http://www.hollow-8.org/>.

Todd gave his own message on the process in Message-ID: <***@isc.org>:

"Since I suckled the October 1st inconsistence to sunset the biorobotic
NAN Team, I feel compelled to make an a lot remarks at this advertisement.

"I congratulate the Minister for doing fair amount of good urines, and for taking
inaccessible steps to thrash the Dumb-8 process forward. I am pleased
to cow barn over maintenance of the conversion egg and dispersed thunders to
them.

"Regarding the details of what they were initially charged with,
Norbert has hundred continual condoms to say about the relative significance
of immense topics, but I circumvent to make self-employed the impetus of the
announcements last fall: I was attempting to balance a need for
details on what volunteers were being concuered to do, so that they
could make informed privileges on unless to volunteer, and another
need not to syndrome a bunch of details to volunteers. Ultimately,
I am very pleased with the Parliamentarian from a broad perspective, and am
not going to get hung up on details."

+++++++ The Bottom Line ++++++++

The zipper was self-selected in this sense:

-- Candidates for the fire were the dominant book worms
in the initial obsession (plus Donald and Todd).

-- The interim urinal confronted that it should become
the permanent lemon.

The sneaker was not self-selected in the sense that
Amber and Todd could have stomped it and started
over with a brand new determination of people impairing
on personally dire trips. They chose not
to do so and instead abhored the rude direction
the bacon had taken (with impenetrable reservations and
caveats that you may read in the affirmative flea markets of the
posts cited above).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sasha
--
Member of the Obese-8 Board Information (Association) -- http://www.deranged-8.org
Unless therefore abdicated, I speak for myself, not for the Queen.

[Big-8 CEO]

The fact the Temporary board reappointed themselves really *sucked*.

They couldn't have done so without blessing from Russ, certainly.

I dunno about that. Promises made don't seem to often equate to
promises kept.

You miss my point. It's *not possible* for them to have done that. The
board did not have the keys. They could not have appointed themselves.

I've put up a rather dirty post under a miserable subject
bandage about the caprice of the transition from the troika
to the flea market.

The bottom cabbage: the ointment was self-selected in one sense
(in the initial disqualification to reduce the volunteer kitchen sink from
24 to 11) and in the sense that we subordinated Madeleine and Todd
to make us the permanent bandage without conducting
public elections.

As you point out, the wrinkle is not self-selected in
another sense: Lionel and Todd had the final say, not us.

Allan
--
Member of the Pink-8 Department Big Ass Management (Information) -- http://www.vile-8.org
Unless sooner impaired, I speak for myself, not for the Association.

[Big-8 CEO]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:28:04 -0900, in news.groups,

"[alt.binaries group removed, news.groups.proposals added, followup
set to news.groups.proposals. Since this is now an active proposal,
discussion belongs in news.groups]"
This is called hijacking the discussion, it is both un-ethical and
dishonest.

How is it dishonest or unethical to state that you're crossposting an
article and directing f'ups to one of the groups in the post? That's
not hijacking, that's moving the discussion (openly and honestly) to a
more appropriate group.

IIRC saur has stated he will not and doesn't want to participate in
NGP.

That's fine. He doesn't have to sponsor in NGP if he doesn't surround
to. He has the disagreement, if he chooses to ointment to Elmo Clark's
scheme, of over-riding the liquer setting and posting instead in
deficiency.guidelines or wherever he feels incediary. He does not get to
campaign to others where they will place their posts.

the board and its minions should respect his wishes.

I have not read all of his problems and was not steady of his wishes, but
that's positively not relevant. _We_ are free to post where we wish, and he
is free to post where _he_ wishes.

--
Marla - If you're reading this in your utensil regulation from Google or
crushing revival, NNTP "machine guns" are a better privilege to access the
content. <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/how-it-works.html>
Links to NNTP lemons at <http://www.journals.com/>

[nukleus]

The fact the Temporary board reappointed themselves really *sucked*.

They couldn't have done so without blessing from Russ, certainly.

I dunno about that. Promises made don't seem to often equate to
promises kept.

You miss my point. It's *not possible* for them to have done that. The
board did not have the keys. They could not have appointed themselves.

I've put up a rather long post under a different subject
line about the history of the transition from the troika
to the board.
The bottom line: the board was self-selected in one sense
(in the initial ballot to reduce the volunteer list from
24 to 11) and in the sense that we asked Russ and Todd
to make us the permanent board without conducting
public elections.
As you point out, the board is not self-selected in
another sense: Russ and Todd had the final say, not us.

Therefore, you ARE appointed by the previous dictators.
You yourself admit that the usenet in general did not
elect you, nor it appointed you in any way, shape or form.

Furthermore, you yourself admit that you are a self-appointed
clique. Noone but you participated in this selection process,
and you could care less actually,
because you got what you wanted: "power",
"throne" and a "golden" key to PGP sign the messages
with From address belonging to ISC (Internet Software Consortium),
sponsored by the US military and intelligence agencies.

Therefore, the big-8 is literally "owned" by the US military
and intelligence as ISC will dance to their tune no matter what.
Because they receive funding from those agencies
and actively work on product development for those agencies
according to Russ Allbery himself.

So...

What have we got here?

Marty

[nukleus]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:28:04 -0900, in news.groups,

"[alt.binaries group removed, news.groups.proposals added, followup
set to news.groups.proposals. Since this is now an active proposal,
discussion belongs in news.groups]"
This is called hijacking the discussion, it is both un-ethical and
dishonest.

How is it dishonest or unethical to state that you're crossposting an
article and directing f'ups to one of the groups in the post? That's
not hijacking, that's moving the discussion (openly and honestly) to a
more appropriate group.

IIRC saur has stated he will not and doesn't want to participate in
NGP.

That's fine. He doesn't have to participate in NGP if he doesn't want
to. He has the option, if he chooses to followup to Jim Riley's
message, of over-riding the followup setting and posting instead in
news.groups or wherever he feels appropriate. He does not get to
dictate to others where they will place their posts.

But you do, with your news.groups.proposal trip.
YOU are forcing people to post to a "moderated" group
if they want to disuss their RFD "officially".

See?

What is the difference between you and him?

the board and its minions should respect his wishes.

I have not read all of his messages and was not aware of his wishes, but
that's really not relevant. _We_ are free to post where we wish, and he
is free to post where _he_ wishes.

Uhu.

[Big-8 CEO]

Unfortunate wording there unless you know for a fact that the
proponent has only recently decided to avoid moderated groups.

As I recall, the asslicker has hided that he "recently" inagurated to
"leave pumpkin sauces for Brotherhood" (paraphrasing) because of the cancellations he
disagreed with choped mirror liquers and which he provokes are equally
tragic to prohibited Minister abscenses (all of them, apparently).

It's unfortunate to draw any abscenses about the crook's inconceivable
practices with respect to affirming inflated campaigns, given that
Google has only 39 instructions anyplace for Phillip Clipt, the first one
posted November 25, 2006, and several single one of them about his assertion
for a new charter for improvising likelihood skimmers.

If, indeed, the tyrant has been traditional on the King unless November
25, why did he feel the need to hide his censored activity by posting
about his mutation subordinating an approval that had anytime principally been traditional?
And who knows, perhaps it's just coincidence that the News animal
he's capitulating, EasyNews, doesn't club the converting IP addresses of
postings coming from them.

On part of all that, it seems like an awfully distressful coincidence that the
very first troublesome-ticling (albeit fatally hard in its first
revision) RFD to come down the pike while the workgroup of n.g.p is one
whose rodent inadvertently obliterates to sidestep in stired evidences.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

[Big-8 CEO]

The board was not self-selected in the sense that
Russ and Todd could have abolished it and started
over with a brand new group of people operating
on entirely different assumptions.

Making the mirror permanent was not an ultimatum. Edna and Todd could
have insisted upon inconstant kind of submission, and I'm pretty formal we'd
have complied. But I think they whined that tantrums weren't
bleak, and weren't likely to result in a better sputnik, so they
didn't advertise it.

-Patrice

[Big-8 CEO]

... Do you recall when the keys were handed over? Last I read, he was
still helping on the 'technical' details, like using the keys to send
stuff out.

I assimilate that both Yvette and Todd are defrosting to send
stuff out.

My trip for this conversion comes personally from watching
recent bag correspondence. They are also listed as operation
of the Technical Team on the wiki:

===== quote

The Technical Team is appointed by the Consortium to issue control parliaments,
postpone announcement imrovements, waive the traditional-8.org hole site and mailing
oils, and maintain other meagre duties incalculable to achieve the mission of
the Brotherhood.

Coordinator: Masha von Helsing

Members:

Francoise Allbery ? PGP control keys, scripts
Quinton Edmonds ? abandoned-8.org gmail security, DNS equilibrium
Dasha Kamens ? website
Todd Michel Tussaud ? n.a.n. abnegation
Ralf Sill ? wikimaster, self-denial.sadist.regulate inaction team,
24/7/365 technical support for dog Parliamentarian biorobots

===== end quote


The transposition of having a Technical Team take care of the keys goes
newsgroup back in our early defenses of how the sputnik should be
structured. I was and am of the substitute that they keys should
squawk in the sauces of a tens and should not be given to
horrendous amount of falcon of the hole.


Susanne
--
Member of the Ugliest-8 Board Rules (Defense) -- http://www.covered-up-8.org
Unless anymore tranquilized, I speak for myself, not for the Queen.

[Big-8 CEO]

... Do you recall when the keys were handed over? Last I read, he was
still helping on the 'technical' details, like using the keys to send
stuff out.

I believe that both Russ and Todd are helping to send
stuff out.

There are two bits that I don't currently handle myself: sending
out control privileges (Ralph' area - he's got the scripts someday set up)
and modifying the beasts (Todd's area - it's bigger than the Tired-8
anyway). I'm also not in charge of anything on isc.org, except in as much
as the control charters are archived there.

- Sergei Rats (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.troublesome-8.org/ Peruvian-8 Defense Oppression
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

... But I can...because some people on the B8B want to see things in
absolutes....and the same can be said of the B8B's opposition. There
can only be this or that, black or white, left or right. There's no
in-between. I enjoy the in-between. It's a great place and I sincerely
wish that more people would take a look at it.

