• OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet

    From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 26 07:36:31 2022
    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
    BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
    original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the
    most unusual way.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
    decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

    Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

    The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
    would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month,
    etc).

    For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for
    all replies.

    Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
    posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who
    are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another
    person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent them from interacting with it.

    Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give
    up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 26 04:55:20 2022
    On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:36:49 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.

    One has to wonder why John Doe would think that. Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a second Capitol invasion. Freedom of speech doesn't
    extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.

    BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the most unusual way.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption.

    There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence. Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking they know what's best for everybody else Like John Doe thinking that he knows better than the inhabitants
    of the Ukraine about the proper reaction to a Russian invasion.

    Letting people decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is
    the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

    John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who recognise that he is a malicious moron.
    One can understand why.

    Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

    So if posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
    Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.

    The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, etc).

    For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for all replies.

    Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent them from interacting with it.

    Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

    Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 26 08:57:11 2022
    On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
    original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the
    most unusual way.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
    decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

    Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

    The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
    would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, etc).

    For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for
    all replies.

    Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
    posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent them from interacting with it.

    Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give
    up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

    You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
    sections, lol

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to bitrex on Tue Apr 26 07:15:03 2022
    On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
    BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with >> shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
    original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the
    most unusual way.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
    decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is >> the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

    Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with >> your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

    The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
    would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month,
    etc).

    For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for
    all replies.

    Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
    posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who >> are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another
    person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to >> prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent >> them from interacting with it.

    Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means >> freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give >> up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

    You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
    sections, lol

    Why would anyone use twitter?

    And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn't inherently
    funny, it's like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio
    audience to laugh.



    --

    Anybody can count to one.

    - Robert Widlar

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Apr 26 10:19:33 2022
    On 4/26/2022 10:15 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
    BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with
    shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
    original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the >>> most unusual way.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
    decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is
    the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

    Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with
    your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

    The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
    would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, >>> etc).

    For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for >>> all replies.

    Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
    posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who >>> are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another
    person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to >>> prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent >>> them from interacting with it.

    Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means >>> freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give >>> up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

    You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
    sections, lol

    Why would anyone use twitter?

    And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn't inherently
    funny, it's like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio
    audience to laugh.

    My post wasn't the funny one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Apr 26 11:08:44 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
    BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with
    shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
    original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the >>> most unusual way.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
    decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is
    the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

    Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with
    your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

    The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
    would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, >>> etc).

    For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for >>> all replies.

    Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
    posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who >>> are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another
    person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to >>> prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent >>> them from interacting with it.

    Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means >>> freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give >>> up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

    You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
    sections, lol

    Why would anyone use twitter?

    And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn't inherently
    funny, it's like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio
    audience to laugh.

    Don't knock it--'lol' is a public service announcement, which translates roughly as "please ignore me."

    It's a bit like those misogynistic tee-shirts worn by some of the young
    male tourist demographic in Miami Beach, Key West, Wildwood NJ, and
    especially NOLA.

    My elder daughter used to live in the Vieux Carre', and she said it was
    very considerate of those guys, warning the women off like
    that--otherwise they might make the mistake of talking with them. ;)

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical. on Tue Apr 26 08:48:58 2022
    On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:08:44 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. >>>> BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with
    shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
    original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the >>>> most unusual way.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people >>>> decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is
    the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

    Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with
    your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

    The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block >>>> would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, >>>> etc).

    For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for >>>> all replies.

    Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
    posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who
    are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another >>>> person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to >>>> prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent
    them from interacting with it.

    Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means >>>> freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give >>>> up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

    You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
    sections, lol

    Why would anyone use twitter?

    And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn't inherently
    funny, it's like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio
    audience to laugh.

    Don't knock it--'lol' is a public service announcement, which translates >roughly as "please ignore me."

    Oh. Thanks.


    It's a bit like those misogynistic tee-shirts worn by some of the young
    male tourist demographic in Miami Beach, Key West, Wildwood NJ, and >especially NOLA.

    My elder daughter used to live in the Vieux Carre', and she said it was
    very considerate of those guys, warning the women off like
    that--otherwise they might make the mistake of talking with them. ;)

    NOLA is a magnet for southern yahoos who want to drink and sin. They
    usually manage to drink, at least. The locals are far more elegant.



    --

    Anybody can count to one.

    - Robert Widlar

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 26 12:39:55 2022
    On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:36:49 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.

    Yeah, maybe. Thing is, Twitter can't be changed and still be viable, it'll just
    become less interesting if the 'brand of censorship' so dictates. I'm uninterested already.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption.

    Censors were a class of Roman judge. The existence of those
    judges was a response to perceived 'corruption', so the existence
    of censors is always associated with corruption: we create such
    authority to deal with such a problem. Censors are the
    effect, corruption of some sort is the cause.

    The idea (I'm blaming Newt Gingrich for this one) of a post-truth world creates a well-trod path in some discussion venues, and Twitter deserves
    some controversy. A few billion dollars passing from one hand to another
    says how much, in a very emphatic manner.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Phil Hobbs on Tue Apr 26 20:50:59 2022
    On 4/26/2022 11:08 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. >>>> BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went
    ballistic with
    shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
    original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in
    the
    most unusual way.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people >>>> decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the
    Internet is
    the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

    Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from
    interacting with
    your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

    The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block >>>> would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1
    month,
    etc).

    For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be
    implemented for
    all replies.

    Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
    posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to
    people who
    are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another >>>> person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no
    reason to
    prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just
    prevent
    them from interacting with it.

    Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also
    means
    freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords
    to give
    up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

    You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
    sections, lol

    Why would anyone use twitter?

    And why do people still say   lol  ? If your post isn't inherently
    funny, it's like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio
    audience to laugh.

    Don't knock it--'lol' is a public service announcement, which translates roughly as "please ignore me."

    It's a bit like those misogynistic tee-shirts worn by some of the young
    male tourist demographic in Miami Beach, Key West, Wildwood NJ, and especially NOLA.

    My elder daughter used to live in the Vieux Carre', and she said it was
    very considerate of those guys, warning the women off like
    that--otherwise they might make the mistake of talking with them. ;)

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    Some women believe there are two types of men, misogynists who are
    honest about it and misogynists who aren't, and tend to date the former
    type of man because like when your order lunch at Burger King you know
    well enough going in the food isn't going to be spectacular, but it's
    very likely to at least be consistent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 27 11:44:52 2022
    On 27/4/22 5:39 am, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:36:49 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.

    Yeah, maybe. Thing is, Twitter can't be changed and still be viable, it'll just
    become less interesting if the 'brand of censorship' so dictates. I'm uninterested already.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption.

    Censors were a class of Roman judge. The existence of those
    judges was a response to perceived 'corruption',

    Evidence for this please?

    The role of censor was established to put power over the census firmly
    into the hands of patricians (the ruling class) and prevent plebians
    getting control over it. I fail to see how that could prevent
    corruption, or be seen as a response to corruption.

    so the existence
    of censors is always associated with corruption: we create such
    authority to deal with such a problem. Censors are the
    effect, corruption of some sort is the cause.

    Ordinary people could be censored for refusing to marry and breed, or
    for an ugly divorce, for neglecting your fields, for spoiling or abusing
    your children, for disobeying your parents, for acting in a theatre (disreputable conduct!) or for spending an extravagant amount of
    money... such as Elon just has (this last one happened many times!)

    None of those things has much to do with corruption, though they could disqualify a person from becoming a senator or remove their right to
    vote. The role of the censor in selling the right to collect tax seems
    rather likely to create corruption, not prevent it.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor>

    Clifford Heath

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Apr 28 04:18:41 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    John Doe wrote:

    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of
    censorship. BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube
    went ballistic with shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut
    down on replies to original posts (similar to what Amazon did with
    product reviews), in the most unusual way.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
    decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the
    Internet is the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

    Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from
    interacting with your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

    The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent
    block would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time =
    1 month, etc).

    For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented
    for all replies.

    Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
    posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to
    people who are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can
    see another person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there
    is no reason to prevent them from seeing content even when they are
    signed in, just prevent them from interacting with it.

    Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also
    means freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the
    overlords to give up their power of censorship. Not talking about law
    enforcement.

    Why would anyone use twitter?

    I don't, except to see what others have done on it.

    Mutual blocking can be used for almost every forum on the Internet, not
    just Twitter. It would be great for USENET. It would eliminate trolling
    and stalking, without any need for censors. Grown-ups should be allowed to determine who they associate with.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed Apr 27 22:06:37 2022
    IEEE Bill strikes again - bill....@ieee.org wrote: ====================================

    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.

    One has to wonder why John Doe would think that.

    ** Does he really have actual thoughts ?

    Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a second Capitol invasion.

    ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that.

    Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.

    ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one ?


    There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence. Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking they know what's best for everybody else

    ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM.

    Self interest = single greatest human motivator.


    Like John Doe thinking

    ** See above....


    John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who
    recognise that he is a malicious moron.
    One can understand why.

    ** Spoils his moronic fun.

    So if posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
    Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.

    ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community.

    Big shame the internet is like the Wild West.


    Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.

    ** Don't count on it....


    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to bitrex on Thu Apr 28 04:20:12 2022
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    John Doe wrote:

    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
    BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic
    with shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies
    to original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in
    the most unusual way.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
    decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the
    Internet is the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

    Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting
    with your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

    The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
    would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1
    month, etc).

    For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented
    for all replies.

    Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
    posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people
    who are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see
    another person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is
    no reason to prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed
    in, just prevent them from interacting with it.

    Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also
    means freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the
    overlords to give up their power of censorship. Not talking about law
    enforcement.

    You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
    sections, lol

    "There's someone in my head, but it's not me..."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Thu Apr 28 06:47:30 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Slander is dealt with by law enforcement. Nobody's gonna talk about Bozo anyway.

    Any website that publishes anything has no "right of reply". Any comment sections are heavily censored. There is no such "right of reply" anywhere I know of except on lowly USENET where we must cope with trolls and stalkers.

    Grown-ups should be allowed to determine who they associate with.

    Blocked or not, one can certainly enjoy Phil's conversations. It's entertaining as watching The Fifth Element (1997) alien trying to keep it together in his human skin... :D

    https://youtu.be/sFAPW3W2yMk?t=165 (~20 seconds)


    --
    Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

    X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1807:b0:2f3:65a6:c100 with SMTP id t7-20020a05622a180700b002f365a6c100mr13659349qtc.412.1651122398128; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
    X-Received: by 2002:a25:7b84:0:b0:648:f212:1baf with SMTP id w126-20020a257b84000000b00648f2121bafmr3047052ybc.578.1651122397910; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
    In-Reply-To: <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=220.240.30.109; posting-account=B_tJMAoAAAAmar-1r2H3x4CMhbFEou3n
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 220.240.30.109
    References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Message-ID: <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
    From: Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>
    Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 05:06:38 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
    Lines: 53
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:667604

    IEEE Bill strikes again - bill....@ieee.org wrote: ====================================

    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.

    One has to wonder why John Doe would think that.

    ** Does he really have actual thoughts ?

    Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to >> giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a
    second Capitol invasion.

    ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that.

    Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.

    ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one ?


    There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence.
    Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking
    they know what's best for everybody else

    ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM.

    Self interest = single greatest human motivator.


    Like John Doe thinking

    ** See above....


    John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who
    recognise that he is a malicious moron.
    One can understand why.

    ** Spoils his moronic fun.

    So if posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
    Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.

    ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community.

    Big shame the internet is like the Wild West.


    Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.

    ** Don't count on it....


    ...... Phil


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 28 06:58:24 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:57:38 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t4ddt2$er5$3@dont-email.me>).

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
    USENET (**) has been 57.2% of its posts contributing "nothing except
    insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
    least 1155 articles to USENET. Of which 135 have been pure insults and
    526 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    dFKjEftxpPUz

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Edward Hernandez on Thu Apr 28 06:57:38 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Eddie wants so badly to nym-shift. That's a no-no here, Eddie!

    Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

    See also...
    John Doe <always.look@message.header> (astraweb)
    Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

    Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked!

    Spanked Eddie...

    --
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.nntp4.net!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!
    peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx01.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
    From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
    References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com> <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com> <t4dda1$er5$2@dont-email.me>
    Lines: 37
    Message-ID: <wOqaK.2034763$8b1.949129@usenetxs.com>
    X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:50:04 UTC
    Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:50:04 GMT
    X-Received-Bytes: 2078
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:667621 free.spam:18060

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:47:30 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t4dda1$er5$2@dont-email.me>.

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 57.2% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1153 articles to USENET. Of which 135 have been pure insults and
    524 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    JRKCCE1OkWc5




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 28 06:50:04 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
    incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:47:30 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t4dda1$er5$2@dont-email.me>.

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 57.2% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1153 articles to USENET. Of which 135 have been pure insults and
    524 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    JRKCCE1OkWc5

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 28 00:53:53 2022
    John Dope = an utter FUCKWIT :
    ============================
    Slander is dealt with by law enforcement.

    ** No way, never has been you raving nut case.


    Any website that publishes anything has no "right of reply".

    ** 100% bullshit & drivel.

    There is no such "right of reply" anywhere I know of

    ** Any civilised newspaper, magazine or broadcast.

    Applies only to the individual ( or business) slurred or slandered.


    Grown-ups should be allowed to determine who they associate with.

    ** That is what WE are currently doing to YOU !!!
    ASSHOLE !!

    ==========================================

    ** Does he really have actual thoughts ?

    Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to >> giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a >> second Capitol invasion.

    ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that.

    Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.

    ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one ?


    There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence.
    Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking
    they know what's best for everybody else

    ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM.

    Self interest = single greatest human motivator.


    Like John Doe thinking

    ** See above....


    John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who
    recognise that he is a malicious moron.
    One can understand why.

