Nancy, I'm afraid that you didn't do your homework at the start, and as
well I find you've presented your facts rather selectively to
faq-maintainers.
At 09:13 AM -0400 06/16/01, SmrSnows@AOL.COM wrote:
>Back in April, a friend and I found an unmoderated ng which seemed to
>have
>been abandoned.
This happens a lot. Some newsgroups just don't have any traffic for a
while. I've been a part of some like that. It isn't a reason to assume
the group is dead.
You omitted that someone explained to you on the newsgroup, one June
13, why it had been relatively inactive: that it was intended for
discussion of the works of a particular author, who hadn't published
anything recently. Now, they even said you were welcome there, but you
preferred to take the position that you could claim any newsgroup that
had been relatively inactive for three months or more. I find nothing
valid in your position, and I'm put off by your failing to mention this
in your message to faq-maintainers.
>We posted "Is anyone home" and got no response (other than a
>troll).
I did a search on http://groups.google.com and found that this "troll"
has in fact posted in 40 different threads on the newsgroup (alt.spooky
for anyone who hasn't taken the 15 seconds to figure it out) going back
to January 2000. Maybe you should have listened. The "troll" also
posted three original articles in April which were on the original
topic (more on that below). Just because you didn't understand them (I
wouldn't have understood either) doesn't mean you should assume they
are off-topic.
>I searched and found no posts at all had been submitted since
>February. And I found no FAQ either at the ng, nor at news.answers or
>alt.answers going back to about November (it may be longer than
>that-that's
>only as far as I searched).
Why did you stop there? Once I figured out which newsgroup you were
talking about, it took me about five seconds to locate an FAQ posted in
June 1999 which explained clearly what the group was about. (Google
gives great response.) The August 1996 charter (which I found from
William Bagwell's directions) is totally vague, but this is common for
alt groups and that back FAQ, easily found with Google, clarifies the
intended topic adequately.
You also claimed on June 14 that "FAQ's are considered 'dead' after
three months" -- your exact words. You didn't mention this position in
your message to faq-maintainers. You didn't give a reference for your
claim and I don't know where you got that idea, but it wasn't from
anyone who knows much about Usenet (and is honest anyway).
>Nine days later I posted a FAQ for the ng, and
>got no response (other than the same troll who posted plenty of
>expletives,
>but nothing stating that the ng was in use).
Why should he/she? He (assuming it's a he) had been posting for over a
year.
>For two months, it's been only my friend and me at this ng (and a
>little
>spam). Even the troll never returned.
You keep referring to a regular poster as a troll.
>Yesterday, a girl I've never heard of before posted:
Named Anne Gwish, an obvious pseudonym, so maybe female and maybe male.
It didn't take much looking to find out that "Anne Gwish" is a
character of the author discussed on the newsgroup. How did I find out?
I read the earlier FAQ ... The earliest Usenet posting I found from
this Anne Gwish was on 31 May 2001, so you don't know what name and
address that person was posting from previously.
> > Consider your attempted coup of this newsgroup a
> > failed one. Your 2 month lease of this newsgroup is
> > officially over. Good luck shopping for new real estate.
> > Bye-Bye.
>
>and
>
> > In light of the recent attempted coup, i am now the
> > self-appointed FAQ maintainer.
>
>followed by *her* FAQ "for the ng", which contradicts the one I posted
>in
>April (it specifically bans the use I've made of the ng- a RPG).
She (assuming Anne Gwish is a she) didn't say that. She simply said she
wasn't going to post your FAQ material. The language is foul, but I
gather that's characteristic of the author they discuss there.
On the contrary, someone else said you were welcome to post there
despite being off topic.
At the least, it appears you have done those people a favor by getting
them fired up again about something that interests them.
>Her FAQ, as
>far as I can tell, has never been submitted to news.answers.
Many FAQs are never submitted to news.answers. News.answers approval
does not make an FAQ any more or less "official", though it may make it
more widely read and perhaps on some servers maintained longer. It
certainly gets it archived in a lot more places.
>She said she
>copy-and-pasted it from an old one. Two other people I've never heard
>of
>before posted, one in her support, one in mine.
>
>Any ideas? How should I respond to her challenge (if at all)? If I
>were to
>move to another dead ng, this is just going to happen again. Has
>anyone else
>been through something similar?
I suggest that you read the FAQ (!) for alt.config and learn how to
create your own newsgroup. If there's enough people interested to be
worth a newsgroup for your topic, then it's worth setting it up right,
with a relevant name and a clearly written and archived charter that
you can cite when off-topic posters arrive (as they certainly will in
alt.*).
Edward Reid
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here
*************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved