The RPE35mm charter vs Auction ads, website promos, FS ads & the Shoot-In.

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Lionel, Sep 15, 2004.

  1. Lionel

    Lionel Guest

    [Crossposted to news.groups,, followups set to
    news.groups only.]

    Okay Steve, I've had enough of your moronic claims that Ebay ads are
    permitted by the RPE3 charter, & that the Shoot-In isn't.

    As usual Steve, you're full of it. Here's the *official*, archived copy
    of CFD & charter for the* hierarchy re-org:
    It includes the charter for the hierarchy, which explicitly
    states that it covers *every* group in that hierarchy, & the more
    specific charters for each of those sub-groups.

    And guess what, Steve? - Alan's summary is completely accurate.

    If you actually take a break from crossposting peoples personal details
    around Usenet for long enough to sit down & read this document, (& yes,
    it is the version that won the official *democratic* vote, & yes, it
    still stands), you'll find that it *proves* that your nit-picking is
    just as moronically wrong as everyone has been telling you for the last
    year or so.

    First off - Your idiotic claims that auction ads, 'Camera FS' ads &
    'Vote for my crappy photo!' ads are on-topic in any of the
    discussion groups:
    The *hierarchy* charter first states that is the
    only place where *non-commercial* ads are on-topic, & makes the
    distinction clear by pointing out that *commercial* ads are banned even
    there as well. Just that fact alone is enough for anyone with
    high-school grasp of the English language to understand that it clearly
    bans *all* kinds of ads *or promotions* in the* discussion
    groups, & that they may only be posted in the .marketplace groups. Even
    in .marketplace, the proponent takes pains to specifically point out
    that the ban on commercial ads includes .marketplace as well, making it
    very clear to anyone capable of out-thinking a goldfish that commercial
    ads are completely banned in the entire hierarchy, & that the only
    permissible place for *personal*, photography-related ads is in the
    So we don't need to change the RP3 to ban any of that crap, because
    it's *already banned*.

    Secondly: Your equally idiotic claims that photography-related
    activities like the Shoot-In are so egregiously off-topic that they
    should be banned, & can only be made acceptable by changing the charter:
    The charter explicitly defines as on-topic literally *anything* related
    to 35mm cameras, lenses & bodies. Unlike your insane rantings about
    charters, the Shoot-It *does* relate to:
    "Aspects of 35mm camera equipment.
    This includes 35mm SLR camera bodies and lenses, 35mm point-and-shoot
    cameras, 35mm rangefinder cameras, 35mm scale focus cameras and
    35mm half-frame cameras."
    And as most Shoot-In participants (including myself) use 35mm equipment
    for their entries, & generally discuss that equipment in the [SI]
    threads in the group, that makes them at least minimally on-topic. OTOH,
    the kind of non-photographic drivel with which *you* pollute the photo
    groups doesn't even come /that/ close to talk about 35mm camera
    equipment, so by your very own arguments *you are more off-topic* than
    the Shoot-In that you keep on whining & bleating about - exactly as we
    have all been telling you since the first moment you & your foul-mouthed
    anonymous alter-ego first started screeching about it.
    So it turns out that the RPE3 charter is permissive enough that we no
    more need to screw around with the RPE3 charter to 'permit' the Shoot-In
    than we do to 'permit' the usual vaguely-camera-related chat about film
    types, flash guns, or lighting techniques that's considered perfectly
    acceptable within the group.

    Additionally, I notice that the charter
    *specifically* points out that is intended for discussion of
    photographic equipment that is not covered by one of the other equipment
    groups, such as tripods, bags, etc, & that such equipment should be
    posted there, rather than in RPE3, or any of the other equipment groups.
    Logically, this means that discussions of camera bags, tripods, etc are
    actually *more* off-topic in RPE3 than the Shoot-In. So, Mr Pot, the
    next time you wish to call one of the Shoot-In participants an off-topic
    kettle, I suggest that you save up your bile & lay in wait for them to
    commit the horrific crime of talking about a tripod or camera bag in
    RPE3, rather than moving the thread to RPEM. That way, you'll look
    /slightly/ less of a hypocrite than you do when you stamp your little
    feet about the Shoot-In offending your oh-so-pure sensibilities.
    There's nothing in the charter that specifically authorises deranged,
    off-topic blather about creating Utopian Usenet democracies either, but
    that sure hasn't stopped you from stinking up the photo groups with it
    either, you drooling idiot.
    Lionel, Sep 15, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Lionel

    Alan Browne Guest

    Thanks for that link Lionel... I didn't have the original.