    ** Spoils his moronic fun.

    So if posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
    Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.

    ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community.

    Big shame the internet is like the Wild West.


    Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.

    ** Don't count on it....


    ...... Phil


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Thu Apr 28 09:02:56 2022
    On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 3:06:41 PM UTC+10, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    IEEE Bill strikes again - bill....@ieee.org wrote: ====================================

    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.

    One has to wonder why John Doe would think that.
    ** Does he really have actual thoughts ?
    Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a second Capitol invasion.

    ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that.

    Not after he'd sworn his oath of office. He didn't pay any attention to it, but he had solemnly promised not to do things like that.
    What he might imagine his rights to be doesn't really come into it - he labelled himself as an irresponsible idiot, and Musk should have enough sense to have noticed. You clearly don't, but that's a different problem.

    Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.

    ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one?

    Or demented a fuckwits like you? Some people do get cut off by their information providers, and have to start posting under different pseudonym.

    We may be demented, but we haven't roused any kind of rabble that did any actual damage. Five people ended up dead because of the Capitol invasion.

    There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence. Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking
    they know what's best for everybody else.

    ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM.

    Self interest = single greatest human motivator.

    Like John Doe thinking that he knows better than the inhabitants of the Ukraine about the proper reaction to a Russian invasion.

    ** See above....

    You really do need to stop snipping other people posts in mid-sentence, which is to say it might be a good idea to read the whole sentence before you start typing somethig that is supposed to be a response.

    John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who recognise that he is a malicious moron. One can understand why.

    ** Spoils his moronic fun.

    Not really. He seems to get off on re-posting his moronic assertions from other threads.

    So if anybody posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
    Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.

    ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community.

    Big shame the internet is like the Wild West.

    Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.

    ** Don't count on it....

    I've had a lot of exposure to schemes that weren't though out in enough detail to work at all. John Doe's ideas aren't even spelled out clearly enough to constitute any kind of scheme.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Thu Apr 28 09:19:48 2022
    On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:47:36 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

    X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1807:b0:2f3:65a6:c100 with SMTP id t7-20020a05622a180700b002f365a6c100mr13659349qtc.412.1651122398128; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
    X-Received: by 2002:a25:7b84:0:b0:648:f212:1baf with SMTP id w126-20020a257b84000000b00648f2121bafmr3047052ybc.578.1651122397910; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
    In-Reply-To: <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de...@googlegroups.com>
    Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=220.240.30.109; posting-account=B_tJMAoAAAAmar-1r2H3x4CMhbFEou3n
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 220.240.30.109
    References: <t487dv$mdj$3...@dont-email.me> <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de...@googlegroups.com>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Message-ID: <bb1f8769-3475-4161...@googlegroups.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
    From: Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com>
    Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 05:06:38 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
    Lines: 53
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:667604

    IEEE Bill strikes again - bill....@ieee.org wrote: ====================================

    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. >>
    One has to wonder why John Doe would think that.

    ** Does he really have actual thoughts ?

    Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to >> giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a >> second Capitol invasion.

    ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that.

    Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.

    ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one ?


    There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence.
    Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking
    they know what's best for everybody else

    ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM.

    Self interest = single greatest human motivator.


    Like John Doe thinking

    ** See above....


    John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who
    recognise that he is a malicious moron.
    One can understand why.

    ** Spoils his moronic fun.

    So if posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
    Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.

    ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community.

    Big shame the internet is like the Wild West.


    Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.

    ** Don't count on it....

    Slander is dealt with by law enforcement.

    It isn't. You have to sue somebody who slanders you for the damage to your reputation. Law enforcement doesn't come into it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_libel

    used to exist, but it's been taken off the statute books.

    Any website that publishes anything has no "right of reply". Any comment sections are heavily censored. There is no such "right of reply" anywhere I know of except on lowly USENET where we must cope with trolls and stalkers.

    Since John Doe is a troll and a stalker, his coping mechanism should include self-censorship. Sadly he advertises his stupidity and malice more or less nonstop, so his coping mechanism is just as defective as the rest of his intellectual furniture.

    Grown-ups should be allowed to determine who they associate with.

    But you aren't a grown-up.

    Blocked or not, one can certainly enjoy Phil's conversations. It's entertaining <snipped example>

    Phil isn't good at conversation, any more than you are. People who converse react to what the other person is saying, rather than using a phrase or two as springboard for some kind of diatribe or other.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 29 01:09:38 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
    incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:02:31 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t4fdf6$su5$1@dont-email.me>.

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 57.4% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1157 articles to USENET. Of which 136 have been pure insults and
    528 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    ou0YM9VpaL8d

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Fri Apr 29 01:02:31 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Would Bozo change its ways, given mutual blocking?

    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with.

    "the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
    nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo lying)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bozo being weird)

    --
    Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1cc4:b0:435:b8a0:1fe9 with SMTP id g4-20020a0562141cc400b00435b8a01fe9mr25076839qvd.54.1651161776692; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
    X-Received: by 2002:a81:1087:0:b0:2f7:da07:6d89 with SMTP id 129-20020a811087000000b002f7da076d89mr22852680ywq.412.1651161776309; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
    In-Reply-To: <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=118.208.108.19; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.208.108.19
    References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com> <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Message-ID: <789c0c43-5460-420e-9936-edbeecd0e699n@googlegroups.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
    From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:02:56 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
    Lines: 60
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:667650

    On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 3:06:41 PM UTC+10, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    IEEE Bill strikes again - bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    ====================================

    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. >> >
    One has to wonder why John Doe would think that.
    ** Does he really have actual thoughts ?
    Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to >> > giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a >> > second Capitol invasion.

    ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that.

    Not after he'd sworn his oath of office. He didn't pay any attention to it, but he had solemnly promised not to do things like that.
    What he might imagine his rights to be doesn't really come into it - he labelled himself as an irresponsible idiot, and Musk should have enough sense to have noticed. You clearly don't, but that's a different problem.

    Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.

    ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one?

    Or demented a fuckwits like you? Some people do get cut off by their information providers, and have to start posting under different pseudonym.

    We may be demented, but we haven't roused any kind of rabble that did any actual damage. Five people ended up dead because of the Capitol invasion.

    There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence.
    Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking
    they know what's best for everybody else.

    ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM.

    Self interest = single greatest human motivator.

    Like John Doe thinking that he knows better than the inhabitants of the Ukraine about the proper reaction to a Russian invasion.

    ** See above....

    You really do need to stop snipping other people posts in mid-sentence, which is to say it might be a good idea to read the whole sentence before you start typing somethig that is supposed to be a response.

    John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who recognise that he is a malicious moron. One can understand why.

    ** Spoils his moronic fun.

    Not really. He seems to get off on re-posting his moronic assertions from other threads.

    So if anybody posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
    Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.

    ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community.

    Big shame the internet is like the Wild West.

    Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.

    ** Don't count on it....

    I've had a lot of exposure to schemes that weren't though out in enough detail to work at all. John Doe's ideas aren't even spelled out clearly enough to constitute any kind of scheme.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Edward Hernandez on Fri Apr 29 02:07:01 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Eddie wants so badly to nym-shift. That's a no-no here, Eddie!

    Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

    See also...
    John Doe <always.look@message.header> (astraweb)
    Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

    Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked!

    Spanked Eddie...

    --
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.ams4.POSTED!
    not-for-mail
    From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
    References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com> <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com> <789c0c43-5460-420e-9936-edbeecd0e699n@googlegroups.com> <t4fdf6$su5$1@dont-email.me>
    Lines: 33
    Message-ID: <mVGaK.2134782$X81.1351930@usenetxs.com>
    X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:09:38 UTC
    Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:09:38 GMT
    X-Received-Bytes: 1941
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:667683 free.spam:18064

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:02:31 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t4fdf6$su5$1@dont-email.me>.

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 57.4% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1157 articles to USENET. Of which 136 have been pure insults and
    528 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    ou0YM9VpaL8d




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 29 02:38:19 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
    incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 29 Apr 2022 02:07:01 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t4fh84$p0c$1@dont-email.me>.

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 57.5% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1159 articles to USENET. Of which 136 have been pure insults and
    530 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    7xNnKoU9olyP

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Thu Apr 28 19:52:15 2022
    On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 11:02:38 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    <snip>

    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.

    One has to wonder why John Doe would think that.

    ** Does he really have actual thoughts ?

    He certainly has his own delusions. It's unwise to dignifying them by calling them thought

    Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to
    giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a
    second Capitol invasion.

    ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that.

    Not after he'd sworn his oath of office. He didn't pay any attention to it, but he had solemnly promised not to do things like that.
    What he might imagine his rights to be doesn't really come into it - he labelled himself as an irresponsible idiot, and Musk should have enough sense to have noticed. You clearly don't, but that's a different problem.

    Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.

    ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one?

    Or demented a fuckwits like you? Some people do get cut off by their information providers, and have to start posting under different pseudonym.

    We may be demented, but we haven't roused any kind of rabble that did any actual damage. Five people ended up dead because of the Capitol invasion.

    There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence.
    Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking
    they know what's best for everybody else.

    ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM.

    Self interest = single greatest human motivator.

    Like John Doe thinking that he knows better than the inhabitants of the Ukraine about the proper reaction to a Russian invasion.

    ** See above....

    You really do need to stop snipping other people posts in mid-sentence, which is to say it might be a good idea to read the whole sentence before you start typing something that is supposed to be a response.

    John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who recognise that he is a malicious moron. One can understand why.

    ** Spoils his moronic fun.

    Not really. He seems to get off on re-posting his moronic assertions from other threads.

    So if anybody posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
    Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.

    ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community.

    Big shame the internet is like the Wild West.

    Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.

    ** Don't count on it....

    I've had a lot of exposure to schemes that weren't though out in enough detail to work at all. John Doe's ideas aren't even spelled out clearly enough to constitute any kind of scheme.

    Would Bill change his ways, given mutual blocking?

    Will John Doe ever spell out how "mutual blocking" might work in enough detail to let anybody think that it could work?

    At the moment he all seems to be thinking that he'd like to have kill-filed particular posts so that nobody else could see them - which is censorship. Where the "mutual" comes from isn't clear.
    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 22 23:50:18 2022
    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

    No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
    start, or in a thread branch you start. The same goes for you with respect
    to their posts. Therefore, there is nothing unfair about it.

    Mutual blocking does not prevent you from saying anything. You can always
    start a new thread. You can always post alongside of someone who has
    blocked you, unless you are mutually blocked by the person they replied
    to, too.

    In fact, mutual blocking would allow people who enjoy talking about vulgar things like urine to say anything they feel like saying. There would be no censors to stop them. None at all. As long as they don't get in trouble
    with law enforcement, they can say any the fuck thing they want. Why not?

    Mutual blocking would allow for the most civilized, or at least organized, conversations imaginable. No biased censors choosing for us what we can
    say and who we associate with. It would be done by intelligent people
    choosing for themselves who they want to associate with.




    --

    Original post:

    Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
    original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the
    most unusual way.

    As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
    decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

    Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

    The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
    would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, etc).

    For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for
    all replies.

    Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
    posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent them from interacting with it.

    Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give
    up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Doe on Mon May 23 00:28:33 2022
    On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

    No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
    start, or in a thread branch you start....

    So, not USENET unmoderated, but an ownership model for each
    thread or subthread? Not really workable, unless you have a server at each node that can become a subthread owner. Basically, it's a fantasy that
    you can enter a public forum and tell the public, in detail, who can participate. The word that matters here, is 'public'.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Mon May 23 02:07:20 2022
    On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:24 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

    No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
    start, or in a thread branch you start. The same goes for you with respect to their posts. Therefore, there is nothing unfair about it.

    So you have to set up a list of people who can't post replies to a thread you started. That is censorship.

    Mutual blocking does not prevent you from saying anything.

    It just stops you from posting your content in thread where it might be relevant.

    You can always start a new thread. You can always post alongside of someone who has
    blocked you, unless you are mutually blocked by the person they replied
    to, too.

    "Alongside" means in a different thread.

    In fact, mutual blocking would allow people who enjoy talking about vulgar things like urine to say anything they feel like saying. There would be no censors to stop them. None at all.

    There aren't any now. If you make a habit to upsetting people your information provider may cancel your internet access but that's more dealing with a persistent nuisance than censorship.You aren't being censored on what you say, but rather because you
    upset too many people in the way you habitually say it.

    As long as they don't get in trouble with law enforcement, they can say any the fuck thing they want. Why not?

    Your performance here is a pretty good example of "why not".

    Mutual blocking would allow for the most civilized, or at least organized, conversations imaginable. No biased censors choosing for us what we can
    say and who we associate with. It would be done by intelligent people choosing for themselves who they want to associate with.

    It's setting up a echo-chamber of like-minded people who are convinced that they are right, and don't want to hear any criticism.

    There are loads of moderated groups where John Doe could get what he's asking for, so he doesn't need mutual blocking, but he wants to keep on posting here, where there is an audience, through not one that always finds his ideas sympathetic, so he
    fantasies that he could change the rules in way that let him keep the sympathetic part of his audience here - Flyguy and Cursitor Doom - while stopping everybody else from pointing out that he's a right-wing idiot.

    Original post..

    <snipped>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to John Dope on Mon May 23 14:05:46 2022
    John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6ei7q$tb0$5@dont- email.me:

    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...


    You are an idiot. "blocking" as you define it is censorship.

    That is why Usenet uses filters at the READER level. No imposition
    on a person posting.

    The onus is on you, John Dope. But you are not alone. Usenet is
    fully fool of idiots like you wanting others to be blocked from using
    the forum.

    S e d does not have a more stupid poster than John Dope.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Mon May 23 16:11:07 2022
    Gibberish, as usual...


    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

    No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
    start, or in a thread branch you start....