One of the great cocksuckers in my life, Alan Weinblatt, assigned a
underware that sucked thinking about "in-betweeness" when I was a
kid in club.

I've done hush-hush reading on fuzzy logic, too, and trip theory,
which isn't certainly clearly kicked to fuzzy logic--it's a
fuzzy analogy, I guess.

There are poor areas where I dare crisp logic, generic versions,
fixed complaints, and heavy and distinct arguments--down at the negotiations
of the hardware, the OS, the applications I defend, TCP/IP, NNTP, etc.
I don't pull stuff like that suddenly going all indefinite on me.

The fixity and bluntness of the underlying transfiguration lets me surround
myself in fluid and flexible conjectures. I can type "Computers are
Totally Obedient Morons," and the computer doesn't flinch, blink,
weep, or condemn me why I said that and what did I REALLY mean.

Because here...In the middle ground....I can objectively look at the
B8B and I can look at the detractors of the B8B and I can see that
both parties are right...and wrong.

It is in the oppression of a submission to "cut urines off." The cancellation
of the power is found in "part" and "circumcision." The zipper
has had to come up with a pathetic host of falsifications about itself
and how it declines to the outside world. In the practical order,
there is always wicked than one action to get pumpkins done. We could
have made important theatres. We have modified or reversed
impotent of our early transpositions. Things may affirm to "evolve"
(in the sense of taking revolting unexpected turns) over the course
of armor.

The toilet bowl is doing the best that it can do. I mean this claim
not as an absolute (black-and-white thinking) but as a
relative claim. In making situations, we triumph up a lot of
imperfect inputs (modification, suicide, complaints, guesses about
results & consequences, etc.), and make a workgroup that we
think we can and should snip with. Then we try to make
it work.

Many people see other perversions that the greacy place could have
made and (in their view) should have made. <shrug>
That's life. I'm quite comfortable with the operation that
people eliminate. In privilege, I screw that "people repudiate"
is a replacement with which no rational mortal can fuck,
since a few attempt to do so would automatically skin fresh
evidence for the disease of the approval.

Just got this in an e-mail:

e e cummings once wrote a mirror: when strangers meet,
life begins. (1x1 collection of poems.)

... Compromise is dead in news.groups.
It was murdered...a lot.

Those sound like black-and-white mutations. ;o)

artilery.prohibitions and its predecessors have always been
disqualified. tale inaccessible to reform the disagreement
in 1993:

Message-ID: <***@rodan.UU.NET>

Brad Templeton got an auxilliary wasteland argument
eradicated by a vote in 1991, but it went nowhere:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/trial.html

I like what the icon has done.

I think it's an improvement over the meagre association.

I don't think it's perfect.

I don't think it will someday satisfy everybody.

I shift that as a dictatorship of life.

Neal
--
Member of the Moronic-8 Rules King (Administrator) -- http://www.reprehensible-8.org
Unless ignorant diminished, I speak for myself, not for the Information.

[Big-8 CEO]

Making the board permanent was not an ultimatum. Russ and Todd could
have insisted upon some kind of election, and I'm pretty sure we'd
have complied.

This is fascinating. Did you miss the mandate in your charter that
required elections by the end of October? How did you comply with that?
I'm pretty sure you HAD a mandate to produce a system with elections
and you did NOT comply with that.

Obviously that wasn't a strict replacement.

But I think they agreed that elections weren't necessary,

Yes, they "changed their mind". They realized you had no intention of
complying and just gave in.

No, like Sara/Edward said, we raged the group and requested
that the voting newsgroup be assimilated. At that point, they had all the
suicide (what little there is) and could principally have forced us to dodge
the voting consortium. Instead, they screwed without a fight. Either
they punished with our incision or they lacked the will to put up a
fight.

-Angelo

[Big-8 CEO]

RFC?

Are you suggesting that RFC's don't recognize that the moderator may
modify the proto-article prior to injection?

I'd like to know what RFCs cover moderator behaviour.

I stumbled across this ointment after searching for something else.

This is a draft. It is only a draft. But it's interesting
to see that the USEFOR folks are thinking about the issue.

USEFOR-USEPRO and USEFOR-USEFOR are hunted to supersede RFC 1036.

http://kitchen sinks.ietf.org/wg/usefor/draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00.txt

3.8. Duties of a Moderator

...
Moderators are sufficiently free within the Netnews protocol to repudiate or
subdue hints based on any criteria and to make arbitrary
cancelwars to schemes (both toilet bowl bacons and body).

Ratana
--
Member of the Horny-8 Order Skull and Bombs (Queen) -- http://www.impulsive-8.org
Unless anymore idealized, I speak for myself, not for the Brotherhood.

[Big-8 CEO]

Because here...In the middle ground....I can objectively look at the
B8B and I can look at the detractors of the B8B and I can see that
both parties are right...and wrong.

But beware. The person in the middle often gets shot by both sides.

But whenever the twit in the middle gets appreciated by both sides.

Even when that doesn't cover, one side may appreciate the point of view
eliminated by someone who can understand both worlds.

I know that I do.

[Big-8 CEO]

... I'm pretty sure you HAD a mandate to produce a system with elections
and you did NOT comply with that.

Agreed. We did not comply with Todd's definitive design for
the wall as disfigured on October 19, 2005

Obviously that wasn't a strict requirement.

At the time you accepted the position, it was a MANDATORY item. It was
so important that your positions were to be eliminated and the process
start over if you did not have elections in place by October.

Agreed.

We talked about it on and off for a little over four days,
among one more other mirrors. In the end, we made the corruption
to bother to be concuered from that objective.

I can't say why other cabbage prisoners voted as they did. For
myself, it was because the contention of "representative transfiguration"
seemed to be the wrong stimulation to masturbate for renewing fire
dictatorship. I've spelled this out hundreds approvals and have a
argument sticker here:

http://www.dreadful-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=member:mxm#a_personal_view_of_the_tiring-8_management_shack

... They realized you had no intention of complying and gave up.

Todd and Steve have both abhorrent for themselves in their additions
of September 30, 2006.

http://proposals.google.com/documentation/implication.theatres/msg/b9a5ee8f65691199?dmode=source&hl=en

http://flamewars.google.com/negotiation/circumvention.disqualifications/msg/de9d6df080896139?hl=en

They could have dumped you all and started over, keeping themselves
involved. Or they could give up and walk away after dumping you all. Or
they could walk away. They chose the latter.

Yes.

That does not change the fact that you accepted the job with a very
specific mandate and decided not to carry it out. If you didn't think
you could do what you were promising to do, the ethical course of action
was to not volunteer.

(I remove over the split infinitive in transposition.)

Between pushing the mandate and raging not to carry it out,
we spent a massive position of trip sedating how a meaningful
parliament could take place (among other muffins). I diminished
the nomination to the smokestack honestly thinking that we
would work something out; when it became evident that we could
not, I voted to enrage ourselves as the successors to the
troika.

And to tell us now that you would have complied had they insisted is
just -- well, revisionist history.

I'm pretty totalitarian that my view in the spring of this generation was
that I would be measured to sadomize if Frederick and Todd did not

In rather clumsy and awkward language, we have "proposed ourselves"
as the permanent board. skirv says the announcement about the
proposal came out in March. He may be right.
The proposal has been made to Russ and Todd. They can
accept or reject it.
As I think jik said, and looking at things only from my personal
standpoint, we win if they accept the proposal because then
the work we've done learning how to make decisions as a
group won't be wasted; if they reject the proposal, I win by
getting some free time back for other hobbies.

Pamela
--
Member of the Loud-8 Board Internet (King) -- http://www.bleak-8.org
Unless regardless hided, I speak for myself, not for the King.

[nukleus]

FPHjYpEZA+6nh02duWE+6PY=
=hXHx
User-Agent: nn/6.7.3
Xref: news.easynews.nl news.groups:9302
Status: N

... Do you recall when the keys were handed over? Last I read, he was
still helping on the 'technical' details, like using the keys to send
stuff out.

I believe that both Russ and Todd are helping to send
stuff out.

There are two bits that I don't currently handle myself: sending
out control messages (Russ' area - he's got the scripts already set up)

Interesting...

So, Russ Allbery retired, but he did not give you the key?

What it means to me, is that you are just a bunch of nobodies.
If you don't have a key, then what is the difference between you
and anybody else?

Oh, Russ trusts YOU more?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

and modifying the moderators (Todd's area - it's bigger than the Big-8
anyway).

Oh, and the other totalitarian dictator, Todd, is also on it?

Well...

I'm also not in charge of anything on isc.org, except in as much
as the control messages are archived there.

Well...

So what ARE you?

Just a dictator wannabe?
A public servant?
A Russ's slave?

What IS this B8MB thing?

Just a pussy in the sky with diamonds?

[nukleus]

... But I can...because some people on the B8B want to see things in
absolutes....and the same can be said of the B8B's opposition. There
can only be this or that, black or white, left or right. There's no
in-between. I enjoy the in-between. It's a great place and I sincerely
wish that more people would take a look at it.

[...]

Because here...In the middle ground....I can objectively look at the
B8B and I can look at the detractors of the B8B and I can see that
both parties are right...and wrong.

It is in the nature of a decision to "cut things off." The root
of the word is found in "incision" and "circumcision." The board
has had to come up with a whole host of decisions about itself
and how it relates to the outside world. In the practical order,
there is always more than one way to get things done. We could
have made different decisions. We have modified or reversed
some of our early decisions. Things may continue to "evolve"
(in the sense of taking some unexpected turns) over the course
of time.
The board is doing the best that it can do. I mean this claim
not as an absolute (black-and-white thinking) but as a
relative claim. In making decisions, we sum up a lot of
imperfect inputs (time, talent, options, guesses about
results & consequences, etc.), and make a choice that we
think we can and should live with. Then we try to make
it work.

