> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:10:54 -0500, shawn <nanoflo...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:34:32 -0800, D-W <D...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:30:09 -0600, d...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>tnom is sincere and unhappy with the group.
>>>>I DO understand...and we should try to help out.
>>>>For ME...and maybe some others...I was thrown off when all the comps and >>>>boots were spoiled.
>>>>Sure...we could say...maybe they're wrong...but not likely.
>>>>With the results ruined...what's left is talking about the players, >>>>which we can DO, and make jokes.
>>>>If this kind of stuff would happen in a group I liked...I would be super >>>>pissed...however...we're not trying to disrupt anything...things have >>>>already been disrupted.
>>>>I would be willing to do what you'd like.
>>>>tnom...would you want to talk about the next possible boot...if we >>>>already KNOW?
>>>>Really...spoiling everything was NOT the way to go...and I admit it.
>>>Well, for me, this group has always been about the social interaction.
>>I agree. Unfortunately there hasn't been much of that outside of the >>betting threads. Those threads have had a lot of discussion about the >>bets, but there's also been a fair amount of discussion about the >>game. Even when you posted discussions of what happened in the show no >>one responded that wasn't already talking in the betting threads. I >>have no problem if Alooo, Queenie or others want to talk about the >>game. In fact I'm all for it. Unfortunately we haven't had much of >>that.
>>>While Survivor may be the MAIN topic under discussion here, I don't >>>think it needs to be the ONLY topic.
>>So long as the threads that aren't about Survivor are clearly marked >>there shouldn't be an issue. Any decent newsreader has the ability to >>filter out threads that are marked OT (off topic) or as a betting >>thread.
> Well, I realize most of you guys were not around back when Usenet got > started, but it was intended to be a place to share and discuss ideas > of all types, without censorship or limitation.
> It is like a neighborhood of people, with everyone having one common > interest, in our case Survivor.
> But that does not mean that Survivor is our ONLY interest or that we > cannot discuss other things.
> Maybe Doob and I want to discuss the variability of hookers in our > respective areas. Those who have no desire to discuss it are freely > able to avoid the entire conversation.
> Maybe Dale and I want to have music trivia contests. Nothing at all > to do with Survivor, but it is our free right to do it if we want. If > you do not want to participate, whether because you think it violates > the "conditions" of being a Survivor newsgroup or for other reasons, > no one is forcing you to participate.
> If YOU find it difficult to weed out the non-Survivor threads, it is > YOU who needs to find a way to deal with it. Leave if you want, there > are certainly other Survivor forums.
> But coming into OUR neighborhood, where we WELCOME you, and then > trying to determine how WE should live OUR lives is very rude.
> Usenet was, and is, about freedom...
> The individual newsgroup itself is chosen not because of the title so > much as the people within it. Just because Survivor is in the title > does not mean that is the ONLY subject which can be discussed.
> I consider the regulars here to be my friends. Even Mrs Clean. We > may fight, disagree, express opposite political views, or offend each > other with sexual references, but I still consider them to be my > friends.
> As for the newbies and one-hit wonders, if you do not like what you > get here then leave...
Any one remember what the alt stands for in Usenet lore?
>If YOU find it difficult to weed out the non-Survivor threads, it is >YOU who needs to find a way to deal with it. Leave if you want, there >are certainly other Survivor forums.
It's not difficult and no one has top leave. If a particular poster persists in off topic posts he will be kill filed.
> If YOU find it difficult to weed out the non-Survivor threads, > it is YOU who needs to find a way to deal with it.
While I usually ain't interested in the off-topic chit-chat (unless it's a massive flame war over some subject I'm interested in…) the complaints in this instance aren't so much your off-topic comments, but the huge number of meaningless off-topic posts you dumped into the group in one day.
Honestly, I thought a.tv.s. was being sporged by some stalker you had pissed off,
> Leave if you want, there are certainly other Survivor forums.
That's just the thing, people _have_ bailed on a.tv.s and flooding the group with crap posts is only going to make it worse, until it's just you howling in the wilderness.
