4c75291c
XPost: news.groups, rec.arts.comics.dc.universe, rec.arts.sf.tv
XPost: rec.arts.tv
From: kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com
"Jerry Gerrone" (aka seamus :-)) wrote in message
news:89598143-2cd9-41f5-97ae-2908bcde9748@fx12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> Who is "seamus", KalElFan? There is nobody in this newsgroup
> using that alias.
Indeed. And just to update our wider readership here I first
noticed the posting entity that Adam refers to as "seamus"
with a post from "Extravagan" probably a couple of years
ago now. Extravagan was doing one of three or four quite
good seamus routines or UPA (Usenet Performance Art)
that have developed since then.
One of the things that annoys the heck out of Adam is that
Seamus is actually a smart guy who can also make on-topic
posts. He has insights and can be funny and his heart seems
to be in the right place. You can see it all in that New Year's
Day post, and in the first round or two of the John Kirkpatrick
XVII exchange I had, before another sock puppet comes in
and the seamus "[insult deleted]" flame war shtick starts.
So seamus is building a good UPA act, for when he might
want to start his own Usenet group in the owned.* hierarchy.
Or maybe it'll be the users.* hierararchy. Let's assume it's
owned.* and the very first sub-hierarchy is...
owned.i-am-not-famous-seamus.announcements
owned.i-am-not-famous-seamus.seriously
owned.i-am-not-famous-seamus.swag
owned.i-am-not-famous-seamus.upa
owned.i-am-not-famous-seamus.upa.can-i-be-seamus
owned.i-am-not-famous-seamus.upa.insult-deleted
owned.i-am-not-famous-seamus.upa.where-the-hell-is
See so right there you can have people requesting if they
can be seamus for a day, let's say, and then sub-groups
for your UPA routines.
There'd be no cost to the above. No yearly fees to ICANN!
If Brad's idea for a New Usenet, this "owned groups" part
of it gets going, it may become quite popular. If seamus
is a troupe (not likely) time to get a partnership agreement
signed. :-)
The owned.* hierarchy is the Everyperson's version of
Facebook and Twitter. Go direct! Or keep the others
as complimentary vehicles for your marketing and such.
I'm seeing i-am-not-famous-seamus appearances on
Oprah before this is over.
But don't send out the control messages yet. It's all
here in this post and I hereby grant i-am-not-famous-
seamus to seamus, for good and valuable consideration
received when I got those laughs from the seamus upa.
The pay NSPs are salivating at this as we speak, because
even though the groups are "free" some will pay the
small monthly fee for text-level accounts. ISPs and
others who've dropped Usenet are caught with their
pants down on this next wave. They may have to get
back in soon. "Just when we thought we were
out, they pulled us right back in . :-)
Those fond of the First Cycle of Usenet could reproduce
the entire old hierarchy system and set the rules in this
sub-hierarchy:
owned.usenet-classic.*
Okay, so the ownership idea could easily take off, but
as with domain names and so on there would need
to be a defined process and some standards on how
it would work. In particular Brad's digital signing, I
think, because new servers have to know what PGP
(or whatever key) to honor with control messages.
Seamus wouldn't want anyone to come in and just
take over or drown out his hierarchy.
Another alternative is for a .org to manage that, like
isc.org, becoming the equivalent of ICANN for the
web. But better a digital signature and a first-come,
first-served control message for any given name,
with some pre-screening or "rejections" of names
like owned.microsoft.* and so on. The mechanism
for such rejections would have to be discussed.
We're really talking more about the "recommended"
action for news servers and their admins. Some guy
running a server in his basememt can play with names
all he likes, but a standard has to be shared by all the
major players on what owned.* names are okay and
what aren't.
If it soars the binaries and porn blogs and all the rest
want in too. If we start categorizing things I think
the whole thing is kaput though. With facebook or
twitter or the web it's basically first-come, first-served
and that's the way it should be here I think. You do
what you want with your group as you would with
your web site. If you do something that gets you a
court order or arrested, it's on you. There might also
have to be a Master Key for court-ordered takedown
or removals that an owned.* owner refused to take
action on. Some process where news servers and
admins could be advised. Here I think maybe isc.org
or the like could have that Master PGP Key and send
out the control message.
redux may freak out at that, or maybe he's cogent
enough to see that there has to be some mechanism
to shut down an owned group that's engaged in any
kind of criminal activity or is the subject of a court
order. If I'm missing something on that feel free to
argue the point, but I think an override for "extreme"
cases like that is necessary. It also helps enhance
the whole effort, for everyone to know that this is
not such a total Wild Wild West that there are no
limits or it's beyond the reach of the law in any given
jurisdiction.
The system would also have to recognize differing
national standards for the court orders and such, if
there were issues of conflict there.
Board members, feel free to chime in but can you
see yet that you should be getting on this train?
Follow Brad to wherever he takes the discussion
next.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
