National Zonalism

John wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:03:09 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

Different situation. What we're dealing with here is (approximately, at
least -- I'm no psychologist) something akin to Munchausen syndrome;
it's attention, however negative or positive, that acts as the reward
here. It's as if the phone ringer were hooked up to his pleasure
center; every time the phone rings, he gets off, regardless whether it's
a compliment, complaint, or telemarketer. The only way to get him to go
feed somewhere else is to either cut off the line (which we can't do) or
just quit dialing him.

There was a time when ISP's had a TOS that was effective and
we could get their access cut. Unfortunately there are companies like
Supernews who don't give a rats whisker about the what their posters
post. Personally I can "live and let live" for the most part but the
exhibition of psychoses only serves to remind me how fragile the human
mind can be.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email



I've looked at your web site, John, and I am not impressed.

Self-delusion?

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:03:39 -0500, John
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:03:09 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

Different situation. What we're dealing with here is (approximately, at
least -- I'm no psychologist) something akin to Munchausen syndrome;
it's attention, however negative or positive, that acts as the reward
here. It's as if the phone ringer were hooked up to his pleasure
center; every time the phone rings, he gets off, regardless whether it's
a compliment, complaint, or telemarketer. The only way to get him to go
feed somewhere else is to either cut off the line (which we can't do) or
just quit dialing him.

There was a time when ISP's had a TOS that was effective and
we could get their access cut. Unfortunately there are companies like
Supernews who don't give a rats whisker about the what their posters
post. Personally I can "live and let live" for the most part but the
exhibition of psychoses only serves to remind me how fragile the human
mind can be.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

Watch it, John, the namelessly reactive one is posting a terse put
down of your site. This is bait. Remember not to respond.

Don't respond! You're eyes are getting heavy. Don't respond!

In any event, just do what you always tell me to do and use your head
about this.

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

John wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:33:23 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:


I wonder where those of us
who like self-regulation can go next?


Managed lists. Unfortunately they are generally not well known
and can be hard to find.

Well, for photography, there is always photo.net -- the B&W forums there
are well moderated, and well populated, if not as "open to the public"
as Usenet, and the site does a pretty good job of discouraging spammers
from harvesting addresses (you must be a registered user, and accept a
20 second delay for each request, with notification to the person
requested, in order to get an e-mail address for a user). OTOH, some
folks object to moderated sites (like David Nebenzahl, who recently put
up such a fuss when he thought I was trying to moderate this group), to
the point of calling the moderation process censorship; it's a fine line
to tread.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

On 10/9/2004 12:54 PM Donald Qualls spake thus:

John wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:33:23 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

I wonder where those of us
who like self-regulation can go next?

Managed lists. Unfortunately they are generally not well known
and can be hard to find.

Well, for photography, there is always photo.net -- the B&W forums there
are well moderated, and well populated, if not as "open to the public"
as Usenet, and the site does a pretty good job of discouraging spammers
from harvesting addresses (you must be a registered user, and accept a
20 second delay for each request, with notification to the person
requested, in order to get an e-mail address for a user). OTOH, some
folks object to moderated sites (like David Nebenzahl, who recently put
up such a fuss when he thought I was trying to moderate this group), to
the point of calling the moderation process censorship; it's a fine line
to tread.

No, I did not think you were trying to moderate this group, which, as we all
know, is unmoderated, so how could I think that? Please don't stuff words in
my mouth.

I object to the "posse" approach of gang-ignoring a particular poster in this
case. And so far as I can tell, he (M.S.) is not even *close* to violating any
TOS or any **** like that, so please let's not go there. He's not a spammer;
he's simply an objectional poster. Seems to me no TOS (at least not one that
has the slightest chance of standing up in court) has a clause in it about
having to be nice and behave oneself.

I still say you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Looking through
this NG currently, I see threads (almost all without trolling or backbiting) on:

o Spotting RC paper
o Discontinuation of Kodak Technical Pan
o Four Diafine Formulae
o Ilford 120 Pan F
o Why Does Burning & Dodging Work?
o Phenidone-based paper developer
o Freezing bulk-loaded film
o Foma films
o Developing Lucky film
o Initial Precysol impressions

etc., etc., etc. Gee, I guess there's just no information being exchanged here
anymore ...


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

Being an odd mix of Christian and Taoist I answer
within the mind.


In article ,
Donald Qualls wrote:

I wonder where those of us who like self-regulation can go next?
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Being an odd mix of Christian and Taoist I answer
within the mind.


In article ,
Donald Qualls wrote:

I wonder where those of us who like self-regulation can go next?
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Probably the real issue is ignoring the bad behavior
from anyone, and discussing postive contributions,
when the happen. (No names mentioned).


In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:


o Spotting RC paper
o Discontinuation of Kodak Technical Pan
o Four Diafine Formulae
o Ilford 120 Pan F
o Why Does Burning & Dodging Work?
o Phenidone-based paper developer
o Freezing bulk-loaded film
o Foma films
o Developing Lucky film
o Initial Precysol impressions

etc., etc., etc. Gee, I guess there's just no information being exchanged here
anymore ...
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:27:08 -0400, Robert Vervoordt
wrote:

Watch it, John, the namelessly reactive one is posting a terse put
down of your site.

I was wondering why it's getting so many hits.


Monthly Statistics for October 2004

Total Hits 16345
Total Files 13376
Total Pages 5129
Total Visits 584

This is bait. Remember not to respond.

You mean to the nameless one ? I have no intention of feeding
the troll.

Don't respond! You're eyes are getting heavy. Don't respond!

LOL ! It doesn't take hypnosis. Just common sense.

In any event, just do what you always tell me to do and use your head
about this.

Hmmmm, I hope he learns something !


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:27:08 -0400, Robert Vervoordt
wrote:

Watch it, John, the namelessly reactive one is posting a terse put
down of your site.

I was wondering why it's getting so many hits.


Monthly Statistics for October 2004

Total Hits 16345
Total Files 13376
Total Pages 5129
Total Visits 584

This is bait. Remember not to respond.

You mean to the nameless one ? I have no intention of feeding
the troll.

Don't respond! You're eyes are getting heavy. Don't respond!

LOL ! It doesn't take hypnosis. Just common sense.

In any event, just do what you always tell me to do and use your head
about this.

Hmmmm, I hope he learns something !


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:54:46 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

I wonder where those of us
who like self-regulation can go next?


Managed lists. Unfortunately they are generally not well known
and can be hard to find.

Well, for photography, there is always photo.net -- the B&W forums there
are well moderated, and well populated, if not as "open to the public"
as Usenet, and the site does a pretty good job of discouraging spammers
from harvesting addresses (you must be a registered user, and accept a
20 second delay for each request, with notification to the person
requested, in order to get an e-mail address for a user). OTOH, some
folks object to moderated sites (like David Nebenzahl, who recently put
up such a fuss when he thought I was trying to moderate this group), to
the point of calling the moderation process censorship; it's a fine line
to tread.

I've setup a list through my web host (8-95.com) but I have a
little to learn about administration before I make it available.

I do believe some moderation is necessary these days. I can
understand why David would be against it.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email