In article <83acf5hh55326pqbmjuqujf82gca1md...@4ax.com>,
D-W <D...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:30:43 GMT, Kenny Blankenship > <bl...@blank.blank> wrote:
> > Actually we do. Usenet is broken up into topics so that people are > > able to discuss (or just read) the subject of their choice without > > having to wade through a bunch of non relevant posts.
> No. It has never been that. It was designed as a way to get people > with similar interests together, but WHAT was discussed was never > limited until newbies started showing up and bitching because their > ONE topic was not the ONLY topic being discussed...
It was designed as a way for people in higher education studying various subjects to discuss those subjects. For example people studying fluid-dynamics could discuss fluid-dynamics in sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics. The alt. group was created so that people could discuss non-educational related subjects in an appropriate forum.
> > While topic drift is inevitable, when it starts to go on for more > > than a few messages that discussion should be moved to another > > (appropriate) group.
> > The occasional off topic posts are tolerated, but they should be > > kept to a minimum as they are considered rude.
> What is rude is bitching about it. Anyone can easily press a button > and skip over whatever they don't like.
> Some of us do not live in a world where the ONLY topic of conversation > is Survivor...
I live in a world with 108,317 newsgroups. Your world must be very small.
In article <f240729f-dc09-4b25-8805-e7024187d...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Ron <BigELil...@msn.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 2:37 pm, Kenny Blankenship <bl...@blank.blank> wrote:
> > But, the whole group hasn't been spoiled. I just avoided any > > message with the word "spoiler" in the subject and I have no idea > > what's going to happen next. If you've had the season spoiled it's > > because you wanted it to be spoiled.
> Ah, there were PLENTY of spoiler posts from Mr Clean that DIDN'T have > spoiler in the subject line. Including spoilers from Survivor 20!
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:09:04 -0800, D-W <D...@hotmail.com> wrote: >The individual newsgroup itself is chosen not because of the title so >much as the people within it. Just because Survivor is in the title >does not mean that is the ONLY subject which can be discussed.
Well in fairness we do try to keep things on target most of the time though we all wander off-topic now and then - some of us more than others.
But mostly we do need to stay on subject a lot more than we've been doing lately.
On Nov 7, 10:27 pm, Kenny Blankenship <bl...@blank.blank> wrote:
> In article > <f240729f-dc09-4b25-8805-e7024187d...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Ron <BigELil...@msn.com> wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2:37 pm, Kenny Blankenship <bl...@blank.blank> wrote:
> > > But, the whole group hasn't been spoiled. I just avoided any > > > message with the word "spoiler" in the subject and I have no idea > > > what's going to happen next. If you've had the season spoiled it's > > > because you wanted it to be spoiled.
> > Ah, there were PLENTY of spoiler posts from Mr Clean that DIDN'T have > > spoiler in the subject line. Including spoilers from Survivor 20!
> Yet somehow I've avoiding reading any spoilers...
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:10:03 -0800, D-W <D...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Okay. I can stop. I thought some were actually enjoying the trivia >games as much as me...
>Perhaps it is ME who needs to find a different forum...
My idea of a trivia game is 'what were the tribe names in Survivor All-Stars?'
Who was the first player sent to Exile Island?
What languages besides English have been spoken in Survivor?
Who was the first player removed from the game other than for injury? (This is a bit of a trick question)
>>>>On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:30:09 -0600, d...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>>tnom is sincere and unhappy with the group.
>>>>>I DO understand...and we should try to help out.
>>>>>For ME...and maybe some others...I was thrown off when all the comps and >>>>>boots were spoiled.
>>>>>Sure...we could say...maybe they're wrong...but not likely.
>>>>>With the results ruined...what's left is talking about the players, >>>>>which we can DO, and make jokes.
>>>>>If this kind of stuff would happen in a group I liked...I would be super >>>>>pissed...however...we're not trying to disrupt anything...things have >>>>>already been disrupted.
>>>>>I would be willing to do what you'd like.
>>>>>tnom...would you want to talk about the next possible boot...if we >>>>>already KNOW?
