Art Deco wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:

Double-A wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Twittering One wrote:
"Know any good 'Troller Trash' ?"
~ Raving


Trawler Trash(fish)?



"Please explain."
~ Folly

Don't know any, T1. Thought that you might be more enlightened than
myself. That's why I was asking. ...

Perhaps someone should post the request-for-information in
alt.usenet.kooks.
They ought to be more familiar with the material which is available ?

I am personna non grata, therein ....

RL


Lucky you!

Will you never be satisfied?

Double-A

Being sincere, now ...
I am becoming somewhat piqued that events between myself and AUK are
proceeding in a manner which is disquietingly similar and familiar to
other significant events in my life.

AUK is wary of me for good reason. They sense what may be coming ...

' A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is
absolutely fatal. '

~ O. Wilde http://www.bartleby.com/66/46/64346.html


RL -- I feel compelled to tell you that you are not "persona non grata"
with regard to AUK; strictly speaking, all Formosa's rule means is that
a person is ineligible for awards, and any nominations are
automatically rejected.

The reason for this is closely related to the taboo about support
groups. As you are no doubt probably aware, people who use support
groups have real problems and it is therefore considered highly
unethical to poke people in them. This is why it is standard practice
to sneck support groups from posts. There are some real nutcases who
get perverse satisfaction from trolling their slime in support groups.
Tommy "Tosser" Bishop is one, if I'm not mistaken.

In other words, poking people on usenet should not cause them to harm
themselves or others, or add to already existing personal problems.

Obviously, application of Formosa's rule comes down to judgement calls;
kookologists are generally not mental health professionals, and have
only a very limited amount of information to make such determinations,
i.e. the electronic characters people choose to send out via usenet.
The few cases I've seen applied, the choice has been to err on the side
of caution.

One recent example is Herc (or "|-|erc"), the Australian entity who is
apparently convinced that he is the real-life version of the "Truman",
from the movie "The Truman Show", and that the U.S. Government uses
lots of satellite resources to beam mind control directly toward him.
He won quite a few kook awards earlier this year, but later was ruled
ineligible after a long discussion of what his mental state really
might be (available in the archives if you want to see the details).

http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/search.php?query=herc

As a result, people to whom the rule has been applied tend to be
ignored by AUK'ers not because of any hard-and-fast taboo, but merely
because no one wants to cause anyone serious harm. Besides, there are
more than enough targets elsewhere. At the present time, kookology
resources are being devoted to Warhol the religio-mythology kook, to
the nazibigot slime that infest soc.culture.israel (revd, heinrich, ben
cramer, giwer), and to the soc.men whiners.

I do hope this helps clarify the situation. If I've gotten anything
badly wrong, I'm sure there will be others to correct me.

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler

"Don't be too envious. Yes, I have got it all. I am rich, I
have a good education, and I am rather good looking .. so
where does that leave you?
C."
-- Charles D. "Chuckweasel" Bohne polishes his ego a bit

"That's what you expect from people who think that the
cyberworld isn't "RL"."
-- Dr. David Tholen, Psychic Astrologer

"The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with
both male and female genitalia."
-- Alexa Cameron, Kook of the Year 2004

Art Deco,

As I have mentioned earlier, I feel the need to be very cautious about
what I express concerning the Formosa issue. Now, it seems appropriate
to say a bit more.

The rammificiations of me being Formosa'd and the manner by which it
was done vigorously transcends myself; what happens here, now, in
alt.astronony and even the AUK community itself. It is not clear to me
that there are many, or even any in AUK or alt.astronony that have yet
recognized & realized, such. Some of it, some of you do know ... In
this posting, for the benefit of everyone describe a very big picture.

More regulation is coming to the internet in the intermediate future.
The situation speaks for itself, manifested in such events as copy
protection for mp3 files and the 'gaging' of the free expression of
bloggers. At some point in the future serious and concerted scrutiny is
going to descend upon Usenet.

Its a big deal. These are complex issues that will result in making
decisions which have tangible consequences.

If I were on a comission to investigate and draft legislation so as to
better regulate the internet, I would likely cast a keen eye to places
such as AUK and the activities which have occured. In other words AUK
and its interaction with the rest of Usenet is a pretty darn good
labratory for investigating and designing regulation. For me, it is
hard to imagine how it could escape becoming a focus. I wouldn't be
surprised to see this posting dragged up 5 or 10 years hence by some
very heavy weight committee.

I do not say any of this to alarm or threaten. The Usenet of discussion
groups seems to becoming a backwater of late. The vast bulk of Usenet
is concernd with 'public access' file archiving. ... The last and
biggest bastion of ... The legislation and regulation will come. I
suppose that when it comes to regulating 'chat groups' it will begin
with Usenet. It is the minor yet most visible and easily documented
location for Internet discourse. Maybe I am wrong ?

What has happened in AUK, what is happening now; what shall happen in
the future is likely to have an impact upon the regulations which are
eventually put in place. Strangely, the Formosa rule in combination
with your initiative, makes it all the more likely.

Why ? Here, I must walk very gently indeed! I wish to contribute rather
than stifle. The criticisms are easy. The solutions haven't been
developed yet. The criticism can very easily become strongly
counterproductive.

The Formosa Rule is like anti-smoking legislation. Once you begin, it
rolls strongly down hill, thereon. As with smoking, the default outcome
will be to legislate AUK out of existence. That would be a shame. As
you and Double-A point out; there is a genuine worth and place for
doing what AUK does. Setting up the frame work and guidlines to make it
feasible isn't easy. Very much to your credit, you are tackling the
problem.

If AUK or groups like it didn't exist ?
It would be an aweful mess.
You have earned my respect for what you have done. Without anything
being done, it is complete anarchy. I don't envy you. Keep at it.

With certainty, the Formosa issue will come right back at you again and
again with a building and pressing need to be considered. If you
achieve a viable solution then what you will have done can serve as a
basis for dealing with the broader issue of internet legislation, and
'Freedom of involvement, intrusion and speech' in society. There are
no easy answers, YET.

Good luck.

Rising Loonie

P.S. Consider how many ordinary imperfect, humans committed suicide
through embarressment, fear and shame; as a result of internet child
kiddie porn stings ...

.. to external appearances, it is plausible that some of those
'pedo's were role models for self-discipline and self-control

Not at all like some mecurial Rising Raving Loonie who got himself
Formosa'd because he is too unstable and unpredictable.