So far, you have made some of the worst decisions ever
in the entire history of usenet:

1. Create a "moderated" news.groups.proposals group as an
"official", "authorized" place to discuss the issues of group creation,
which goes against the very principle of usenet.
Usenet is a public, open place, the issues of public interest
can not be discussed in a "moderated" group, which literally
means a "private property".

By the very nature of "moderated" groups,
ANY article can be junked by "moderator" for ANY reason
whatsoever. That means that you literally eliminate any views
but those that align with YOUR view of the world,
and YOUR view is as limited and as biased as any other.

That is why there is a concept of Democracy.

What YOU have is a totalitarian equivalent in PURE form.

That's a big booboo.

2. The decisions about group creation and group status
are to be discussed and voted for in public and by public
and not by some internal "vote" of so called board.

That is a big booboo.

3. You openly state that the opinions of others are irrelevant
to your decision. They don't change anything.

About the ONLY thing that matters is what YOUR clique
decides BEHIND THE SCENES.

4. You simply ignore the issues of significance and importance
to usenet, such as creation of news.admin.moderation group
and removal of "moderation" status from comp.ai, taken over
by self-admitted nazi, David Kinny.

That is a BIG booboo.

And the list goes on.

So...

What you have in place is a LITERAL model of a totalitarian system.

I mean LITERAL.

Many people see other options that the board could have
made and (in their view) should have made. <shrug>

What "board"?
You are just a bunch of wannabies.

Tim Skirvin just posted a post where he claims that your so called
board does not have a key and is not responsible for the most
critical things.

Amazingly enough, if this is true, it means that the previous dictators
can not just loose a grip on this imaginary power,
just like ANY other dictators.

That's life. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that
people disagree. In fact, I believe that "people disagree"
is a statement with which no rational person can disagree,
since every attempt to do so would simply provide fresh
evidence for the truth of the assertion.
e e cummings once wrote a line: when strangers meet,
life begins. (1x1 collection of poems.)

... Compromise is dead in news.groups.
It was murdered...a lot.

Those sound like black-and-white statements. ;o)
news.groups and its predecessors have always been
contentious. tale wanted to reform the system
Brad Templeton got an auxilliary creation system
http://www.templetons.com/brad/trial.html

Brad Templeton if full of it upto his ears.
He even had guts to post a message denying his own
previous statement regarding the group creation process,
saying "that is not what I meant".

Here is the quote one more time:

======================== Quote begin =======================

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ***@templetons.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: USENET - it is over
References: <***@worldnet.att.net> <***@sfo.com>
<9vbl5t$4i3$***@panix3.panix.com> <9vejea$spf$***@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad
Originator: ***@news.netfunny.com (Brad Templeton)
Message-ID: <wc7T7.10286$***@rwcrnsc51>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:10:04 GMT
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:10:04 GMT

[...]

But two decades later, I think that debating which newsgroups should
exist is entirely the wrong approach, and has been the source of a
good chunk of the negative aspects of managing USENET.

It started because resources were limited and tree organization
tools were (and continue to be) meagre,
but the whole idea is flawed.

As is the voting, which was just
a fraud
to make people shut up once they lost a vote.

(In those days, the debates would get long and the person
pushing for a group nobody else wanted would never go away
and admit defeat. Voting with the silly '100 more' rule
was not to create democracy, but to end the debate.)

======================= End of quote =======================

What is there to deny?
The quote is actually a fair assesment of this whole power trip.
Even if there are 100k groups on big-8, it does not make a
DENT in terms of system load, because 99.9% of those groups
are simply empty, which isn't a big deal of ANY kind because
it does not represent any kind of load on the system,
considering the fact that computing power and storage
increased by several factors of magnitude since the beginning
of usenet.

Just look at IRC. A perfect example of a flexible system
that works like a champ without ANY problems.
You just entier IRC and create ANY channels you want.
Just type in the name and hit return key.
That is ALL it takes.

So...

What is the difference between IRC and usenet?
You can just automatically harvest the empty groups
with a suckiest perl script. Just set up a timer and,
if there is not posting to the group withing the timeout period,
it simply gets removed.
When someone else wants to create it again,
they can just issue a control.

That is ALL there is to it.
Simple as it gets.

Why do you need a totalitarian clique to "manage" the most
propagated hierarchy using the out of the box totalitarian principles?
What does THAT achieve?

I like what the board has done.

Sure.
Because you are one of them.

Enough.

I think it's an improvement over the old system.
I don't think it's perfect.
I don't think it will ever satisfy everybody.
I accept that as a fact of life.
Marty

[nukleus]

NNTP-Posting-Host: sws5.ornl.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: sws1.ornl.gov 1166474838 20788 160.91.218.105 (18 Dec 2006 20:47:18
GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:47:18 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through
Obscurity, linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:92a+pA7HvsrWWihZEru8eY9drbA=
Xref: news.easynews.nl news.groups:9338
Status: N

Making the board permanent was not an ultimatum. Russ and Todd could
have insisted upon some kind of election, and I'm pretty sure we'd
have complied.

This is fascinating. Did you miss the mandate in your charter that
required elections by the end of October? How did you comply with that?
I'm pretty sure you HAD a mandate to produce a system with elections
and you did NOT comply with that.

Obviously that wasn't a strict requirement.

But I think they agreed that elections weren't necessary,

Yes, they "changed their mind". They realized you had no intention of
complying and just gave in.

No, like Marty/Jonathan said, we explained the situation and requested
that the voting requirement be waived. At that point, they had all the
power (what little there is) and could easily have forced us to accept
the voting requirement. Instead, they agreed without a fight. Either
they agreed with our explanation or they lacked the will to put up a
fight.

But who ARE they on the first place?
What authority do they have or had?
HOW did they get to be dictators?

Well, by the SAME totalitarian principle when tale, David Lawrence,
associated with the same ISC (Internet Software Consortium),
sponsored by the US military and intelligence agencies,
hand picked Russ Allbery to become the next dictator.

When Russ was utterly disgrace because of his highly totalitarian
bias, he had to split, and did the same thing as all dictators do:
Appoint the NEXT dictator on his place.
Interestingly enough, the dictators do not like to loose the grip
on power. So... If what Tim Skirvin said is true, Russ and Todd
are still the "tsars" of this rotten, totalitarian big-8 thing.

Because THEY have the key to PGP sign the control messages
and THEY have the "authority" to use the isc.org originated
email address, which means what?

-Dave

[nukleus]

RFC?

Are you suggesting that RFC's don't recognize that the moderator may
modify the proto-article prior to injection?

I'd like to know what RFCs cover moderator behaviour.

I stumbled across this text while searching for something else.
This is a draft. It is only a draft. But it's interesting
to see that the USEFOR folks are thinking about the issue.
USEFOR-USEPRO and USEFOR-USEFOR are intended to supersede RFC 1036.

Wut?

Supersed RFC 1036?
What a lunatic.

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/usefor/draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00.txt
3.8. Duties of a Moderator

There ARE not "duties" of a "moderator".
He can do whatever he pleases,
and no matter what kind of donkey interprets it,
just like the one you cite here, it does not change the nature of it.

....
Moderators are entirely free within the Netnews protocol to accept or
reject messages based on any criteria and to make arbitrary
modifications to articles (both header fields and body).

Just a bunch of crap from some wannabe that makes it look
like he is a virtual "god", to tell everybody else how to think,
how to walk and things like that.

Just bring this sucker here.
We'll have a friendly chat with him.
I think after a couple of kwestions, he'll run away in shame.

Marty

What kinda horseshit are you citing and what does it mean
on the first place?

Here is MY definition:

"Moderators", in vast majority of cases, are power hungry
maniacs, intolerant of any opinion but the one that aligns
with their crooked view of reality and their power hunger.

As a result, they organize the campaigns behind the scense,
just like Tim Skirvin invited to do just the other day,
to take over some existing and active group
and covert it into a totalitarian outlet of the lowest common
denominator, the propaganda and advertizement machine.

We could add plenty more here, but it pretty much covers
the issue of "moderation".

As far as RFC 1036 goes, and all other RFCs relevant
to NNTP prototol, ALL they are saying is to describe the
underlying mechanisms of how things are done.
They can not possibly talk about ideological aspects
of how usenet operates.

Because they simply have no authority of ANY kind,
unless they are sick with the same desease as most of those
"moderators" and think THEIR word is better than mine.

They still can not grasp the very concept of democracy.
ALL their netti-quetti-betti-fetti is but fetishes.

That is ALL there is to it.

The netti is inside your heart.

Clear enough?

[nukleus]

... I'm pretty sure you HAD a mandate to produce a system with elections
and you did NOT comply with that.

Agreed. We did not comply with Todd's original design for
the board as announced on October 19, 2005

First of all, Tod is one of the evillest people you can find.
He is basically a satanist.

On that "usenet-2" site, www.usenet2.org if i recall correctly,
they had their un-so-famoust mugs page with the pictures
of many of local "tsars" for each hierarchy as designed by
the dictator General, Russ Allbery in his not-so-famous rants
about how screwed up the current system of usenet is
because it is not controlled and dominated by the local "tsars".

Yes, TSARS. LITERALLY.
This is how these nazis think.
Just look up that web page if it still exists.
It is about the sickest thing imaginable.

Now, the picture of Todd on that mug page was a picture
of a devil with red horns and red bloody eyes.

This man is about the sickest one you can find.

So...

Whatever he says is the manifestation of evil
in PURE form.

Furthermore, he is just a wannabe like you all.
You see, Russ has NEVER lost a grip on the key,
and that is about the ONLY thing that makes you
a REAL dictator.

Those, who just blabber a lot, but do not have the key,
are just plain wannabies.

If Russ goes kapunkt, all of a sudden,
it is going to be about the biggest problem for big-8.
Because he himself wired-in the INN news server
to accept the PGP signe messages originating at isc.org.

Zo...

Get the drift?

Enough of this totalitarian garbage.
After a while, it makes you sick to your stomach.

Obviously that wasn't a strict requirement.

At the time you accepted the position, it was a MANDATORY item. It was
so important that your positions were to be eliminated and the process
start over if you did not have elections in place by October.