>>>>>Really...spoiling everything was NOT the way to go...and I admit it.
>>>>Well, for me, this group has always been about the social interaction.
>>> I agree. Unfortunately there hasn't been much of that outside of the >>> betting threads. Those threads have had a lot of discussion about the >>> bets, but there's also been a fair amount of discussion about the >>> game. Even when you posted discussions of what happened in the show no >>> one responded that wasn't already talking in the betting threads. I >>> have no problem if Alooo, Queenie or others want to talk about the >>> game. In fact I'm all for it. Unfortunately we haven't had much of >>> that.
>>>>While Survivor may be the MAIN topic under discussion here, I don't >>>>think it needs to be the ONLY topic.
>>> So long as the threads that aren't about Survivor are clearly marked >>> there shouldn't be an issue. Any decent newsreader has the ability to >>> filter out threads that are marked OT (off topic) or as a betting >>> thread.
>>The editing of this season, in my opinion, hasn't really provided much to >>have decent discussions about the players because it's been just about 100% >>the Russell show. This is the first season for me where I doubt I could name >>all of the players at this stage of the game. Normally I can do so after a >>few episodes. Is Russell really that much of a villain that he deserves such >>star treatment? Or are the rest of the players so uninteresting and such bad >>players that MB decided to essentially turn them into background props?
>>Brian
>I consider it a good indication that Russell wins...
Or at least he gets to the Final 2/3 and continues playing harder than anyone else in the game.
>> d...@webtv.net wrote: >> > The main stuff has been spoiled for the entire group...and I'm not >> > happy with that.
>> But, the whole group hasn't been spoiled. I just avoided any message >> with the word "spoiler" in the subject and I have no idea what's going >> to happen next. If you've had the season spoiled it's because you wanted >> it to be spoiled.
>Ah, there were PLENTY of spoiler posts from Mr Clean that DIDN'T have >spoiler in the subject line. Including spoilers from Survivor 20! >*******
>I didn't mind the S20 posts saying who was invited to play and who did but I >could have done without the posts telling us who won. I'll still watch just >because I'm shocked at who the apparent winner was.
I'm not shocked.. But that's mostly because I don't the person. I missed about 4 seasons of Survivor and that includes that person's season.
>Given the million spoiler posts about this season I'm shocked people are >still betting on the game.
Well, there are other bets available that haven't been spoiled. Like whether someone would spew during the food challenge. Then there's always the question of will a monkey appear in this episode or not? ;)
I'd like to say a few words on behalf of Dubya (D-W).
He tried to help out by taking on the responsibility of the 'fun chip game' that we've had each season.
It was to take some of the burden off of Jason who had done this 'work'...and it IS work, in the past.
Everything was cool...until REAL spoilers were posted.
That threw off everything.
I like and respect everyone here and enjoy the various points of view...but I didn't give much thought...until ALOOO brought it up...to the fact that some folks don't come here everyday and don't even KNOW about any spoilers.
I guess this makes sense...as people have other things to do.
When these spoilers began to surface, it wreaked havoc with the game.
This made it frustrating and D-W had his hands full...handling 'bets' for those who HAD info, and for those who didn't.
Shawn has a gazllion chips. Yeesh.
By his comments in this thread, you can see that D-W, like myself, have no intention of messing up the group.
"Okay. I can stop. I thought some were actually enjoying the trivia games as much as me...
Perhaps it is ME who needs to find a different forum..."
Stop it Dub...that should not be necessary...PLUS...the 'Hello Kitty' groups are pretty full...and you don't want any accusations. :-)...although...if 'just me' is scoping out the 'Hello Kitty' groups...we have bigger problems than OT posting. :-)
"It was designed as a way for people in higher education studying various subjects to discuss those subjects. For example people studying fluid-dynamics could discuss fluid-dynamics in sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics."
True.
Now, Ken...if I were to go to that group and troll about how urine fits in with 'fluid dynamics' I can see a problem...but I'd never DO that.
Some MIGHT...just to disrupt.
I'm sure that you understand the difference between the survivor group and my example.
|
