Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Does you girl not like Anal?

Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

<<What ever happened to the idea we were going to get actual moderators
for this group?>>

Please pardon my ignorance, but can a moderator actually stop these people, without bringing down some more comprehensive intervention in the whole enterprise?

There was an article in my local paper the other day about how Yahoo! has gone BACK into "the adult market" after a period of desisting due to "conservative" complaints, and it pointed out that their European markets have always been more open to such revolting junk. Is this "media" complicity in the crassest and most unconscionable trash force-feeding of all of our minds unchallenged? Apparently, there can be a lot of money to be made through complicity agreements (???) to participate in what the Nader campaign characterized as the commodification of ["fucking"] EVERYTHING, including childhood.

Christ! I won't have a cel-phone, so I didn't know that they now can spam you through "text- messaging", and eat up all your memory with bullshit that makes the thing beep constantly, if you haven't read the manual (carefully enough?), which is probably written to defy any of your meaningful questions about how the cheap fucking equipment you (or your employer!) bought works, if you're a person who thinks they need to rely on automobiles to function, and other such nonsense.

"Conspiracy theories have always been nonsense, in some ways, because they simply pit one stripe of idealogue against another. (My Random House dictionary doesn't list the word "idealogue"--I wonder, at this time, who coined it? And who refused to print it in the dictionary, at that time?)

Is it the one who stands to make the most money "at the expense of" or more generally "versus" the other? Is it a "conspiracy" of "profit"?

Yes, I think there are conspiracies of rich against poor, as there have always been, but there are, more simply and directly, the conspiracies of men and women who wanted more for their children and themselves, who never wanted more than to somehow be able to write spams that would generate incomes for themselves and their children, we may generously hope, just as we may hope that they dreamed of make low-priced goods that keep us warm, and well-fed.

"Obscene profit?"

Of course, it is.

Ask yourself. What is your revenue stream?

Who makes your shit, and who buys it, at what relative prices?

If I mount a theatrical production, at tremendous cost of cast and crew, and rental of venue, and technical requirements, and I get a box office of $840 bucks, of whom 16 players are not getting paid, whom have I paid? Why did they get paid. The others did not get paid, and would not have demanded that the company go into loss on acoount of their nonpayment, because they believed in the company's sometime ability to support itself, and on it's own quality and dedication.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>Please pardon my ignorance, but can a moderator actually stop these
>people, without bringing down some more comprehensive intervention
>in the whole enterprise?

In fact they can. Individual messages and members can be deleted,
and the group can be made to require moderator approval for new
members.

>There was an article in my local paper the other day about how Yahoo!
>has gone BACK into "the adult market //

But these messages aren't coming from Yahoo, they're coming from
spammers.

-Carl

🔗Pete McRae <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com>

My suggestion was meant to be that these "spammers" are on-line "businesses" participating in the glorious "free market" that we all are being forced to live in. No one's going to stop them, as far as I can see.
Not while there's "capital" in it...

Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org> wrote:
>Please pardon my ignorance, but can a moderator actually stop these
>people, without bringing down some more comprehensive intervention
>in the whole enterprise?

In fact they can. Individual messages and members can be deleted,
and the group can be made to require moderator approval for new
members.

>There was an article in my local paper the other day about how Yahoo!
>has gone BACK into "the adult market //

But these messages aren't coming from Yahoo, they're coming from
spammers.

-Carl

You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Pete McRae <ambassadorbob@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> <<What ever happened to the idea we were going to get actual
moderators
> for this group?>>
>
>
>
> Please pardon my ignorance, but can a moderator actually stop these
>people, without bringing down some more comprehensive intervention
>in the whole enterprise?

Yes. As Jon Szanto and I were discussing here about a month ago
(right after our moderator actually popped his head in albeit all too
briefly), prospective new members could be asked a question such as
what is their interest in tuning. A 'human' response would be enough
to allow the prospective member to join. This is the way things work
on the tuning files group, as well as some others.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> Please pardon my ignorance, but can a moderator actually stop these
>>people, without bringing down some more comprehensive intervention
>>in the whole enterprise?
>
>Yes. As Jon Szanto and I were discussing here about a month ago
>(right after our moderator actually popped his head in albeit all too
>briefly), prospective new members could be asked a question such as
>what is their interest in tuning. A 'human' response would be enough
>to allow the prospective member to join. This is the way things work
>on the tuning files group, as well as some others.

Aw, f***ing f***. Mark has dropped off the face of the Earth again.
Web site gone, no google results, e-mail address in the Yahoo members
directory bounces mail.

The next time anybody gets a hold of him, would you please tell him
to add monz (joemonz), Gene (genewardsmith), and I (clumma), at the
very least, as moderators?

-Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > Yes. As Jon Szanto and I were discussing here about a month ago
> > (right after our moderator actually popped his head in albeit all
> too
> > briefly), prospective new members could be asked a question such
as
> > what is their interest in tuning. A 'human' response would be
> enough
> > to allow the prospective member to join. This is the way things
> work
> > on the tuning files group, as well as some others.
>
> Less drastic is the Whack-a-Mole method, where one simply nukes the
> abusive poster retroactively.

that is likely to be completely ineffectual, as the spammers tend to
change their "from" e-mail address every time.

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

Paul Erlich wrote:

>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> >
>>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>>Yes. As Jon Szanto and I were discussing here about a month ago >>>(right after our moderator actually popped his head in albeit all >>> >>>
>>too >> >>
>>>briefly), prospective new members could be asked a question such >>> >>>
>as > >
>>>what is their interest in tuning. A 'human' response would be >>> >>>
>>enough >> >>
>>>to allow the prospective member to join. This is the way things >>> >>>
>>work >> >>
>>>on the tuning files group, as well as some others.
>>> >>>
>>Less drastic is the Whack-a-Mole method, where one simply nukes the >>abusive poster retroactively.
>> >>
>
>that is likely to be completely ineffectual, as the spammers tend to >change their "from" e-mail address every time.
>
Urban myth.

Mozilla has spam filtering built in, you tag it and next time you get spam from that email
address, it's moved to the Junk folder. I'm getting about 50 repeat spams
and 25-30 new spam a day, since mid-August.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes. As Jon Szanto and I were discussing here about a month ago
> > > (right after our moderator actually popped his head in albeit all
> > too
> > > briefly), prospective new members could be asked a question such
> as
> > > what is their interest in tuning. A 'human' response would be
> > enough
> > > to allow the prospective member to join. This is the way things
> > work
> > > on the tuning files group, as well as some others.
> >
> > Less drastic is the Whack-a-Mole method, where one simply nukes the
> > abusive poster retroactively.
>
> that is likely to be completely ineffectual, as the spammers tend to
> change their "from" e-mail address every time.

All of these proposals are completely unnecessary. Yahoo groups have
an option where only posts by new members get sent to the moderators.
Whichever moderator gets to it first either unsubscribes them (and
bans the address for what that's worth), or lets the message go to the
list and makes them an "old" member. Either is accomplished with a few
clicks.

So you don't have to worry about new members until they post, and then
it's pretty easy to tell from their first post if they are fair
dinkum. No need to hassle mere lurkers.

I've used this successfully in a yahoo group of which I'm the owner.
/ARGON/

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes. As Jon Szanto and I were discussing here about a month
ago
> > > > (right after our moderator actually popped his head in albeit
all
> > > too
> > > > briefly), prospective new members could be asked a question
such
> > as
> > > > what is their interest in tuning. A 'human' response would be
> > > enough
> > > > to allow the prospective member to join. This is the way
things
> > > work
> > > > on the tuning files group, as well as some others.
> > >
> > > Less drastic is the Whack-a-Mole method, where one simply nukes
the
> > > abusive poster retroactively.
> >
> > that is likely to be completely ineffectual, as the spammers tend
to
> > change their "from" e-mail address every time.
>
> All of these proposals are completely unnecessary. Yahoo groups have
> an option where only posts by new members get sent to the
moderators.
> Whichever moderator gets to it first either unsubscribes them (and
> bans the address for what that's worth), or lets the message go to
the
> list and makes them an "old" member. Either is accomplished with a
few
> clicks.
>
> So you don't have to worry about new members until they post, and
then
> it's pretty easy to tell from their first post if they are fair
> dinkum. No need to hassle mere lurkers.
>
> I've used this successfully in a yahoo group of which I'm the owner.
> /ARGON/

OK, so let's use this option! Mark, we're counting on you to appoint
some trustworthy moderators for the task, and to set this group to
use the option Dave describes above. PLEASE?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK, so let's use this option!
> > >
> > > That option is the Whack-A-Mole, which I thought you thought was
> > > ineffective.
> >
> > no, it's different, as Dave pointed out!
>
> So far as I can see, what he and you describe is exactly what I was
> talking about; but the real questions are do people think it would be
> effective, and can we get Mark to let it happen?

Gene,

You described the Whack-A-Mole method as "where one nukes the abusive
poster retroactively".

What I described is similar, but the attempted post never gets to the
list, only to the moderators. If that's actually what you meant, well
and good.

How could this _not_ be effective? As I said, I'm already using it
successfully on another list.

To beat this system, a spammer would have to come up with a convincing
on-topic post first, then once they are accepted as "old" members and
no longer moderated, then start with the spam.