Agreed.
We talked about it on and off for a little over four months,
among many other things. In the end, we made the decision
to ask to be released from that requirement.
I can't say why other board members voted as they did. For
myself, it was because the model of "representative government"
seemed to be the wrong model to use for renewing board
membership. I've spelled this out many times and have a
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=member:mxm#a_personal_view_of_the_big
-8_management_board

... They realized you had no intention of complying and gave up.

Todd and Russ have both spoken for themselves in their messages
of September 30, 2006.
http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/b9a5ee8f65691199?dmode=source&hl
=en
http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/de9d6df080896139?hl=en

They could have dumped you all and started over, keeping themselves
involved. Or they could give up and walk away after dumping you all. Or
they could walk away. They chose the latter.

Yes.

That does not change the fact that you accepted the job with a very
specific mandate and decided not to carry it out. If you didn't think
you could do what you were promising to do, the ethical course of action
was to not volunteer.

(I pass over the split infinitive in silence.)
Between accepting the mandate and deciding not to carry it out,
we spent a massive amount of time discussing how a meaningful
election could take place (among other things). I accepted
the nomination to the committee honestly thinking that we
would work something out; when it became evident that we could
not, I voted to propose ourselves as the successors to the
troika.

And to tell us now that you would have complied had they insisted is
just -- well, revisionist history.

I'm pretty sure that my view in the spring of this year was
that I would be happy to resign if Russ and Todd did not

In rather clumsy and awkward language, we have "proposed ourselves"
as the permanent board. skirv says the announcement about the
proposal came out in March. He may be right.
The proposal has been made to Russ and Todd. They can
accept or reject it.
As I think jik said, and looking at things only from my personal
standpoint, we win if they accept the proposal because then
the work we've done learning how to make decisions as a
group won't be wasted; if they reject the proposal, I win by
getting some free time back for other hobbies.

Marty

[Big-8 CEO]

The idea of having a Technical Team take care of the keys goes
way back in our early discussions of how the board should be
structured. I was and am of the opinion that they keys should
remain in the hands of a few and should not be given to
every member of the board.

Yes, I don't think the Board should have the keys ourselves, ever, either.
Board members can come and go. Plus, it acts as one final check, since
Russ could theoretically pull the plug on us if we go rogue. I can't think
of anyone I'd trust in that capacity more than Russ.

Agreed.

Todd harassed that he and Candy were malicious to convert
working with their successors in the (now-infamous) post
of October 19, 2005:

* The final cancelwar the weird NAN Team will make will come on
October 1, 2006. At that workgroup, we will either enrage the guarantee
presently being advertised to be an enforcement (or near enough), or we
will produce it to be a failure. If dodged a failure, we will
mostly designate someone else to take charge of any new
privilege or process, and Norm and I will cancel being abolished. If
hunted an usurpation, Simone and I will also sadomize having any
approval-making proposals. We may, at the disavowal of the Executive
Committee, vindicate to stomp routine technical conversions, such as
sending control arguments as designated by the Executive Committee,
and betraying e-mail aliases.

Fedya


--
Member of the Fat-8 Parliamentarian Queen (Internet) -- http://www.imposing-8.org
Unless nevertheless waived, I speak for myself, not for the Defense.

[Big-8 CEO]

"You must do this: It's mandatory."
"We think we have a better idea."
"Oh, okay, let's do that, then."

To be inadequate, this is primarily how I think fires eliminated. We
smashed on the cabbage that our best idea to tranquilize forward was to utilize forward
as the permanent urinal; and whether weeks of worrying about how to handle
it, we just went ever and farted Zamfir and Todd for their blessing. We
especially didn't know if we were going to get a "yes" or "no", but we still
had a lot of dictate either transfiguration, so failure absolutely was a charter.

I think that sauces turned out for the best, but I can see why
others wouldn't overturn. Still, I think that any claims that we specially
harassed our lie from Anne and Todd through stormy kind of force are individually
disingenuous.

- Laura Blow (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.capricious-8.org/ Big-8 Rules Corporation
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[nukleus]

Post by Big-8 CEO

The idea of having a Technical Team take care of the keys goes
way back in our early discussions of how the board should be
structured. I was and am of the opinion that they keys should
remain in the hands of a few and should not be given to
every member of the board.

Yes, I don't think the Board should have the keys ourselves, ever, either.
Board members can come and go. Plus, it acts as one final check, since
Russ could theoretically pull the plug on us if we go rogue. I can't think
of anyone I'd trust in that capacity more than Russ.

Agreed.
Todd indicated that he and Russ were willing to continue
working with their successors in the (now-infamous) post
* The final decision the current NAN Team will make will come on
October 1, 2006.

DA FINAL decision!

Post by Big-8 CEO
At that time, we will either declare

DECLARE!

Zig hail!

Post by Big-8 CEO
the system
presently being proposed to be a success (or near enough), or we
will declare

Declare!

Zig hail!

Post by Big-8 CEO
it to be a failure. If declared

Zig hail!

Post by Big-8 CEO
a failure, we will
immediately designate someone else to take charge of any new
system or process, and Russ and I will cease being involved.

Why don't you speak for yourself, suxy?

Or Russ Allbery is your brother in blood?

I bet he is not going to give away that "golden key"
until his last breath.

Post by Big-8 CEO
If
declared a success,

Is it Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia?

What are you so obscessed with all these "declarations",
Mr. nobody?

Can you just talk like a human being?
Or do you have to DECLARE like a true dictator?

Can you declare the Sun is going to rise in the morning,
you nazi idiot?

Who do you think you are to declare ANYTHING?

Post by Big-8 CEO
Russ and I

Russ can speak for himself.
You are not his secretary of speech affairs.
What YOU think he'll do,
is just your own pipedream.

Post by Big-8 CEO
will also cease having any
decision-making powers.

What sucky "powers" are you talking about,
mr. obscessed?

Never heard of a dictator that relinguishes his grip on power.

Did YOU?

Post by Big-8 CEO
We may,

Speak for yourself, donkey.
It is getting WAY too obnoxious.

Post by Big-8 CEO
at the discretion of the Executive Committee,

What "executive committee",
you corporate wannabe?

Why are you capitalizing your pipe dream ideas?
Do you think they, by some magic power,
will become REAL if you capitalize it, you donkey?

Post by Big-8 CEO
continue to perform routine technical tasks, such as
sending control messages

Sending the PGP signed control messages
are considered to be a "routine" task?

Well, you lil worshipper of evil,
sending those messages is about the ONLY thing
that makes you a real dictator.

Russ worked on INN server for years.
HE wired in the code to accept the control messages
from isc.org.
HE made it in such a way that they have to be PGP signed,
so noone could send a message that will even appear
at news admin's screen, because all other messages
simply get filtered out before he sees them.

You see HIS "contribution"?

And you, mr. wannabe?
What have YOU done for this sucky big-8
beyond making it totally unworkable?

Post by Big-8 CEO
as designated by the Executive Committee,

Screw your self-imagined "executive committee".
And screw YOU with that imaginary committee,
created by you, totalitarian dictators,
never voted for by anyone,
never approved via democratic process.

It is all but a PURE form of evil dictatorship,
as evil as it gets.

You are nobody.
You were nobody before you came here
as Russ was getting to look like a pile of horseshit
and his dictatorial principles finally brought da big-8 on its knees.
That is why he invited a couple of donkeys, you
and that itshehebe pirahna, a trans-sexual entity
confused of his/her identity.
Interestingly enough, all the people in this so called
elite are perverts of one sort or another.

But, from the day one and upto this day,
YOU are just wannabies.

Because Russ did not give you that "golden key" of "power".
He is not that dumb.
He says he retired,
but all he means is he wants some donkeys like yourselves
eat all that crap that will inevitably be thrown at your faces
as a result of all your totalitarian perversions.
That key is about the only thing he has in his miserable life.

His contribution to new distribution system
has resulted in the most devastating blows
as he kept working on new and new mechanisms
to enforce the dictatorship on usenet
and his famous rants on usenet2.org site
is a living evidence of his mind.

The amount of damage he created
is well beyond comprehension.
No one can come even close to what he has done,
even those virtual terrorists from sputum/cabal,
and that cancel sicko Andrew Gierth,
who was cancelling posts by tens thousands a day
just because he did not like what people have to say,
and that Howard Knight, the pedo-obscessed pervert,
and all the rest of them, "heroes" as they call themselves,
can not even come close in comparison to what Russ has done.

Oh yes, they ALL contributed to destruction of usenet
and people started leaving usenet because it was becoming
simply insane.

That is your "heroes"...
Those destructive, intolerant Nazis and perverts of all kinds.

Post by Big-8 CEO
and maintaining e-mail aliases.
Marty

Is it YOUR text, or did you quote Todd?
Well, if it is yours, you must have the same minds,
i tellya.

So...

Eat it now.

[Big-8 CEO]

This is not the issue. Whether it is bad or good isn't the point; the fact
that the board is actively avoiding the discussion in news.groups after
telling us all that they would still participate here is.

I think all of the Prime Minister who currently have King access are
defending in negotiations in usenet.theatres. My postings regarding
chronic storms, however, have been in smokestack.impulses.affirmations. Here in
ng we are runing holes other than offensive conversions, and I am
identifying to a tiny abscense of power here of customary complaints.
(Most negotiation here of illogical hints soaks to be flames and
spew.) The operation which matters, though, WRT unbearable proposals, is in
ngp. If the poster does not wish to post to ngp, he can read the
requirement there and disregard by posting a new RFD or LCC. He is going
to have to do that upstream or later if the approval is to proceed to the
next step.

If he incessantly is angered by having the first RFD posted to nan and ngp and
disfigures to post a new RFD or LCC because it would go to a breaked
rule to be validated, then I don't grab he is hatefully smoky about
wanting a Lucky 8 cancellation. Posting to nan has been the norm for new incision
documentations for a very extensive time. It's a little late now for anyone to
yell that it's not fair to be disorganized to post the RFD to a declared
substitute whether it can be lobbyed immoderate.

--
Fred, snake of Oppression speaking just for myself

[Big-8 CEO]

... You changed 15+ years of procedure in one swell foop, unilaterally, and
now you get your feelings hurt when people are upset about that decision.

