No I did not.
Asking for clarification is not the same thing as asking you to grovel.
Post by G. SinghYou're aware that this would need much higher transfer speeds than
10kb/s, right? Otherwise it would still be downloading one batch when
the next became due, if some sort of timeout error didn't strike first.
I am aware that a much higher transfer speed is NOT required.
The average daily transfer of text newsgroups for the last 28 days has
been 61.6 MB.
The maximum for any single day in that period was 80.4 MB.
For the sake of the discussion I assumed 100 MB per day and did the math
with that number. Wolfram Alpha (I find it convenient) states that
9.2<something> kbps was needed. I rounded up to 10 kbps.
So I'm quite confident that you can run a text only news server on 10
kbps Internet connection.
I'm not flip flopping.
Post by G. Singh"And yet, that is the end result of the policy you are defending. I
suppose that's just a coincidence, though. :s"
It's not a /coincidence/ because it's a /direct/ /result/ of the policy
that AIOE has put into place.
Post by G. Singhyour response was to admit that it was *not* a coincidence. But now
you are denying it again! Make up your mind!
It was not a /coincidence/. There is /direct/ and /expected/
/correlation/ between AIOE's policy.
A coincidence is defined as "a remarkable concurrence of events or
circumstances /without/ apparent causal connection.
AIOE's policy change was a /direct/ connection. Thus it is not a
/coincidence/.
Post by G. SinghYes, you did. You can't just un-imply something by saying you didn't
mean to imply it. It was, nonetheless, an implication of what you
said. The only way you can retract the implication is to retract one
or more of your overt statements from which said implication followed.
In the instant case, though, that would require you to retract
almost everything you have written in this thread, since all the
way back to the beginning you have insisted that if an action was
taken intentionally by AIOE's administrator, then that excludes
the possibility of its being a mistake. That's a frank assertion of
infallibility on that administrator's part.
A mistake is defined as "an action or judgement that is misguided or wrong".
AIOE's action was neither misguided nor wrong. The action was chosen
deliberately. The results that you are complaining about were the
expected and desired results.
Therefore it was not a /mistake/.
Post by G. Singhthat you believe "mistake" and "deliberate choice" are mutually
exclusive where the AIOE admin is concerned, i.e. they are not capable
of making a deliberate choice that proves to be mistaken, i.e. their
decision-making process is infallible)
The decision that AIOE had the expected and intended results.
Post by G. Singhevidence that the crosspost block is not a mistake, even though a)
it clearly is and b) such an extraordinary claim should carry a high
burden of proof. Evidently, to Mr. Taylor, that the AIOE admin said
a thing is proof enough of that thing,
I have said many times that an administrator is free to run their news
server as they see fit.
It does not matter what others think of their decisions.
It's the administrator's prerogative.
Post by G. Singhi.e. the AIOE admin is also infallible as a source of factual
statements as well as decisions, i.e. is omniscient ala God.)
You would have to retract all of those statements, especially the
last two, to retract the implication that you consider AIOE's admin
to be as infallible as God.
I have never implied anything of the sort.
You are perverting my statements to fit your own narrative.
Post by G. SinghAs for the implication that you consider questioning the decisions
of said admin to be blasphemy, that follows more or less directly,
but also is implied by your behavior.
You can question and disagree with it to your heart's content.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that server administrators have
the freedom to run their server the way that they want to.
Your questions, agreement or not, opinion, etc. do not matter in the
context of how an administrator runs their system.
Post by G. SinghYou seem to find it offensive that I do not just accept the decision
at issue without question,
Nope. I do not find it offensive.
I am finding you to be annoying.
Post by G. Singhor show a sufficient amount of deference (e.g., begging to be granted
some exemption, as if asking for a kingly indulgence, or praying to a
deity, rather than asserting my right to use an online service as it
was meant and indeed explicitly *designed* to be used).
I was asking for information that AIOE might consider in changing their
mind.
But you have put far more effort into refusing to provide any
information than you would have to provide one example. E.g.
I wanted to post to <alt.<something> group> and <some other group> to
discuss <topic>.
Post by G. SinghYou clearly evince a strong emotional need to fight back against
the message of my posts, and to defend AIOE's admin from any mere
suggestion that they might have committed a blunder or decided unwisely
It doesn't matter how wise or unwise AIOE's decision was. All that
matters is that it's AIOE's decision to make.