    Alan Browne, Sep 15, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ditto. I don't see anything forbidding the SI in there.

    Hey David Dyer-Bennet, damn, you've been around for a long time, dude. I
    see that you voted for most of the groups in that proposal. I also see that
    they posted all the e-mail addresses without any protection from spammers
    back then.
    Richard Cockburn, Sep 15, 2004
  4. E-mail address harvesting, while not entirely a thing of the past, is
    way overrated as a "danger' on usenet.

    There's a guy or two who are trying to cyber-terrorize the process,
    either because they aren't getting their way, they are too inarticulate
    to do anything else, or they fear change.

    It'll be interesting to see who steps up to counter this type of
    blackmail/terrorist tactic.
    John McWilliams, Sep 15, 2004
  5. Lionel

    Lionel Guest

    I've seen so many tussles over charter issues in the past that I tend to
    forget how few Usenet users are actually aware that they can bypass the
    usual group FAQs & go straight to the definitive souce.
    Don't forget to throw it in Mr Steve 'Organiser' Young's face if he
    starts on his bull about ads & the SI. ;)
    Lionel, Sep 15, 2004
  6. Lionel

    Alan Browne Guest

    I created a throwaway address a few weeks ago. It's receiveing
    some spam already. The harvesting continues, releases of lists
    come in waves.
    Alan Browne, Sep 15, 2004
  7. Ever since I switched my public e-mail to Yahoo (based on your suggestion,
    John, thanks), due to a recent mail-bombing campaign against my previous
    address from one of our trolls, I haven't had any spam or virus reach my
    inbox. Yahoo has excellent filters...all the crap goes to the junk mail
    folder. I used to mangle my old address, now I don't even bother. No need.
    No cyberterrorist will prevent me from voting as I choose on any of the
    groups, and I hope nobody is actually intimidated by the stupid threats
    from these cowards.
    Richard Cockburn, Sep 15, 2004
  8. Lionel

    Alan Browne Guest

    Oh! I hadn't thought of that! ;-)

    But I did add to the page linked in my sig.
    Alan Browne, Sep 15, 2004
  9. Lionel

    Lionel Guest

    Addresses are harvested from pretty much everywhere, these days. I can
    live with having to filter the hell out on any address that's appeared
    on Usenet, & except that I'll sometimes miss a legit email. The thing
    that really annoys me is spam to my domain role account addresses
    that've been illegally trawled from the domain registry databases.
    Filtering them is both difficult & risky, because it's rare to get legit
    email to those accounts, but when you do, it's likely to be both time
    critical & of major importance.
    Oh, & I find that the lag between exposing an email address to Usenet &
    getting spam in the account is roughly two weeks.
    Lionel, Sep 15, 2004
  10. Lionel

    Lionel Guest

    It's happening right now. If you're not seeing it, you're probably just
    not reading the appropriate groups. ;)
    Lionel, Sep 15, 2004
  11. And there's general language that clearly, to me, includes it.
    Yep. And I post my email addresses in my messages today, and on my
    website, too. Spam is annoying, but nowhere near destroying the
    utility of email for me.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 15, 2004
  12. No question about the latter!

    But I was referring to the time when the rubber meets the road to coin a
    phrase, when the voting takes place, that is. However, one would be hard
    pressed to divine that based on what I posted......
    John McWilliams, Sep 15, 2004
  13. Lionel

    Lionel Guest

    Oh, I see. Well, most likely it'll be dealt with afterwards, by
    identifying the fake votes & the people posting them.
    Lionel, Sep 15, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.