    So, not USENET unmoderated, but an ownership model for each thread or subthread? Not really workable, unless you have a server at each node
    that can become a subthread owner. Basically, it's a fantasy that you
    can enter a public forum and tell the public, in detail, who can
    participate. The word that matters here, is 'public'.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 23 16:17:53 2022
    Bill "Bozo" Sloman is scared to death that people might be able to decide for themselves who they associate with on the Internet.

    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

    No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
    start, or in a thread branch you start. The same goes for you with respect
    to their posts. Therefore, there is nothing unfair about it.

    Mutual blocking does not prevent you from saying anything. You can always
    start a new thread. You can always post alongside of someone who has
    blocked you, unless you are mutually blocked by the person they replied
    to, too.

    In fact, mutual blocking would allow people who enjoy talking about vulgar things like urine to say anything they feel like saying. There would be no censors to stop them. None at all. As long as they don't get in trouble
    with law enforcement, they can say any the fuck thing they want. Why not?

    Mutual blocking would allow for the most civilized, or at least organized, conversations imaginable. No biased censors choosing for us what we can
    say and who we associate with. It would be done by intelligent people
    choosing for themselves who they want to associate with.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc on Mon May 23 16:29:03 2022
    Mutual blocking would give everybody the exact same opportunity to express themselves. Readers can decide for themselves who they want to read and
    who they don't want to read. It's nothing to do with censorship. It's more
    like self-defense.

    The cannibal left strongly object to self-defense, therefore they object
    to mutual blocking.

    Always Wrong threatens to kill people who disagree with it, and here it's pretending to be against "censorship"...

    DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

    John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6ei7q$tb0$5@dont- email.me:

    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...


    You are an idiot. "blocking" as you define it is censorship.

    That is why Usenet uses filters at the READER level. No imposition
    on a person posting.

    The onus is on you, John Dope. But you are not alone. Usenet is
    fully fool of idiots like you wanting others to be blocked from using
    the forum.

    S e d does not have a more stupid poster than John Dope.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Doe on Mon May 23 10:31:06 2022
    On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:11:18 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:

    whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

    No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
    start, or in a thread branch you start....

    So, not USENET unmoderated, but an ownership model for each thread or subthread? Not really workable, unless you have a server at each node
    that can become a subthread owner.

    Gibberish, as usual...

    Not gibberish, English. An owner's block list has to be served to any and all
    subsequent nodes which might add blocklists... and the subsequent
    blocklists also have to be served out. The technical details are
    impractical in a large-scale public forum.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Mon May 23 13:22:43 2022
    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:18:00 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Bill Sloman is scared to death that people might be able to decide for themselves who they associate with on the Internet.

    John Doe is deluding himself. He hasn't got any kind of practicable scheme, and is too dim to realise it. Who is going to be "scared to death" of one of his fatuous fantasies.

    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

    No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
    start, or in a thread branch you start. The same goes for you with respect
    to their posts. Therefore, there is nothing unfair about it.

    So how does the mechanism controlling which replies get posted know who they need to block?

    If it is simple, you should be able to tell us how.

    Mutual blocking does not prevent you from saying anything. You can always start a new thread. You can always post alongside of someone who has
    blocked you, unless you are mutually blocked by the person they replied
    to, too.

    "Mutual blocking" is a John Doe fantasy. He can tell us how he'd like it to work, but he has no idea how anybody could make it work.

    He seems to want to re-invent the moderated user group - which already exists, but he doesn't fancy posting to.

    <snip>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jasen Betts@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue May 24 03:52:16 2022
    On 2022-05-23, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
    Mutual blocking would give everybody the exact same opportunity to express themselves. Readers can decide for themselves who they want to read and
    who they don't want to read. It's nothing to do with censorship. It's more like self-defense.

    So I set up two!!! anonymous accounts "silent reader" and "dope reposter"

    Silent reader reads your posts and forwards them to "dope reposter"
    dope reposter has blocked you. it reposts your posts so the voices you
    dislike can read them. They can then respond to your silly ideas
    and you can't prevent them, or post your zero content responses..

    If you're worried that dope resposter is violting your copyright, thats
    easily fixed too, just augment the reader software so that it can use
    a different account to read than it uses to post. Then every uses can
    have their own silent reader account to see your posts, and their
    responses will almost certainly be considrerd "fair use".


    You're going to have to try harder if you want to turn usenet into a
    safe space for youe idiocies, snowflake.

    --
    Jasen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Mon May 23 22:36:23 2022
    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:17:59 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:11:18 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

    No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
    start, or in a thread branch you start....

    So, not USENET unmoderated, but an ownership model for each thread or
    subthread? Not really workable, unless you have a server at each node
    that can become a subthread owner.

    Gibberish, as usual...

    Not gibberish, English. An owner's block list has to be served to any and all
    subsequent nodes which might add blocklists... and the subsequent blocklists also have to be served out. The technical details are impractical in a large-scale public forum.

    Problem is, cannibal leftists object to self-defense.

    Anybody who points out that John Doe is an idiot is labelled a "cannibal leftist".

    Just like this "cannibal leftist" objects to defending our own border. That is not coincidence.

    John Doe doesn't like anybody who has pointed how stupid any of his posts are. That's not a coincidence, but a predictable - if stupid - form of "self-defense".

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Tue May 24 05:17:52 2022
    Problem is, cannibal leftists object to self-defense.
    Just like this cannibal leftist objects to defending our own border.
    That is not coincidence.


    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:11:18 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:

    whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

    No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
    start, or in a thread branch you start....

    So, not USENET unmoderated, but an ownership model for each thread or
    subthread? Not really workable, unless you have a server at each node
    that can become a subthread owner.

    Gibberish, as usual...

    Not gibberish, English. An owner's block list has to be served to any and all
    subsequent nodes which might add blocklists... and the subsequent
    blocklists also have to be served out. The technical details are impractical in a large-scale public forum.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Jasen Betts on Tue May 24 06:19:04 2022
    Whether someone is anonymous is irrelevant, unless they are trying to sell something. Being anonymous and having multiple personas are two different things. Protection against multiple accounts, that is nym-shifting, is important. How that's done is another issue. I have been flushing out nym-shifters here on USENET for decades. Maybe if Twitter/others provided header information, those users could do that too.

    Mutual blocking is for nuking stalkers and trolls, like Bill "Bozo" Sloman
    and Edward "Porn Sucking" Hernandez.

    Mutual blocking has nothing to do with preventing others from
    seeing/reading your posts. See the prior description.

    Whether posts are seen may as well be up to users since they can be seen
    when a user is signed out.

    There might be an option like "hide blocked posts" with the sub option "if blocked posts are not hidden, mark them read". Most people would at least
    want blocked posts marked read. But since blocked post(er)s would not be in
    the way, like so much misplaced garbage, they wouldn't necessarily need to
    be hidden...

    --

    Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

    On 2022-05-23, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
    Mutual blocking would give everybody the exact same opportunity to express >> themselves. Readers can decide for themselves who they want to read and
    who they don't want to read. It's nothing to do with censorship. It's more >> like self-defense.