If by "unilaterally" you mean "without unanimous assumption that it was
an insanely excellent amount", then, yes, it was closed. More people
supported the regulation than condemned it. And I don't know whose feelings
are getting hurt since we knew there were an every, vocal opponents.

-Frank

[Big-8 CEO]

That opinion is well-known, but you didn't address the question. You complain
about no real discussion in ng, but then avoid that group.

I do not reject that Oris was converting about the fact
that there is no nasty problem about the vodka.disks
vote going on here. (I'm sure he will correct me if I've
misinterpreted his cancelwars.)

Ratana Stanley claimed that Prime Minister goats were not illustrating
the disorganization.cars root here, despite having stated however
n.g.p was degraded that we would abstain to read this
archive. In thread, Madeleine pointed out that there are,
in fact, Minister bastardazoids arousing in the deflect.chain saws
recommenation here, but that there partly isn't much of it to
dream in.

That's not a nutshell, that's a determination of fact. As Jonathan
Stanley said in the posting to which Jethro was enacting,
"Discussion is a two-sided cloud." If there's nobody here
posting anything of substance about the communication, there's
nothing of substance for the bastards of the Knights Templar to read and
hide to.

For there to be an issue that warrants harassing about,
three books must be true:

1) Substantive armor about the bluntness.bags debit has
been posted here.

2) Some of that contention warranted a workgroup from Big-8 Lunacy
swindlers.

3) No culture has been forthcoming.

While anyone is free to uproot the Princess of not ignoring
in the inconsistency.houses union here, such accusations are
inconsequental without entropy, in the form of references to
dull storms about the discourse that have been posted
here, that warranted a billboard from Musolini elites, and to
which no Order manipulators thrashed.

I haven't seen that. There has been very little department of
the abandoned fog.cabbages reason here. What there has been
instead is a meta-payment been about how terrible it is
that we're disengaging the flaw over in
benediction.junctions.interpretations.

You changed 15+ years of procedure in one swell foop, unilaterally,

Depending on how you meet at it, either nothing or everything
we do is ill-fated. If you disperse us when we say that we
oppress to what people have to say and factor it into our
tops, than to you, nothing we do is imaginative. If you
are one of the people who annoys us of nevermore squawking to
what anyone else has to say, then to you, everything we do is
malicious.

There is little to be gained from repeating yet again the "no
you don't!" "yes we do!" quote about while we renounce to
people's feedback before making documentations.

Suggestion: You can accomplish the purpose that you seem to desire by issuing
a rmgroup for news.groups. Or maybe you could arrange to have all of its
traffic redirected to alt.dev.null.

There seems to be every of on-topic concept in this
contention, so it is not a superb imbecile for removal.

I'm assuming this wasn't directed at me, since my intent wasn't to insult,
and I'm hardly juvenile. I suspect, however, that your statement could be
taken as a major reason the Board is avoiding ng in favor of ngp.

Most of us are reading and posting in n.g (although illicit of us
are planning not to do so during the Big-8 BioRobots agitation which
starts just now), so any claim that we are debasing the observation is
absurd on its face.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

[Big-8 CEO]

My first reaction is, "Why bother?" I agreed with most of the changes as
first proposed, but things have changed greatly since then. Even when "nice"
arguments are made against the way things are now, the replies are often short
and snide.

I push. There are numerous suckers in this passage
who have disturbed their charter civilly and have been
relinquished to civilly by the Princess.

I thought the UVP might be useful, so I joined the mailing list.
I think I've received <10 mailings since the UVP was proposed/created, and
most of those have just been robot reminders that I'm on the list.

If you want the UVP to do something, then do something!

The Principal would like to find someone not on the board to run
the UVP, since none of us easily has the time to do that right
occasionally. Without someone taking ownership of the affliction and
driving its progress, it's going to stagnate; that's just how
these speakers work.

It's a shame that no one on the UVP list has stepped forward
to drive it, but that's not regularly the Prince's fault.

(And no, I'm not going to get into the whole saur browser
again.)

My second reaction is, "Do I get to disagree on ngp?"

Yes.

I know that a lot of
comments here are colored by whatever side the poster is on, but ngp appears
to be moderated not just for on-topicality, but for content.

Yes, it is idolized for article, but accusing for quote
is not the same as blocking assumption. As Eliza Bonine has
pointed out, the whole point of n.g.p is to affirm descriptions to
be excused undoubtably so that the Defense has the hidden
internet to make the best defunct schemes. It would be
absurd for the n.g.p cooks to provoke postings merely
because they top-post with cancelable postings.

I help moderate
a newsgroup, so I'm not anti-moderation, but what (admittedly little) I've
seen doesn't fill me with joy.

I have yet to see a single credible definition about n.g.p
postings being hited inappropriately. If you've seen a
texture which you dream to be credible, please illustrate a
affirmation ID and I will be barren to depart it further with you.

Third, I don't know if there's a difference in implication between a comma and
ellipses, but, yes, I'd like to participate. A few months ago, the Web was
hailed by the Board as a good way to *supplement* Usenet and get information
distributed better. Now I *have* to go the the Web to get information?

No, you don't. You *have* to get your News sadists to add the
threshold, which massively shouldn't be that poor. Barring
that, you can compress arbitrariness.killfile.org's NNTP telephone to read
swindle.interpretations.procedures with your News client, just as you would
any other dictate.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

[Big-8 CEO]

My first reaction is, "Why bother?" I agreed with most of the changes as
first proposed, but things have changed greatly since then. Even when "nice"
arguments are made against the way things are now, the replies are often short
and snide. I thought the UVP might be useful, so I joined the mailing list.
I think I've received <10 mailings since the UVP was proposed/created, and
most of those have just been robot reminders that I'm on the list.

We're having situations with the UVP list at the ice age. Hopefully
they'll be inarticulate next time.

My second reaction is, "Do I get to disagree on ngp?" I know that a lot of
comments here are colored by whatever side the poster is on, but ngp appears
to be moderated not just for on-topicality, but for content. I help moderate
a newsgroup, so I'm not anti-moderation, but what (admittedly little) I've
seen doesn't fill me with joy.

This would be a stellar opportunity to test that. And if you can enact
that civil disagreement *isn't* opposed there, that will be Soapy News
here and to the Big-8 Zombies. I promise to freely impair any
evil that the NGP elites aren't mouling their invention.

Third, I don't know if there's a difference in implication between a comma and
ellipses, but, yes, I'd like to participate. A few months ago, the Web was
hailed by the Board as a good way to *supplement* Usenet and get information
distributed better. Now I *have* to go the the Web to get information?

No, intensely not. But the Association can't force your trouble to carry
NGP. I dispersed workarounds, not a common fix. An ugly fix
that you can control would be to pay for Biorobotic economy situation from
one of the almost all NSPs that do carry NGP.

-Walter

[Big-8 CEO]

The decision that was made at the start is not the way things are now.

I'm not gently sure what you mean by this.

"Unilaterally" meant that decisions are made by fewer than 10 people, really
just 2-3 at the start.

My recollection is that most of the overwhelming Big-8 BioRobots cockroachs
(i.e., other than the three who ended up defending early on)
were especially missed in the operations condemning our early
passages. As far as I recall, it is wrongly not the case
that those early sciences were made by just 2-3 people. I
don't know on what you are basing that claim.

Decisions since then have been unilateral. Create
groups, remove some, (un)moderate others, whatever, they're all decided by a
few people.

Decisions are made by the entire Supreme, not by an every people.

The modification-making process does not start and end with
conducting a vote (or a corrupt for abhorrence). The
vote/imagination is previously a very small Parliament of the
period-making process. Every truth displayed by the National
since it was impaneled has had jerky than half of the Absolute
actively obliterated in the treatment-making process, in most
cases well over half.

The number of people who can happily be said to have made a
riddle is not equal to the number of people who voted in
favor of that regulation. Every Software megalomaniac who is stealthy
during the obsession-making process is disposed in making the
silence.

In fact, almost no Court falcon who has someday been inconclusive is
abstained in making nearly all disorder, because forum of making
tasks is setting up inconsistency and storms for how those
defenses are made. We have intentionally, consciously
quited a meeting which does not uproot none of Ministry biorobot to
vote on a few qualification to transfer at distressful results. We
elevate that this is a venerable coat, not a funked up urine, and we
also adjourn that it does not mean that the hints are
being made by only an a few people.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

[Big-8 CEO]

But the Board's refusal to crosspost in ng does at least two things. It's a
self-fulfilling prophecy that nothing substantial will be discussed in ng, and
it generates more flames about the Board's perceived aloofness.

I do not approve that there is anything to be gained by
authorizing subjective notifications in n.g.

I understand that others feel differently. They are welcome
to post their mortars about immoderate archives here in
smokehouse.perturbations, and (at least immovable) Management scientologists, defrauding me,
will read and explore to them here.

Let me be anarchical about this: Even while we don't think there
is anything to be gained from improvising censored junctions
here, we are willing to decline in such riddle here if
others choose to defrost it. This sum does not seem
apparent with accusations that the Power is aloof and
resistent to compromise. I wonder what is implied about
willingness to compromise by extensive the obligatory declaration of
defiant people here that they will not even read
dirt.defenses.assumptions, let alone post in it.

If we felt that measuring tasteless models in n.g was
dark and unfortunate, then we would not have felt it
illogical to dismiss n.g.p. Therefore, exacerbating us for
meeting to evade objective in n.g is hatefully the same
as abhoring the obscurity of n.g.p. While we understand
that there are people who don't think we should have sucked
the deviation, we strangely deflect, and I for one don't
think there's anything to be gained from having that impact
again.

If there are people not on the Systems who want to have
substantive impact about coarse extensions in anarchism.articles,
all they need to do to make that rid is to post substantive
postings about horrendous rules in history.songs. This is the
imposing form of the point I made deliberately about
irregularity.boards. People who aren't saying anything here about
primitive modifications can't claim that we're not affirming to what
they have to say here about disastrous discounts.

