OT: comp.cad.solidworks Charter changes

Looks like I found another IGNORANT MORON to put in my KILL FILE. Or are you a spelling tutor or english major. And MY I AGREE NEVER CAME FROM A MISGUIDED WEBSITE.

Gary L. Burnore wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:11:58 -0400, j top posted like an > ignorant moron and wrote: >

It was you that called it a "mis-designed poll" so why change it now to a misleading website. Or is that your english major correcting your own mistakes.

What difference does it make if people came here from a website to post their vote which is what those people did whether they agreed or disagreed.IMHO most polls are slewed one way or another from all the propaganda that gets plastered everywhere. Did anyone go to someones elses websight to be told to come here and disagree. You have NO CLUE who looked at anyones website and came directly here to cast their vote. Why is it that in all the years I've been here, these posts in this thread are the first ones I've ever seen. Maybe you've come here from someone elses misguided website to argue HIS POINT. No one forced them at gunpoint to come here and agree or disagree with the original question. Or are you from someplace that doesn't allow a person to choose for themselves. Heck we get to do that every year in November when we elect our political "leaders" if you can call them that. And most people go to vote on what they have heard and read on websites and in the news media so why is this any different.

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----

---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In message , snipped-for-privacy@aol.com writes

The board is unlikely to ever vote to moderate an existing un-moderated group.

IF you need moderation, then a separate moderated group, created as moderated get-go is the (only) way to go.

I'm not seeing any reason to make an exception.

From what I've seen, you have two main alternatives: live with the current situation (using kill files, etc), or seek to create an companion moderated group.

Thomas

In message , snipped-for-privacy@aol.com writes

Or raise an RFD for a moderated group.

Ah, thanks! I couldn't remember who it was that suggested Port 80.

Heh, me, too--and I've never used telnet, so I'd have a bit of a learning curve, but the GG interface is just so dreadful that anything else would be better.

"Leave", as in move to a moderated group.

Thank you, I think is quite clear now to everyone what our options are.

Tom

Stab themselves in their own backs... apparently, this bamby doesn't know the difference between moderation-in-place and retromoderation.

B/

You can set up a moderated alt.* group.

Same thing, anyway--the bamby's advisories aren't acted on, and you have to work on your own propagation.

You're not the first person to note the lack of a consistent policy (except that policies are inconsistent).

B/

Retromoderation only worked *in years past* because of the lag time in propagating messages between peers (hours, if not days), and because sysadmins honored cancels.

Now, there's no lag time because of the transit server pipes--I've been told that any particle text article is propagated to 90% of Usenet servers within 2 minutes of posting--and because of past and present abuse cancels simply aren't honored any more. Even first-party ones where someone wishes to cancel their own messages.

B/

I can believe it. I've had a couple of instances where my response to a post showed up quickly enough to appear to have been sent before the original.

None that a cancel of my own post would have prevented. At least none that I can recall today. In the instance I believe you are referring to I took another approach. In the end, and without more than a couple of phone calls and a years patience and a modest check, I attended the bankruptcy auction of the underlying perpetrator in February. A couple of the others ended up out of a job. That's just about as "Cancelled" as it gets Cliff. He'd been in business for twenty years and it was over before he knew what hit him. That was why I went to the auction. I wanted to be sure he understood and that word got around very quickly and I hope never to be involved in cleaning up after someones vindictive and unfortunate mistake again. I found it extremely distasteful.

Exactly. I don't feel it's worth the effort because everything I've seen indicates that it doesn't work. I don't think anything I've ever posted is valuable enough to groom for posterity

Earthlink seems, or seemed, to be slower than Pacbell. I replied to BB once and my post looked to him as though it had been sent ten seconds before he'd posted. Pretty funny. He thought for a minute I'd "Done" something. I think what had happened was that his post had propagated to news.la.sbcglobal.net a couple of minutes faster that it ended up in his own spool. I don't really know or care but it was funny as hell.

One can have them removed from Google's indexing, but I doubt anything is ever removed from the archives.

They may be blacklisting servers that are known sources of spam (passive death penalty), they may be implementing NoCeM's or cancels issued from well-known cancellers applying well-understood criteria.

That doesn't mean they'll honor any other cancels.

Bambie, a well-known deer from fiction. Deer in the headlights.

Big 8 Management Board or B8MB

It's a pun.

Is merely an option. An option which negates the "Usenet is blocked by the company firewall so I *have* to use GG" argument.

I think that argument is invalid even without the ability to use NNTP servers providing access on port 80 anyway. That is entirely a company management issue, not at all a Usenet issue. It is up to the management of companies to provide their workers with everything needed to do their job. If management determines access to Usenet isn't

BBS's / web boards and blogs are just as bad if not worse. If it were not for Usenet, I would have no reason to keep my Internet service.

A private news server you suggest? Imagine that. To be set up, run, and maintained by people who can't be arsed to use a publicly accessible server and proper news client to post on ccs now?

Bwahahaha! You make a funny sometimes Cliff. :)

And I'll point out that you follow him around everywhere he goes on Usenet and reply to nearly every one of the threads he starts.

If you, and the rest of his fan club stopped replying to him in ccs, there would be no perceived need for a moderated newsgroup.

On Sep 10, 1:20 pm, Peter J Ross wrote:

Jon's comments are not reasonable as far as most in this group are concerned for the a several of reasons:

1. They are repetitive in the extreme.
2. They are not based on his own experience or or use of either SW or the product of the month that JB touts. The source of the material he posts seems to be advertising and marketing hype since he doesn't seem to be a user of SW and can't possibly be a user of ST since it has just been released.
3. When it is all boiled down it seems that the posts are meant to inflame and embroil other SW users in endless controversy. If you ask yourself the question whether there can ever be a resolution to the propositions in JB's posts, the answer seems to be no from several angles. First there is nothing concrete that can be tested to determine whether his hypotheses are true or false. Second, there seems to be no instance that I can think of where JB has come around to another point of view when proven wrong. Third, the use of ad hominem arguments seem to be the rule rather than the exception. Fourth, the postings for the most part that JB makes amount to little more than a rehash of marketing hype that is available on the websites of those that make the competing products. Fifth, the issues that he is currently bringing up have been discussed before on this NG in some way shape or form. Sixth, If JB wants SW to take notice of a new technology he need only log in to the SW website and post an enhancement request there. He can also encourage others to do so as SW does take enhancement requests seriously and democratically. Seventh, JB had access to Greg Jankowski last January in San Diego at SolidWorks World. JB either didn't attend or he didn't bother to meet with Greg. (Note: JB lives in the San Diego area) Greg also visits many user group meetings. He has no doubt visited SD and JB could have had a face to face there. Greg doesn't always return my emails either. He is a very busy man.
4. I looked this morning 9/14 at the NG. The 25% of the new posts were from JB and were rehashing the same issues as before. That is 8 out of

1. The software that JB discusses is in no way related to SW. To argue that he is discussing the strengths and weaknesses of SW is like saying you can argue the strengths and weaknesses of a Mack Truck and a Prius. I suppose you can do that but in the end you can't park a Mack truck in your garage and you can't pull a semi trailer with a Prius. ST is not a third party add-in, it is an indirectly competing product. The people who use the software JB is touting do not need the same features as SolidWorks users.

Finally, we have asked JB if he want's support starting an alternate NG for the topics he likes to bring up. He isn't interested. This lends weight to my argument that he is just in it to argue for the sake of arguing.

TOP