If you think I'm focusing on AOIE, then feel free to substitute any
other administrator / organization name in place of AIOE. I was using
AIOE in this conversation because it's more germane and on topic than
saying Eternal-September or Google.
Post by G. Singheven, especially even, when they have taken a precipitate action
that is unprecedently severe in its magnitude and scope, without
consulting anyone first,
Administrators don't /need/ to consult anyone first. They have the
freedom and authority to make any change they want to their systems at
their whim.
Post by G. Singhand which has severe side effects,
So what.
Post by G. Singhwhich in short is pretty much guaranteed to have been the wrong
decision.
Wrong or not does not matter. It's AIOE's decision to make.
You brought it up and AIOE confirmed that the effects that you are
complaining about are the result of the decision that they made.
Post by G. SinghYour *behavior* is that of an adherent defending their religious
beliefs against a perceived attack,
Nope. Not quite.
I do am adherently defending that an administrator has the right to
choose how to run their own server / service.
AIOE happens to be an example of what I'm defending.
Post by G. Singhnot that of an intellectual defending a factual claim about the
universe but open to persuasion that that claim might be wrong.
It doesn't matter if the decision is right or wrong. It is /the/
/administrator's/ /choice/.
AIOE heard your complaint and confirmed their position.
Post by G. SinghThe thing is, you can retract your previous words, but you can't
retract the pattern of your behavior thus far, and that pattern clearly
establishes that you revere the AIOE admin and hold them as beyond
reproach, rejecting any suggestion of fallibility on their part in
an evidence-immune fashion.
Not quite.
Not AIOE in specific.
System / service administrators. Of which I am one.
The statement that I've repeated more than anything else is that it's
the system / service administrator's choice. They can do what ever they
want to.
You are free to question their choice. You are free to ask them why
they made the choice that they made.
But, even after asking, it's still the system / service administrator's
choice.
Post by G. SinghThis is the behavior of a cultist, and puts you in the same category
as QAnon followers and Scientologists.
Nope. I'm none of those.
I am a system administrator. And my word is law on my systems. You can
ask me to change it. I will ask for information as to why I should
change it. If you provide sufficient information I will consider your
request for me to change it. There is a better than average chance that
I will decide to retain my original decision, despite your information.
I am affording AIOE (or Eternal-September or Google or ... or ...) the
same decision making process that I use myself.
Your opinion or belief about the process doesn't matter to me.
Post by G. SinghYou explicitly leave out "convince them that it's a mistake", thus
*again* implying your belief in the admin's infallibility.
I don't care if the result is proper or improper. The fact remains that
it is the system / service administrator's choice to make.
Post by G. SinghYour every post reveals again your beliefs, regardless of your efforts
to deny them.
Your interpretation of my statements have apparently mislead you into
thinking I believe something that I do not believe.
Post by G. SinghAIOE's admin is a human being.
I assume as much.
Post by G. SinghAIOE's admin is as fallible as human beings generally tend to be.
Sure.
Post by G. SinghAIOE's admin has, in fact, made a mistake in the instant case
It is not a mistake. It was a deliberate action with the expected results.
Post by G. Singh(and has doubled down on it by letting it remain in effect for several
whole days now,
They've actually tripled down on it by replying stating "at the moment,
crosspost is forbidden for every alt.* group."
Post by G. Singheffectively crippling the usability of their server for the entire
user base).
I don't believe it has crippled the usability of their server.
Nobody else has complained.
Cross posting is still allowed in other hierarchies.
Are you meaning to imply that all of AIOE's users both use the alt.*
hierarchy /and/ cross post? Or at least would prior to the new rule.
Ultimately nobody is forcing you to use AIOE's service. You are free to
use a different news service.
Post by G. Singh*You* have made a mistake by putting them on a pedestal and refusing
to accept even quite clear evidence of their fallibility when it was
presented to you.
I have not put anybody on a pedestal.
I have repeatedly said that it's the system / service administrator's
choice to do what they want to.
I have repeatedly said that it doesn't matter if the choice that is made
is right or wrong. It's the administrator's choice to make.
Given that the choice was made deliberately, knowing what the results
would be, it's not a mistake.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die