    So I set up two!!! anonymous accounts "silent reader" and "dope reposter"

    Silent reader reads your posts and forwards them to "dope reposter"
    dope reposter has blocked you. it reposts your posts so the voices you dislike can read them. They can then respond to your silly ideas
    and you can't prevent them, or post your zero content responses..

    If you're worried that dope resposter is violting your copyright, thats easily fixed too, just augment the reader software so that it can use
    a different account to read than it uses to post. Then every uses can
    have their own silent reader account to see your posts, and their
    responses will almost certainly be considrerd "fair use".


    You're going to have to try harder if you want to turn usenet into a
    safe space for youe idiocies, snowflake.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 24 06:44:24 2022
    It's not complex. The server keeps track of who is blocked. If Jack and
    Jill are blocked (meaning Jack or Jill has blocked the other), then
    neither Jack nor Jill can reply to the other (in the other's thread or in
    the other's thread branch).

    Why is "an echo-chamber of like-minded people" a problem? There's plenty
    of room for everybody on the Internet. Since when is like-mindedness a
    problem? Isn't like-mindedness what groups are about?

    Most people don't mind a little bit of trolling. It's just when somebody
    is CONSTANTLY getting in the way.

    Mutual blocking is for nuking stalkers and trolls, like Bill "Bozo" Sloman
    and Edward "Porn Sucking" Hernandez.

    I like this argument.

    It's not a coincidence that cannibal leftists object to mutual blocking.
    Mutual blocking is a defensive apparatus. Cannibal leftists object to self-defense.

    Mutual blocking has nothing to do with preventing others from
    seeing/reading your posts. See the prior description.

    Whether posts are seen (not to be confused with the ability to reply) may
    as well be up to users since they can be seen when a user is signed out.

    There might be an option like "hide blocked posts" with the sub option "if blocked posts are not hidden, mark them read". Most people would at least
    want blocked posts marked read. But since blocked post(er)s would not be
    in the way, like so much misplaced garbage, they wouldn't necessarily need
    to be hidden.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Tue May 24 07:16:27 2022
    Bill "Bozo" Sloman is a textbook cannibal leftist...

    --

    Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:17:59 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:11:18 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

    No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you >> >> >> start, or in a thread branch you start....

    So, not USENET unmoderated, but an ownership model for each thread or >> >> > subthread? Not really workable, unless you have a server at each node >> >> > that can become a subthread owner.

    Gibberish, as usual...

    Not gibberish, English. An owner's block list has to be served to any and all
    subsequent nodes which might add blocklists... and the subsequent
    blocklists also have to be served out. The technical details are
    impractical in a large-scale public forum.

    Problem is, cannibal leftists object to self-defense.

    Anybody who points out that John Doe is an idiot is labelled a "cannibal leftist".

    Just like this "cannibal leftist" objects to defending our own border. That is not coincidence.

    John Doe doesn't like anybody who has pointed how stupid any of his posts are. That's not a coincidence, but a predictable - if stupid - form of "self-defense".


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue May 24 02:28:45 2022
    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:44:31 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    It's not complex. The server keeps track of who is blocked.

    Which server? Usernet posts are copied to any number of servers. Google groups is just one of them.

    If Jack and Jill are blocked (meaning Jack or Jill has blocked the other), then
    neither Jack nor Jill can reply to the other (in the other's thread or in
    the other's thread branch).

    Why is "an echo-chamber of like-minded people" a problem? There's plenty
    of room for everybody on the Internet. Since when is like-mindedness a problem? Isn't like-mindedness what groups are about?

    Most people don't mind a little bit of trolling. It's just when somebody
    is CONSTANTLY getting in the way.

    Like John Doe.

    Mutual blocking is for nuking stalkers and trolls, like Bill Sloman and Edward Hernandez and John "half-wit" Doe.
    I like this argument.

    John Doe doesn't understand argument. He likes assertions, and makes them in non-stop, but producing a reasoned response to an argument is quite beyond him.

    It's not a coincidence that cannibal leftists object to mutual blocking. Mutual blocking is a defensive apparatus. Cannibal leftists object to self-defense.
    Mutual blocking has nothing to do with preventing others from
    seeing/reading your posts. See the prior description.

    Just preventing other from pointing out how silly your posts are.

    <snip>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue May 24 02:19:16 2022
    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:19:11 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Whether someone is anonymous is irrelevant, unless they are trying to sell something. Being anonymous and having multiple personas are two different things. Protection against multiple accounts, that is nym-shifting, is important. How that's done is another issue. I have been flushing out nym-shifters here on USENET for decades. Maybe if Twitter/others provided header information, those users could do that too.

    Mutual blocking is for nuking stalkers and trolls, like Bill Sloman
    and Edward Hernandez.

    John half-wit Doe is an actual troll and stalker, and doesn't seem to realise that he'd be nuked by all the people who find him irritating.

    Mutual blocking has nothing to do with preventing others from
    seeing/reading your posts. See the prior description.

    It just prevents some people from pointing out how absurd the post you've just made really is, or in John Doe's case reacting to a post wit his usual recycled abuse.

    Whether posts are seen may as well be up to users since they can be seen
    when a user is signed out.

    There might be an option like "hide blocked posts" with the sub option "if blocked posts are not hidden, mark them read". Most people would at least want blocked posts marked read. But since blocked post(er)s would not be in the way, like so much misplaced garbage, they wouldn't necessarily need to
    be hidden...

    John Doe has all kinds of delusions about his half-baked scheme.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Tue May 24 10:22:26 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    No point in discussing anything with Bill "Bozo" Sloman, the Australian
    troll. Bozo is a chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with. Its fiction
    never ends.

    "the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
    nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo being Bozo)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bozo is a textbook cannibal leftist)

    --
    Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2a87:b0:461:e7cf:6ec6 with SMTP id jr7-20020a0562142a8700b00461e7cf6ec6mr20374686qvb.82.1653383957192; Tue, 24 May 2022 02:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
    X-Received: by 2002:a25:86cd:0:b0:652:1f3a:2414 with SMTP id y13-20020a2586cd000000b006521f3a2414mr2205947ybm.358.1653383956535; Tue, 24 May 2022 02:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-
    media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 02:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
    In-Reply-To: <t6htco$c6n$1@dont-email.me>
    Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.145.206.43; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.145.206.43
    References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <t6ei7q$tb0$5@dont-email.me> <t6g4bp$1nea$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t6gcof$or8$3@dont-email.me> <t6hkpg$18f$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> <t6htco$c6n$1@dont-email.me>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Message-ID: <7bb804a8-a437-41b9-b881-6b522d921b6en@googlegroups.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
    From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 09:19:16 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
    X-Received-Bytes: 2940
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:669808

    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:19:11 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Whether someone is anonymous is irrelevant, unless they are trying to sell >> something. Being anonymous and having multiple personas are two different
    things. Protection against multiple accounts, that is nym-shifting, is
    important. How that's done is another issue. I have been flushing out
    nym-shifters here on USENET for decades. Maybe if Twitter/others provided
    header information, those users could do that too.