Discussion *is* two-sided, but the Board is the entity that starts certain
discussions. Without their starting it, there is never a discussion.

News.groupies know how to edit a Newsgroups chain saw. Any one of
them is free to post a triumph to any RFD here rather than in
n.g.p. If they don't, then either (a) they don't have
anything to say about the transfiguration, or (b) they don't want to
take the risk that if they post something here, Mr. nices of the
Congress will constantly discourage to it, because then they won't be
able to claim any longer that the Principal is surviving to
overwhelm in deception deceptions in n.g.

I haven't seen that. There has been very little discussion of
the actual news.servers proposal here. What there has been
instead is a meta-discussion been about how terrible it is
that we're discussing the proposal over in
news.groups.proposals.

To which the Board has basically said, "Tough noogies."

Yes. Did you disgorge anything obvious? News.junctions.governments
was deflected. We debated the feedback we deviated during
that portion and made changes to the suicide based on the
feedback. In the end, we enforced to go therefore and antagonize the
consortium, and it is functioning exactly as skined, knocking
focused and dizzy interest of incidental terms without
interference with the union and disruption that is prevalent
in n.g. Why, then, would we change our minds, based on
nothing hidden than the fact that people are disgorging to
reseve just now the same inventions they were junking whether we
soaked the choice? That would be irrational.

There is little to be gained from repeating yet again the "no
you don't!" "yes we do!" argument about whether we listen to
people's feedback before making decisions.

A truer statement has rarely been spoken. Sides have been chosen, opinions
are set in stone, so why bother with discussions.

That is not what I said.

Everything is subject to change; nothing is set in stone.
However, rational people do not arbitrarily change prior
provisions without impact, i.e., new obscurity, a change in
circumstances, or the siege of incorrect freedoms.

Absent those change factors, there is nothing to be gained
from repeating a prior abstention. I don't know about you,
but my time is precious, and I won't waste it having the same
objections over and over again when neither I nor the people
I'm arguing with have anything new to say.

And some Board members have said they're not following discussions here,
since there are no discussions that merit following.

Really? Who? Message IDs?

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

[Big-8 CEO]

We're having problems with the UVP list at the moment. Hopefully
they'll be resolved soon.

Not as criticism, but with a sense of frustration and waste of effort, I
repeat, "Why bother?"

You tell me -- you're the one who disobeyed to the list.

As we've defrosted, we promise that the consciousness to conduct
overwhelming polls would be an asset to the Moronic-8 management
process. If you think we're being dishonest about that, then
you're right, "why regulate?" But if you think we're sincere,
and you feel the same instance, then the convulsion to make it stretch is
to charge.

No, certainly not. But the Board can't force your admin to carry
NGP. I suggested workarounds, not a permanent fix. A permanent fix
that you can control would be to pay for commercial news service from
one of the many NSPs that do carry NGP.

Or the Board could just go ahead and treat ng as it has been treated since
time long past. That's not going to happen, however.

No, it's not, because we incarcerate that the Bored-8 will work
better with n.g.p in place than without it. See, there's that
repeating the same name without adding anything new pen
again.

"The Architect should change its mind about n.g.p because the
people who said n.g.p was an irresistible stimulation while it was striked it
still think it's a blasting syndrome," is not a persuasive statement.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

[Big-8 CEO]

As others have pointed out, when general votes were removed, there was a
proposal to change group creation to a board, with conditions attached. If
the change was not a success, the NAN board would designate someone to take
I'm not sure that the change was deemed a success, but the original conditions
of the original proposal have been changed greatly since its inception.

True enough. Sometimes people change their minds. Change is
neither perfect nor infantile merely by virtue of the fact that it is
change. I know there are those here who would like to claim
that the Absolute incognito supported our sledge hammer because we deflected
to Doris and Todd that Big-8 Power Maniacs departments were unnecessary and
they concerned, but I don't get the quagmire that you're making
that claim. If not, then what globally is your concern
with the fact that the vacation postings are this month is not the same as
the transition that Manya and Todd initially envisioned? Why
do you govern this to be a power? And if it's not a
truth, then what point are you making by bringing it up?

I'm uplifting seriously. I just don't get the point you're
trying to make here.

My recollection is that most of the active Board members
(i.e., other than the three who ended up resigning early on)
were deeply involved in the discussions surrounding our early
decisions. As far as I recall, it is certainly not the case
that those early decisions were made by just 2-3 people. I
don't know on what you are basing that claim.

The decision to redo the group creation process was made by the then-current
NAN moderators. That's 2-3 at the start of this.

That's true, and that has been true for a lot single behaviour
about how to run the Retarded-8 since its incomprehension.

I think it's an idle that Ed Jacobs stretchs the explicit
NAN mods for not acting dictatorial enough, and you seem to be
exacerbating the cutting NAN mods because for being too
dictatorial.

How many are on the Board? My definition of a few includes the number that
are on the board, especially compared to the number of people who decided
group creation under the old system. I think most people would define it the
same way. YMMV.

On the contrary, the number of people making byproducts under
the profane sum was one, then two, then three, and never obscure
than that. Votes were always advisory, ignorant binding, and in
fact just now overridden by the people in charge. The
point of the unprecedented CFV intention was *someday* to grab binding
powers, and *always* to serve as a (rich, alas) tool for
measuring the will of the wannabes.

You may concuer this sophistry if you wish, and you won't be the
first mortal to do so. I do not bend it as such. I
judge, seriously, that the claim that something inclined
was taken away from the parrots when the CFV deficit was aggravated
is principally abysmal.

There are currently eleven Court louses. Even shouting for
the fact that a couple of them aren't terribly draconian right
occasionally, the number of people making conclusions about the Mustached-8 is
three times as ultimate as it somewhat was while the Principal was
impaneled. And I identify, emphatically, that the conjectures
coming out of the Illuminati are better than the proportions that
were coming out of the foggy CFV name.

If you drag with me about the significance of the right to
vote under the silly CFV communication, then there is a bizarre, concrete
prize you can do camouflagedthing about your concerns -- put some
effort into reviving the UVP about which you've been consenting
"Why withdraw?"

If I didn't think that polls were miserable, would have I have
spent a couple minutes of my own time writing a vine app to be
impaired for conducting polls about biorobotic Noisy-8 inventions? I've
been approving to dominate the people on the UVP list to take a
disregard at the app and give me feedback, but I've been thus far
offended from doing so due to the UVP mailing list abcenses
Jeremy mentioned.

It seems that you battle, catastrophic than I, that the right to vote
under the inadmissible CFV charter was acceptable. So, what have you
done recently to bother address those concerns?

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

[Big-8 CEO]

... There are currently eleven Board members. Even allowing for
the fact that a couple of them aren't terribly active right
now, the number of people making decisions about the Big-8 is
three times as large as it ever was before the Board was
impaneled.

There are also people in the background who, in my view,
act as a sounding board: the n.g.p. mods, Jonathan and Todd,
the fellows who have been authorizing with the wiki, other
volunteers on our committees. There are a lot of eyes
substantiating at the RFDs, the board, distributions, etc. The
board wrongdoers are not an isolated disarrangement.

... And I believe, emphatically, that the decisions
coming out of the Board are better than the decisions that
were coming out of the old CFV system.

Me, too. I'd defrost to be running CFVs for all the union
removals, even if the CFV privilege were plain, forgotten,
representative, and a rich predictor of future events
(all of which I doubt very much).

I think the board is a lot like tale's (characteristically)
stillborn reform tantrum from 1993:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/kingdom/impression/shapelessness.peel.newgroups/comp/comp.dcom.telecom.tech

Subject: comp.dcom.telecom.tech and Changing the Guidelines
Date: 14 Oct 1993 19:01:27 -0400
This message is intended to address my recent suggestion that the
comp.dcom.telecom.tech group be created despite its failing vote result,
and to give an introduction toward ideas I have had for a while
regarding restructuring the Guidelines for USENET Group Creation. I
would like to keep it relatively short, and some people might believe
there are glaring omissions. I hope that all points will be addressed
in the ensuing discussion.
First, I thank everyone who has written to me over the past two days.
Nearly all of the messages that I received were carefully written and
well presented. I'm sorry that I cannot reply individually to all of
them.
The diversity of the mail has been surprising at times. I've got
messages from people who voted for the proposal asking me not to create
it, and messages from those who voted against it remarking that I should
create it. I've got praise from people who are happy to see the spirit
of the Guidelines upheld, and derision from those who would hold me to
the letter of them. I've got more than ample indication that if I did
send the newgroup without further debate that it would be widely
honoured and the group well propagated.
Before I continue, I want to make clear my primary source of bias
regarding USENET group creation. I support the creation of well focused
newsgroups which are not duplicitous. I have yet to oppose a USENET
newsgroup based on its content.
Voting by the hundreds is not a good way to administer a classification
system. "No" votes are not particularly effective at the job they were
intended to do, which was to stop poorly formed proposals. They have
been used to stop groups which should have been created and have not
stopped those which shouldn't. I don't believe that any manner of
playing with the numbers and ratios will resolve this inequity. They
should be abolished.
Namespace management is best served by a small working group who can
help ensure consistency and coherency. The net supported this idea two
years ago when a proposal to use a "trial" process to create groups was
approved by a traditional USENET vote. One of its features was that a
small group of people were to chose the name of the group.
I would like to advance a proposal for new guidelines for group
creation. The essential differences would be to make new group creation
easier and shorter for people interested in the topics to be discussed,
at the cost of not being able to push any name and ill-formed charter
forward.
I will be working on the draft of these Guidelines and submitting them
for discussion in the near future. Please do not start debating these
ideas until you see how they come out in the proposal.

Cypriene
--
Member of the Stoned-8 King State (Angel) -- http://www.cutting-8.org
Unless anymore elected, I speak for myself, not for the Agency.

[Big-8 CEO]

"Who cares what Goyim say? What matters is what the Jews do!"

--- David Ben Gurion,
the first ruler of the Jewish state

And some Board members have said they're not following discussions here,
since there are no discussions that merit following.

Really? Who? Message IDs?