I note that if a moderator has the slightest suspicion about a new
member, they can let the post go thru but keep them as "new" members
so their posts continue to be moderated.

Basically all members can be individually marked as "moderated" or
"not moderated" and while new memberships don't need to be approved, a
new member is automatically moderated, until marked otherwise.

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 11/26/03 6:03 PM, Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
>> wrote:
>>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, so let's use this option!
>>>>
>>>> That option is the Whack-A-Mole, which I thought you thought was
>>>> ineffective.
>>>
>>> no, it's different, as Dave pointed out!
>>
>> So far as I can see, what he and you describe is exactly what I was
>> talking about; but the real questions are do people think it would be
>> effective, and can we get Mark to let it happen?
>
> Gene,
>
> You described the Whack-A-Mole method as "where one nukes the abusive
> poster retroactively".
>
> What I described is similar, but the attempted post never gets to the
> list, only to the moderators. If that's actually what you meant, well
> and good.
>
> How could this _not_ be effective? As I said, I'm already using it
> successfully on another list.
>
> To beat this system, a spammer would have to come up with a convincing
> on-topic post first, then once they are accepted as "old" members and
> no longer moderated, then start with the spam.
>
> I note that if a moderator has the slightest suspicion about a new
> member, they can let the post go thru but keep them as "new" members
> so their posts continue to be moderated.
>
> Basically all members can be individually marked as "moderated" or
> "not moderated" and while new memberships don't need to be approved, a
> new member is automatically moderated, until marked otherwise.

A consideration: The other "after the fact" method is probably 98% as
effective as this (in terms of numbers of bad posts that are avoided), while
being much easier for moderators. What is easier form moderators may also
be better for everybody because of improved "dialog" performance for new
list members, at times when the moderators are not totally "snappy" in their
responsiveness, or when everybody is on vacation or asleep, which *will*
happen at times no matter how many moderators you get. Also if being a
moderator is easy, we will get more volunteers to be moderators, from people
in different time zones, contents, and sleep schedules.

-Kurt

>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
> the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_48546.html#48649

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
> > > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > OK, so let's use this option!
> > > >
> > > > That option is the Whack-A-Mole, which I thought you thought
was
> > > > ineffective.
> > >
> > > no, it's different, as Dave pointed out!
> >
> > So far as I can see, what he and you describe is exactly what I
was
> > talking about; but the real questions are do people think it
would be
> > effective, and can we get Mark to let it happen?
>
> Gene,
>
> You described the Whack-A-Mole method as "where one nukes the
abusive
> poster retroactively".
>
> What I described is similar, but the attempted post never gets to
the
> list, only to the moderators. If that's actually what you meant,
well
> and good.
>
> How could this _not_ be effective? As I said, I'm already using it
> successfully on another list.
>
> To beat this system, a spammer would have to come up with a
convincing
> on-topic post first, then once they are accepted as "old" members
and
> no longer moderated, then start with the spam.
>
> I note that if a moderator has the slightest suspicion about a new
> member, they can let the post go thru but keep them as "new" members
> so their posts continue to be moderated.
>
> Basically all members can be individually marked as "moderated" or
> "not moderated" and while new memberships don't need to be
approved, a
> new member is automatically moderated, until marked otherwise.

***Hello Dave!

Personally, I think the situation where a person would come here and
make halfway attempts at joining a tuning conversation and then
turning into Mr. Hyde and starting to post spam is quite unlikely?

Has this ever happened? Generally, I think the spammers don't have
patience for this kind of stealth... :)

Joseph

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Hello Dave!
>
> Personally, I think the situation where a person would come here and
> make halfway attempts at joining a tuning conversation and then
> turning into Mr. Hyde and starting to post spam is quite unlikely?
>
> Has this ever happened? Generally, I think the spammers don't have
> patience for this kind of stealth... :)

Agreed.

But give 'em time. I predict they will eventually have software that
pulls out an old post that looks to be fairly typical of people's
first posts - one they hope everyone has forgotten about - or a
combination of some - and plagiarises them. It will keep trying that
from different fake addresses, until it sees that one of them has
gotten thru in a short time, thereby indicating that the address used
is probably now unmoderated. Then they will post the spam.

That's one reason I think Paul Erlich would make an excellent
moderator. He's probably read, and reads, more of this list than
anyone. Carl Lumma would be good too.

But so long as so many groups do not use the feature I described,
there is no incentive for them to bother with such fancy software. But
mark my words, there wil eventually be evil AIs on the net whose only
purpose is to get their master's advertising into places where it
isn't wanted.

Does you girl not like Anal?

🔗wonderfulsmellinpuss1 <wonderfulsmellinpuss1@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Pete McRae <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Pete McRae <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>