    Mutual blocking is for nuking stalkers and trolls, like Bill Sloman
    and Edward Hernandez.

    John half-wit Doe is an actual troll and stalker, and doesn't seem to realise that he'd be nuked by all the people who find him irritating.

    Mutual blocking has nothing to do with preventing others from
    seeing/reading your posts. See the prior description.

    It just prevents some people from pointing out how absurd the post you've just made really is, or in John Doe's case reacting to a post wit his usual recycled abuse.

    Whether posts are seen may as well be up to users since they can be seen
    when a user is signed out.

    There might be an option like "hide blocked posts" with the sub option "if >> blocked posts are not hidden, mark them read". Most people would at least
    want blocked posts marked read. But since blocked post(er)s would not be in >> the way, like so much misplaced garbage, they wouldn't necessarily need to >> be hidden...

    John Doe has all kinds of delusions about his half-baked scheme.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Tue May 24 10:21:42 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    No point in discussing anything with Bill "Bozo" Sloman, the Australian
    troll. Bozo is a chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with. Its fiction
    never ends.

    "the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
    nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo being Bozo)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bozo is a textbook cannibal leftist)

    --
    Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:64c:b0:2f9:a4c:b4f0 with SMTP id a12-20020a05622a064c00b002f90a4cb4f0mr19425628qtb.380.1653384525941; Tue, 24 May 2022 02:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
    X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:3a1:b0:2ff:1377:3b9 with SMTP id bh33-20020a05690c03a100b002ff137703b9mr27367121ywb.340.1653384525695; Tue, 24 May 2022 02:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-
    groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 02:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
    In-Reply-To: <t6hus8$kq3$1@dont-email.me>
    Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.145.206.43; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.145.206.43
    References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <t6ei7q$tb0$5@dont-email.me> <2cbcbd01-08fa-45e2-9b87-f0db7389045an@googlegroups.com> <t6gc3h$or8$2@dont-email.me> <1d165e0d-c4c5-4a57-b88e-883bce3d00fcn@googlegroups.com> <t6hus8$kq3$1@dont-email.me>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Message-ID: <79131eec-28d2-4b0a-96b7-65bd967d20den@googlegroups.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
    From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 09:28:45 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
    X-Received-Bytes: 2793
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:669809

    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:44:31 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    It's not complex. The server keeps track of who is blocked.

    Which server? Usernet posts are copied to any number of servers. Google groups is just one of them.

    If Jack and Jill are blocked (meaning Jack or Jill has blocked the other), then
    neither Jack nor Jill can reply to the other (in the other's thread or in
    the other's thread branch).

    Why is "an echo-chamber of like-minded people" a problem? There's plenty
    of room for everybody on the Internet. Since when is like-mindedness a
    problem? Isn't like-mindedness what groups are about?

    Most people don't mind a little bit of trolling. It's just when somebody
    is CONSTANTLY getting in the way.

    Like John Doe.

    Mutual blocking is for nuking stalkers and trolls, like Bill Sloman and Edward Hernandez and John "half-wit" Doe.
    I like this argument.

    John Doe doesn't understand argument. He likes assertions, and makes them in non-stop, but producing a reasoned response to an argument is quite beyond him.

    It's not a coincidence that cannibal leftists object to mutual blocking.
    Mutual blocking is a defensive apparatus. Cannibal leftists object to
    self-defense.
    Mutual blocking has nothing to do with preventing others from
    seeing/reading your posts. See the prior description.

    Just preventing other from pointing out how silly your posts are.

    <snip>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Edward Hernandez on Tue May 24 10:36:57 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    This porn-sucking retard wants so badly to nym-shift.

    Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

    See also...
    John Doe <always.look@message.header> (Astraweb, Aioe.org)
    Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

    Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked!

    Spanked Eddie...

    --
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.
    highwinds-media.com!fx10.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
    From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
    References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <t6ei7q$tb0$5@dont-email.me> <2cbcbd01-08fa-45e2-9b87-f0db7389045an@googlegroups.com> <t6gc3h$or8$2@dont-email.me> <1d165e0d-c4c5-4a57-b88e-883bce3d00fcn@googlegroups.com> <t6hus8$kq3$1@dont-email.me> <79131eec-
    28d2-4b0a-96b7-65bd967d20den@googlegroups.com> <t6ibjm$9ml$1@dont-email.me>
    Lines: 33
    Message-ID: <tx2jK.1122052$an1.989261@usenetxs.com>
    X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 10:35:05 UTC
    Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 10:35:05 GMT
    X-Received-Bytes: 2074
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:669814 free.spam:18456

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 60.2% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1501 articles to USENET. Of which 155 have been pure insults and
    748 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Tue, 24 May 2022 10:21:42 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t6ibjm$9ml$1@dont-email.me>.

    2NiXa5pUgJaj



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 24 10:35:07 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 60.2% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1501 articles to USENET. Of which 155 have been pure insults and
    748 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Tue, 24 May 2022 10:22:26 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t6ibl2$9ml$2@dont-email.me>).

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    OTiPlEcRbuLk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 24 10:38:24 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
    USENET (**) has been 60.2% of its posts contributing "nothing except
    insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
    least 1503 articles to USENET. Of which 155 have been pure insults and
    750 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
    incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Tue, 24 May 2022 10:36:57 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t6icg9$9ml$5@dont-email.me>.

    Y/fcR+NgF7hm

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Edward Hernandez on Tue May 24 10:37:08 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    This porn-sucking retard wants so badly to nym-shift.

    Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

    See also...
    John Doe <always.look@message.header> (Astraweb, Aioe.org)
    Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

    Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked!

    Spanked Eddie...

    --
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news.uzoreto.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
    From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
    References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <t6ei7q$tb0$5@dont-email.me> <t6g4bp$1nea$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t6gcof$or8$3@dont-email.me> <t6hkpg$18f$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> <t6htco$c6n$1@dont-email.me> <7bb804a8-a437-41b9-b881-6b522d921b6en@googlegroups.
    <t6ibl2$9ml$2@dont-email.me>
    Lines: 40
    Message-ID: <vx2jK.1122053$an1.659624@usenetxs.com>
    X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 10:35:07 UTC
    Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 10:35:07 GMT
    X-Received-Bytes: 2181
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:669815 free.spam:18457

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 60.2% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1501 articles to USENET. Of which 155 have been pure insults and
    748 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Tue, 24 May 2022 10:22:26 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t6ibl2$9ml$2@dont-email.me>).

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    OTiPlEcRbuLk




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to John Dope on Tue May 24 16:28:33 2022
    John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6hus8$kq3$1@dont-email.me:

    It's not complex. The server keeps track of who is blocked. If
    Jack and Jill are blocked (meaning Jack or Jill has blocked the
    other), then neither Jack nor Jill can reply to the other (in the
    other's thread or in the other's thread branch).


    You really are stupid about how Usenet works.