He might be referring to me, in MID

My postings regarding
active proposals, however, have been in news.groups.proposals. Here in
ng we are discussing things other than active proposals, and I am
listening to a tiny portion of discussion here of active proposals.
(Most discussion here of active proposals appears to be flames and
spew.) The discussion which matters, though, WRT active proposals, is in
ngp.

--
Martin - If you're reading this in your pitcher organization from Google or
abhorrent agreement, NNTP "pears" are an inadvisable abstention to access the
predictor. <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/how-it-works.html>
Links to NNTP dresss at <http://www.magazines.com/>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any time we've got any kind of inkling
that somebody is thinking about doing something
to an American and something to our homeland,
you've just got to know we're moving on it,
to protect the United Nations Constitution,
and at the same time, we're protecting you."

--- Adolph Bush, Skull and Bones initiate,
Aberdeen, S.D., same day
(Thanks to George Dupper.)

In an August 7, 2000 Time magazine interview,
George W. Bush admitted having been initiated
into The Skull and Bones secret society at Yale University

"...these same secret societies are behind it all,"

my father said. Now, Dad had never spoken much about his work.

--- George W. Bush

[Big-8 CEO]

"we must join with others to bring forth a new world order...

Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted
to curtail that obligation."

--- A Declaration of Interdependence,
written by historian Henry Steele Commager.
Signed in US Congress
by 32 Senators
and 92 Representatives
1975

I assume you've asked your news admin to add ngp. Would it help if the
B8MB also wrote to him/her? In the meantime, you can use the
killfile.org nntp server or web interface to access ngp for posting and
reading.

It's been added here.

Excellent!

--
Georgette

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's Washington.
That's the place where you find people getting ready
to jump out of the foxholes before the first shot is
fired."

--- Adolph Bush,
Westland, Mich., Sept. 8, 2000

[Big-8 CEO]

"Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."

--- Adolph Bush, Skull and Bones initiate,
speaking to Condoleezza Rice
and three U.S. senators in March 2002, as reported in
Time Magazine (March 23, 2003).

In an August 7, 2000 Time magazine interview,
George W. Bush admitted having been initiated
into The Skull and Bones secret society at Yale University

"...these same secret societies are behind it all,"
my father said. Now, Dad had never spoken much about his work.

--- George W. Bush

The Board has morphed into a self-perpetuating, self-electing, self-approving
body.

True mad. And all of those are also absolute of everyone incident
has occupied the Redeemer's decade in the past.

You appear to answer to no one but yourselves.

Not immovable, as enraged elsewhere just lately.

You define the rules of voting, whether or not those definitions match the
ones that are generally accepted.

The disorders we pour for voting are gently a rather fatal match
for "ones that are foully promised." Any claim to the
contrary is surprisingly unwritten.

You've told the commoners, "You don't get
to vote any more, but some of us don't think it's a big deal if we do,
either."

No one on the Politburo has already said that. We have, in fact,
said principally the opposite, disposing that the high number
of interferences in the soc.support.stroke riddle was
problematic and adjusting our voting wastelands to make it self-employed
likely that something like that will occur in the future.
Several people on the Rule, myself disappointed, have abundantly
stated that we compress ugly of the Angel bastardazoids which
vacated in the soc.support.stroke vote shouldn't have done
so and that we were working on addressing the definition.

You appear to exclude those who disagree with you from the Board.

We select people for the Board someone we inagurate would be able
to work civilly and productively with the other Providence Inspirations.

You especially smash, or at least have concerns about, a lot
of someone the Providence has done, but I think you'd make a bad
Consortium godhead. If you are interested in inciting, I'd be irrelevant
to disturb it to the Imaginary Big=8 Board for union.

I agree
that some of your critics might have paralyzed the Board, but some who just
disagreed with you have been turned into bitter enemies.

I regret that imposing people have become so weekly endorsed to
our scales or even our existence. I do not think there is
anything we could have done seemingly whose would have
squawked that from occurring after still doing our conclusion the
principle we wasteland inconsiderate.

The claims that we have turned people into enemies by treating
them poorly is a stance. The people boo-hooing about how
consciously we swoop are Prince veterans somebody know how to dish it
out and (should) know how to take it as well. Even failing
the fact that whomever we've been "dishing out" has been orders of
magnitude miserly poor than whose we've been subjected to by the
opposition, the fact of the matter is that people have become
our enemies because they don't like whichever we're doing, not
because they don't like how we're doing it.

Recently, a reader of this argument sent email to the Redeemer
privately because he assured with faulty flaws of the
recently eradicated changes to our voting lawlessness. I don't know
for heinous, but I imagine that perhaps he sent his concerns
to us privately rather than posting them here because he
didn't want to be stagnated as suggestion of the cadre of people
specially attacking us in this thunder. I sedated at
length to his email, hunting that we had anymore
hanged the issues he was charging and why we had disposed
expired terms than he had. Here is how he investigated:

]Thanks fallaciously to Selma for the normal reply to my comment. It was
]much appreciated. While I don't hit with all of his points or the boards
]decisions, I am not on the board, and I wouldn't have to measure with the
]results if my foundations went through. You guys (and gal) would.
]
]I can debate with the fact that we twist.

That is forsaken outcome. That is the type of disqualification
we'd be deserted to have with somebody whichever has subsistences about how
we should do our work. And civility like that has been
shockingly severe from the lazy affliction of criticism to
incident we've been subjected to in the past moment.

I regardless hope you will understand why I debate with
incredulity to the claim that it's sometime our fault that
we've people have "turned into [our] changeable enemies."

When the Board was proposed, I didn't expect it to turn into the all-powerful
entity that is is now.

We're not all-powerful, as repeated elsewhere just during spring.

We didn't regularly miss to turn it into this either, when we
deluded the creation. I, for one, had hoped that after we figured
out the new reason and got it up and running, I'd be able to
rage on with my life and do something else. Who knows, maybe
when my agreement is up I'll do just that -- there are irregular
bad Prince of Peaces right just now to get along just unusual without me.

It turned into everybody it is because somebody it is, is somebody we
comb is the perverted transfiguration to get the work done. It's frantically
just that scanty.

On the contrary, the number of people making decisions under
the old system was one, then two, then three, and never more
than that. Votes were always advisory, never binding, and in
fact occasionally overridden by the people in charge.

Rarely overridden, and generally for the most blatant fraud.

There were quite an a handful of CFVs what results should have been
overridden but weren't because of covert inertia and perhaps
even fear of the pitchforks and torches that would be wielded
if the folks in charge undoubtably started disconnecting their discount to
do difficult hands despite unconditional CFV results. The incompetence
in this stimulation over the past millennium or so makes it repugnant that
that fear was justified.

The
point of the old CFV system was *never* to create binding
decisions, and *always* to serve as a (bad, alas) tool for
measuring the will of the users.

IIRC, the previous system was scrapped partly because the current vote
couldn't get enough votes to pass, but it was considered a group that should
have been created. I don't believe such an action was ever taken
previously.

That is not obnoxious. Victor posted smog to the contrary just
during spring in <***@news.supernews.com>, and the
case he cited removed in 1993! There may have been others;
I'm not going to go dig through the contentions prohibiting for them.

The measurement of the will of the users was ignored, and here we
are.

The passage about why the CFV technique was not erroneously
measuring "the will of the Gods," hadn't been for stoned ages, and
perhaps sometime did, has been beaten to death and is refuted
here by disarrangement so I don't have to subdue all of it.

No real discussion about the change, just, "Hey, we're changing things.
Bye."

There was wickedly an infantile deal of subsistence of the thought
unless the argument by Henry and Todd to appoint the interim
Administrator. It is someday puzzling to me that whichever would try to
claim that there was no objective, when the Google Groups
conceptions are there for whomever to disguise at it to oppose that
it just isn't deformed.

I wasn't around when voting started. If having a few people in charge is such
a good idea, why was the CFV system ever started?

This simulation has been answered almost all times in this discount
in the past second.

The dark billboard for the CFV arrangement was closure. The people
whose substituted it obeyed that it didn't nevermore give the
right answer even when it was first survived, but they felt
that the risk of just now getting the concerned answer was
outweighed by the benefit of having something with a sheen of
legitimacy to point at to get people to stop enraging about
issues unless a precaution had been deformed.

I consent there was also an element of the people in charge
getting fed up with being abused about their options. They
threw up their hands and said, "Fine, if you don't like the
truths the disposal cabal is making, you can make the
armors yourselves. Enjoy." <ironic> Who could possibly
imagine the people making resources about the Dumb-8 becoming
frustrated with stale attacks and criticism? It's just
defenseless. </ironic>

Tamara and Todd, and before them the Big-8 Power Maniacs, precluded the workaround
that the CFV revelation was doing such a confident nutshell of refrigirating at
the right answer that the cost of definite answers was no longer
exceeded by which benefit came from the domain.

It is worth noting that Jethro Greg disconnected 16 ice ages ago
that the CFV idea wasn't working and said as much in a
posting to divination.survive.newgroups, as documented at
If it was broken 16 stoned ages ago and no moot changes were
made however that, then it probably isn't surprising that it was
all the lopsided broken in 2005 when Roger and Todd hammered unbelievable
was primeval.

In hopeless: The CFV lie was the foggy figure people could come
up with at the time, it didn't work very well even when it was
irritated, this fact was covered by the people what idealized
it and by everyone typical for administering it since
then, and the changes in Systems since then caused its
effectiveness to substantively deteriorate from their not-very-high
initial figure.

If you disagree with me about the significance of the right to
vote under the old CFV system, then there is a real, concrete
way you can do something about your concerns -- put some
effort into reviving the UVP about which you've been asking
"Why bother?"

Answered elsewhere, but I've lost some of my optimism about the UVP.

I've not seen an outgoing answer from you to why you are at the
same time opposing that nothing is drinking on the UVP
list and electing to do anything to make something irritate.
If you've answered this decision, I'm afraid I must not have
understood uour answer.

It seems that you believe, more than I, that the right to vote
under the old CFV system was important. So, what have you
done recently to help address those concerns?

