From: meowbot@bungmunch.edu (Friendly Neighborhood Meowbot)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,ne.internet.services,
            alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,crl.general,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Stan KalIIIsch Takes A Flying Fuck
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 02:33:10 GMT
Organization: Bungmunch University Department of Zoology


On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 12:15:36 +0000, "Raoul C. Xemblinosky III"
 wrote:

>Stan Kalisch III wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Raoul C. Xemblinosky III wrote:
>> > Stan Kalisch III wrote:
>> 
>> <...>
>> 
>> > > Which leaves us where?  Am I supposed to take you seriously or not?  Do
>> > > you care?  And where does *that* leave us?
>> > >
>> > > If I'm so humorless, and you're supposedly so concerned about what I do,
>> > > shouldn't you work me from a different angle, then?
>> >
>> > Is it so hard to believe the net.execution you carried out on Raoul
>> > Xemblinosky in February 1997 might have left me with a modicum of
>> > lingering concern about what you do, Stanley?
>> 
>> It gets harder to believe the more you make light of it.  And it's not
>> exactly as though I didn't give you a way to avoid it.  Why didn't you?
>> You were clearly intelligent enough to be able to do so.
>
>What you gave me was the URL to Tim Skirvin's spam guidelines page,
>which I already had.  What you did not give me was your interpretation
>of how cascades constituted spam.

He didn't like them or the posters so they constituted spam in his
eyes.  As documented in another thread, Chris Lewis was resurrecting
many of Stan's cancels because they were rogue; the articles cancelled
were below the Breidbart Index threshold of 20.

I just finished reviewing CRL's AUP.  It does not prohibit cancelling
other people's articles by means of forgery.  Stan takes advantage of
that oversight.  However, the policy does prohibit the use of "bots".

So not only is Stanley in contravention of standard usenet practices,
he also violates his ISP's AUP.
 
>> > > Unless, of course,
>> > > you don't want me to be concerned about any grievance you might have, in
>> > > which case it's really no inconvenience for me to ignore you.
>> >
>> > Your true concern about any grievance I or others who frequent the
>> > newsgroups I frequent is amply explained in the STANIFESTO:
>> >
>> >   "After I determined the consensus was behind using the UDP
>> >    in AFKMN after months of various kinds of discussion, I
>> >    used it. Then the protests rolled in. A bunch of people who
>> >    liked to cascade saying I was cancelling posts simply because I
>> >    didn't like them. Whatever."
>> 
>> Well, Raoul, do you expect me to roll over and play dead just because
>> someone's merely pointing a finger at me?  
>
>I would never expect a fellow Pole to roll over and play dead.  For
>any reason whatsoever.  Although Polish history would be a far more
>pleasant read were it otherwise, we're just not made that way.
>
>> I need a little more than "You don't like us and everyone knows it."  
>
>I would like to see a little more than "I have consensus on my side."

Consensus to Stan on usenet is like consensus for Biil Palmer on
sexual relations (masturbation).  All it takes is himself.
>
>> *I* don't know it--I should know
>> better than anybody why I'm doing something, right?  I'm open to help, but
>> you're not giving me help--you're just standing there telling me I've been
>> cancelling people because I don't like them.  
>
>I realize our mileage will vary forever on this, but there were a
>lot more people than myself, LJB, Spark, 2-Belo, Crisis, and (IIRC)
>Blackthorne posting repetitive content on the Nose last February.
>Had the same yardstick used on us been applied to these others,
>the UDPs should have extended well into double digits.
>
>
>> How do you *expect* me to
>> feel about all of this?  We're simply not getting anywhere.  I'd *like* to
>> get somewhere, but is it too much to ask that people bring me something
>> more concrete, and, considering the fact that I'm still discussing this
>> even now, not assume that I'm just out to get them?  
>
>I believe that the Cascade Rules LJB posted to the flame groups
>*and* nanau on 27 February 1997 were "something more concrete."  
>The next day, I converted LJB's rules to HTML and put them up on
>my web site.  LJB and I both advertised this page in our .sigs
>for some time afterwards, and used our status as known inveterate
>cascaders to encourage acceptance of these rules. Over the summer,
>Macabrus recognized (even if he does not exactly endorse) LJB's
>Cascade Rules in his Tactical Net Abuse FAQ. On the other hand,
>the only comment I recall you making on the Cascade Rules is 
>that you "had meant to read them" or something like that. In
>looking at "what you did" instead of "what you said" in this
>matter, I'm not terribly impressed.

Stank may have made a good aide to Senator McCarthey.

>> If that were true,
>> Zippo would have received a complaint about your most recent spam.  I'm
>> probably bending too far in that regard as it is.

Keep on reaching for that bar of soap ...

>Do what you will.  It would make more than one person very happy.
>
>
>> > > Perhaps you never have been serious.  Perhaps you've just been taking
>> > > advantage of the fact that in the position I'm in, I have to take some
>> > > things seriously.  At any rate, this conversation is coming close to
>> > > having exhausted all its usefulness.
>> >
>> > I've never envisioned this conversation as having any usefulness to
>> > exhaust, seeing that I do not qualify as a "relevant party."
>> 
>> *sigh*  You *could* be relevant, if you could convince news admins. and
>> despammers you were *right*.  That's what n.a.n-a.u is largely about.
>> Gaining trust.  And keeping it.  Admitting when you've goofed, but not
>> just because a bunch of people *say* you've goofed.
>
>No thanks, Stan.  I'd rather *not* be a member of that particular
>club.  I'm more comfortable with having Bob@zippo.com inform me
>when I fuck up than I am with divining the will of some voiceless
>consensus to see if and how I have transgressed.  
>
>That said, I want to say that I am *not* your enemy, nor do I
>consider you to be *my* enemy.  I do *not* want to see a UseNet
>Gotterdammerung.  I *do* appreciate the good work you've done for
>UseNet as a whole and the considerable assistance you have lent
>to certain close friends of mine.  But you know as well as I do
>that you can only push an old Polack so far.
>
>
>> > As you so well say in the STANIFESTO:
>> >
>> >    "All I saw was a bunch of cascaders and people from Flameland
>> >     complaining in n.a.n-a.u . Which was fine in itself--that's the
>> >     place to take me to task. But they didn't get any supportive
>> >     feedback from relevant parties." Nine, practically ten months
>> >     later, we're redredging this issue. And from what I've seen,
>> >     none of the relevant parties are still interested."
>> >
>> >
>> > > <...> your ability to employ metaphor effectively.
>> > >
>> > > So you don't like some of my metaphors.  I can't write perfectly all the
>> > > time, especially with all the things I'm doing now.  I'm sorry you're
>> > > disappointed.  Go flame someone else.  I'm simply not interested.
>> >
>> > Tell me something I didn't already know.
>> 
>> You mean I haven't already?
>
>I guess you did, all right.
>
>
>- Raoul C. Xemblinosky III -=-=-=-=-=-=- -- . --- .-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>   a.f.k-m.n              "So Raoul, get ready to pack your bags and
>   alt.flame               leave the nose." -- BiiLberT, 1 May 1997  
>   mhm 15x12              "Your days as an UseNet performance artist     
>   FOA/KoB(h)              are at a close." -- BiiLberT, 5 Dec 1997
>- http://extra.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=