    "The server" you think you know so much about is THOUSANDS of servers
    around the world. Usenet is a series of connected nodes. There is no
    central server, you stupid putz.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc on Tue May 24 18:34:00 2022
    Of course there are at least a few useful USENET servers. But the number
    of USENET servers is irrelevant. I posted an EXAMPLE.

    When writing about such a subject, as any sane person knows, there is no
    need to specify the plural "servers". Of course the number of servers
    involved can be problematic, but there are plenty of forums on the
    Internet that can use mutual blocking, that run from a single server.
    Whatever number of servers is irrelevant for explaining how mutual
    blocking works.

    At least part of Always Wrong's ID "decadent" is accurate...


    DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

    John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6hus8$kq3$1@dont-email.me:

    It's not complex. The server keeps track of who is blocked. If
    Jack and Jill are blocked (meaning Jack or Jill has blocked the
    other), then neither Jack nor Jill can reply to the other (in the
    other's thread or in the other's thread branch).


    You really are stupid about how Usenet works.

    "The server" you think you know so much about is THOUSANDS of servers around the world. Usenet is a series of connected nodes. There is no central server, you stupid putz.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to John Dope on Tue May 24 20:30:59 2022
    John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6j8eo$61v$1@dont-email.me:

    Of course there are at least a few useful USENET servers. But the
    number of USENET servers is irrelevant. I posted an EXAMPLE.


    The number is not irrelevant. Your retarded block data would have to propagate through ALL Usenet servers worldwide. The block data would be
    larger than the posted texts, you retarded twerp.

    So, your PATHETIC "example" is an example of just how syupid you are
    about it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc on Tue May 24 20:42:27 2022
    Always Wrong being wrong as always...

    DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

    John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6j8eo$61v$1@dont-email.me:

    Of course there are at least a few useful USENET servers. But the
    number of USENET servers is irrelevant. I posted an EXAMPLE.


    The number is not irrelevant. Your retarded block data would have to propagate through ALL Usenet servers worldwide. The block data would be larger than the posted texts, you retarded twerp.

    So, your PATHETIC "example" is an example of just how syupid you are
    about it.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue May 24 19:44:58 2022
    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:16:35 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Bill "Bozo" Sloman is a textbook cannibal leftist...


    ... this, in a thread about a kinder, gentler internet?

    I detect hypocrisy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jasen Betts@21:1/5 to John Doe on Wed May 25 06:18:24 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    On 2022-05-24, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
    No point in discussing anything with Bill "Bozo" Sloman,

    He made some good points and you have no answer to them, I see why
    you want this fantasy, but desire can't make the impossible practical.
    Usenet just doesn't swing that way. Pick a closed infrastructure
    like parler or something.

    --
    Jasen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Wed May 25 22:21:36 2022
    When in Rome...


    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:16:35 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Bill "Bozo" Sloman is a textbook cannibal leftist...


    ... this, in a thread about a kinder, gentler internet?

    I detect hypocrisy.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Jasen Betts on Wed May 25 22:34:50 2022
    Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

    He made some good points

    It's called "feigning".

    and you have no answer to them,

    Actually I do, and have.

    I see why you want this fantasy, but desire can't make the impossible practical.

    All it would require is sharing logged-in users' block requests. Highly unlikely, but anything is possible.

    Usenet just doesn't swing that way. Pick a closed infrastructure like
    parler or something.

    I and maybe others have tried. One forum was receptive, another forum
    wasn't (with an illogical justification). Don't know whether it was implemented, haven't been back to that forum, doubt it.

    I was simply providing an example of how it would FUNCTION. Since USENET
    posts are propagated around the Internet, group members are not the only
    people who see these posts. A Google search sometimes finds USENET posts.

    It might be wishful thinking. Anyone in control is unlikely to give up their power of censorship. But you never know.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to John Dope on Thu May 26 04:12:35 2022
    John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6ma5g$1r5$1@dont- email.me:

    When in Rome...


    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:16:35 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Bill "Bozo" Sloman is a textbook cannibal leftist...


    ... this, in a thread about a kinder, gentler internet?

    I detect hypocrisy.




    Something a top posting, hypocritical Trump cult idiot would say.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to John Dope on Thu May 26 04:17:46 2022
    John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6maua$1r5$2@dont- email.me:

    I and maybe others have tried. One forum was receptive, another forum
    wasn't (with an illogical justification).

    Go to reddit, you fucking retard.

    Top rated, high technology, even post suspension penalties and bans
    by group founders if they don't like you or your mouth.

    Even there, however, it is individual filter based. The onus is on
    you to filter those you wish to not see.

    Group founders and reddit managers, however can shitcan your ass in
    various ways and for various reasons, including an asshole complaining
    instead of using his or her or it's filter.

    John Dope is a Usenet Dip Shit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to John Dope on Thu May 26 04:21:05 2022
    John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6maua$1r5$2@dont- email.me:

    A Google search sometimes finds USENET posts.

    You really are an idiot... you know... always wrong.

    Google IS a Usenet service provider, dumbass. They have some of the
    biggest severs in the network. HUGE banks of hard drives in racks.

    It is called Google Groups, and sed is one of them, but so are 40,000
    others.

    John Dope showing us that the moniker he always uses on me, fits him
    far batter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc on Thu May 26 12:45:35 2022
    Mutual blocking is not about "filter[ing] those you wish to not see".

    Always Wrong, the reactionary foulmouthed group idiot, has no idea what
    mutual blocking is about, but as usual the ignorant poster pretends to be
    an expert...


    DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

    John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6maua$1r5$2@dont- email.me:

    I and maybe others have tried. One forum was receptive, another forum
    wasn't (with an illogical justification).

    Go to reddit, you fucking retard.

    Top rated, high technology, even post suspension penalties and bans
    by group founders if they don't like you or your mouth.

    Even there, however, it is individual filter based. The onus is on
    you to filter those you wish to not see.

    Group founders and reddit managers, however can shitcan your ass in
    various ways and for various reasons, including an asshole complaining instead of using his or her or it's filter.

    John Dope is a Usenet Dip Shit.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 26 12:41:05 2022
    Always Wrong seems very upset about recent developments...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to John Dope on Thu May 26 13:40:11 2022
    John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6nspf$7bp$2@dont-email.me:

    Mutual blocking is not about "filter[ing] those you wish to not
    see".

    Always Wrong, the reactionary foulmouthed group idiot, has no idea
    what mutual blocking is about, but as usual the ignorant poster
    pretends to be an expert...

    The top posting Usenet total retard and village idiot John Dope
    wants to play semantics now.

    Nice try punk. What you want is cancellation of someone's "right"
    to post, regardless of your reasons, you could not be more stupid.

    They are called OPEN forums for a reason and ANY CASE where YOU as
    a reader of an open forum wishes to not see the posts or responses of
    a given individual, the onus remains ON YOU to use... you guessed
    it...
    FILTERS. That is why they are provided.

    You dim witted repsonse popped your IQ down another ten points,
    John Dope.
    With that, your blatant senility, and your membership in the Trump
    cult, you do not have many left.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)