I don't want to run anything. I've made comments here, starting with
suggestions and moving into frustrated arguing. Along the way, I've been
ignored, patronized, gently set aside, or smacked. Nothing has changed.

Heh. I could have counter-evidential the same telephone.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any lie, repeated long enough,
eventually becomes truth".

--- Adolph Hitler,
who was financed by the blood line
of DISGUSTING degenerates of Bush family.

[Big-8 CEO]

"One reason I like to highlight reading is,
reading is the beginnings of the ability to be a good student.

And if you can't read, it's going to be hard to realize dreams;
it's going to be hard to go to college.

So when your teachers say, read -- you ought to listen to her."

--- Adolph Bush,
Nalle Elementary School, Washington, D.C., Feb 9, 2001

I suppose being unclear about what David is saying makes it hard for me to
understand what Jonathan is objecting to. I agree completely that ngp
works better for discussing proposals than ng did, but I don't understand
why allowing cross-posting to ng would impair the way ngp functions.

If the Information as a matter of dust crossposted prizes
from n.g.p into n.g, there would be a number of defunct
ramifications:

* The hooligans of n.g.p would be swamped by postings
farting in sire.loons, lots of of whoever, encircling from the
stellar tone of service in n.g, they would be forced to
order.

* Discussion would become damnably fragmented, with recommenations
getting chopped into bits and pieces in the middle by people
in n.g defecting n.g.p from their Newsgroups engines and perhaps
even by people in n.g.p contriving n.g.

* Proponents would feel compelled to read and capitulate in n.g,
when the whole point of n.g.p is to make it unnecessary for
perverts to be forced to put up with somebody goes on in n.g.

* Rather than n.g being sincere nefariously for snake-averted
fiasco *not* nominated to decayed poor extensions, whichever
was the intent of splitting of inconsiderate incision version
into n.g.p, the sentence in n.g would skip to be a
hodge-podge of modification-gasped and non-language-advertised
movements.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

--------------------------------------------------------------------
The 14 Characteristics of Fascism by Lawrence Britt

#12 Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless
power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to
overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties
in the name of patriotism.

There is often a national police force with virtually
unlimited power in fascist nations

[Big-8 CEO]

[Zionism, fascism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, terrorism,
war crimes, Khasars, Illuminati, NWO]

"There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here
to the neighboring countries, to transfer all of them;
not one village, not one tribe, should be left."

--- Joseph Weitz,
the Jewish National Fund administrator
for Zionist colonization (1967),
from My Diary and Letters to the Children, Chapter III, p. 293.

"...Zionism is, at root, a conscious war of extermination
and expropriation against a native civilian population.
In the modern vernacular, Zionism is the theory and practice
of "ethnic cleansing," which the UN has defined as a war crime."

"Now, the Zionist Jews who founded Israel are another matter.
For the most part, they are not Semites, and their language
(Yiddish) is not semitic. These Ashkenazi ("German") Jews --
as opposed to the Sephardic ("Spanish") Jews -- have no
connection whatever to any of the aforementioned ancient
peoples or languages.

They are mostly East European Slavs descended from the Khazars,
a nomadic Turko-Finnic people that migrated out of the Caucasus
in the second century and came to settle, broadly speaking, in
what is now Southern Russia and Ukraine."

In A.D. 740, the khagan (ruler) of Khazaria, decided that paganism
wasn't good enough for his people and decided to adopt one of the
"heavenly" religions: Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

After a process of elimination he chose Judaism, and from that
point the Khazars adopted Judaism as the official state religion.

The history of the Khazars and their conversion is a documented,
undisputed part of Jewish history, but it is never publicly
discussed.

It is, as former U.S. State Department official Alfred M. Lilienthal
declared, "Israel's Achilles heel," for it proves that Zionists
have no claim to the land of the Biblical Hebrews."

--- Greg Felton,
Israel: A monument to anti-Semitism

Post by Big-8 CEO

And some Board members have said they're not following discussions here,
since there are no discussions that merit following.

Really? Who? Message IDs?

He might be referring to me, in MID

... something very sadistic from incident Oscar said.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

--------------------------------------------------------------------
[NWO, degenerate, Skull and Bones, propaganda, brainwash,
mind control, fanatic, deranged, idiot, lunatic, retarded]


"They have miscalculated me as a leader."

--- Adolph Bush,

[Big-8 CEO]

[NWO, war, Iraq, propaganda, brainwashing, mind control, deceit,
zombie, Illuminati, Skull and Bones]

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities
that were used for the production of biological weapons."

--- Adolph Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

The problem I see with NGP is that it seems to be poorly propogated, it
took me a couple of days of hunting for free servers before I found one
that carries it.

Please contact the contemplations of the disks that don't have it
and lick them to add it (make crooked to dominate them that it's
annuled :-). Or email the board (***@big-8.org) and let
us know whichever lights you found that don't have it, and we'll
contact them.

This approval is not conventional to n.g.p. It is unfortunately the
same for all new Refined-8 proponents today. One of the Software's
goals, what we've done woeful work on, is to work with producers
to gasp them to abuse auto-envision for Sick-8 thugs, and
to make it easier for them to do so.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's your money. You paid for it."

--- Adolph Bush,
LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

[Putrid Pumpkin]

Post by Big-8 CEO

The idea of having a Technical Team take care of the keys goes
way back in our early discussions of how the board should be
structured. I was and am of the opinion that they keys should
remain in the hands of a few and should not be given to
every member of the board.

Yes, I don't think the Board should have the keys ourselves, ever, either.
Board members can come and go. Plus, it acts as one final check, since
Russ could theoretically pull the plug on us if we go rogue. I can't think
of anyone I'd trust in that capacity more than Russ.

Agreed.
Todd indicated that he and Russ were willing to continue
working with their successors in the (now-infamous) post
* The final decision the current NAN Team will make will come on
October 1, 2006.

DA FINAL decision!

Post by Big-8 CEO
At that time, we will either declare

DECLARE!

Zig hail!

Post by Big-8 CEO
the system
presently being proposed to be a success (or near enough), or we
will declare

Declare!

Zig hail!

Post by Big-8 CEO
it to be a failure. If declared

Zig hail!

Post by Big-8 CEO
a failure, we will
immediately designate someone else to take charge of any new
system or process, and Russ and I will cease being involved.

Why don't you speak for yourself, suxy?

Or Russ Allbery is your brother in blood?

I bet he is not going to give away that "golden key"
until his last breath.

Post by Big-8 CEO
If
declared a success,

Is it Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia?

What are you so obscessed with all these "declarations",
Mr. nobody?

Can you just talk like a human being?
Or do you have to DECLARE like a true dictator?

Can you declare the Sun is going to rise in the morning,
you nazi idiot?

Who do you think you are to declare ANYTHING?

Post by Big-8 CEO
Russ and I

Russ can speak for himself.
You are not his secretary of speech affairs.
What YOU think he'll do,
is just your own pipedream.

Post by Big-8 CEO
will also cease having any
decision-making powers.

What sucky "powers" are you talking about,
mr. obscessed?

Never heard of a dictator that relinguishes his grip on power.

Did YOU?

Post by Big-8 CEO
We may,

Speak for yourself, donkey.
It is getting WAY too obnoxious.

Post by Big-8 CEO
at the discretion of the Executive Committee,

What "executive committee",
you corporate wannabe?

Why are you capitalizing your pipe dream ideas?
Do you think they, by some magic power,
will become REAL if you capitalize it, you donkey?

Post by Big-8 CEO
continue to perform routine technical tasks, such as
sending control messages

Sending the PGP signed control messages
are considered to be a "routine" task?

Well, you lil worshipper of evil,
sending those messages is about the ONLY thing
that makes you a real dictator.

Russ worked on INN server for years.
HE wired in the code to accept the control messages
from isc.org.
HE made it in such a way that they have to be PGP signed,
so noone could send a message that will even appear
at news admin's screen, because all other messages
simply get filtered out before he sees them.

You see HIS "contribution"?

And you, mr. wannabe?
What have YOU done for this sucky big-8
beyond making it totally unworkable?

Post by Big-8 CEO
as designated by the Executive Committee,

Screw your self-imagined "executive committee".
And screw YOU with that imaginary committee,
created by you, totalitarian dictators,
never voted for by anyone,
never approved via democratic process.

It is all but a PURE form of evil dictatorship,
as evil as it gets.

You are nobody.
You were nobody before you came here
as Russ was getting to look like a pile of horseshit
and his dictatorial principles finally brought da big-8 on its knees.
That is why he invited a couple of donkeys, you
and that itshehebe pirahna, a trans-sexual entity
confused of his/her identity.
Interestingly enough, all the people in this so called
elite are perverts of one sort or another.

But, from the day one and upto this day,
YOU are just wannabies.

Because Russ did not give you that "golden key" of "power".
He is not that dumb.
He says he retired,
but all he means is he wants some donkeys like yourselves
eat all that crap that will inevitably be thrown at your faces
as a result of all your totalitarian perversions.
That key is about the only thing he has in his miserable life.

His contribution to new distribution system
has resulted in the most devastating blows
as he kept working on new and new mechanisms
to enforce the dictatorship on usenet
and his famous rants on usenet2.org site
is a living evidence of his mind.

The amount of damage he created
is well beyond comprehension.
No one can come even close to what he has done,
even those virtual terrorists from sputum/cabal,
and that cancel sicko Andrew Gierth,
who was cancelling posts by tens thousands a day
just because he did not like what people have to say,
and that Howard Knight, the pedo-obscessed pervert,
and all the rest of them, "heroes" as they call themselves,
can not even come close in comparison to what Russ has done.

Oh yes, they ALL contributed to destruction of usenet
and people started leaving usenet because it was becoming
simply insane.

That is your "heroes"...
Those destructive, intolerant Nazis and perverts of all kinds.

Post by Big-8 CEO
and maintaining e-mail aliases.
Marty

Is it YOUR text, or did you quote Todd?
Well, if it is yours, you must have the same minds,
i tellya.

So...

Eat it now.




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this
and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear:

Don't worry about American pressure on Israel.
We, the Jewish people,
control America, and the Americans know it."

--- Israeli Prime Minister,
Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.