In article
,
Speeding biz.org> wrote:
>> To categorize Ray's behavior in early posts to asf as "friendly" would
>> mean that you would have to completely ignore his antagonistic posts
>> in related newsgroups, most notably soc.singles, alt.romance,
>> alt.hypnosis, and soc.men.
>
> But I don't read those groups. So yeah... I would. And do. I'm not a
> Usenet junkie. Just an ASF junkie.
Choosing to ignore those facts doesn't persuade me.
>>> I think he was modeling his own marketing
>>> efforts on Steele's. In fact, when I first started looking into this
>>> whole mess, I thought that perhaps Gordon and Steele were the same
>>> person. But, I was assured that wasn't the case. No one was willing
>>> to provide the details and information you have, though. I can
>>> understand why. No FS supporter would want to leak this information
>>> out. It really slamms the door shut on the reasons for its creation.
>>
>> I disagree. But, hey, it really does appear to me that any information
>> I give is spun by you in a way that is extremely favorable to Ray.
>> That's your decision to do so.
>
> I wouldn't say that equating Ray to Steele would be any kind of spin in
> Ray's favor. Steele wasn't exactly well liked or supported, if I read
> correctly. But, Steele made more sense than Ray did. Maybe. I don't
> know... how does one rate a lack of sense?
But that wasn't the first time that you were jumping on the soapbox
about "No FS supporter would ever claim what you're doing!" I imagine an
evil cackle afterwards.
>>> Even if those answers seem to be non-existant.
>>
>> Yet the answers are there for those who look. They can even be spun in
>> ways to discredit
fastseduction.com and support Ray, if you ignore
>> other posts and information.
>
> Answers that are non-existant can't be found.
Are they non-existant or do they merely seem to be non-existant? You're
making a leap here that answers that seem to be non-existant must be
non-existant.
I've demonstrated that with a little extra digging, answers can be found.
That doesn't mean I have the answers. But I really get tired of people
who don't do the proper research claiming that answers don't exist.
Answers DO exist, and it merely takes the time to do the research and
come to the conclusions necessary.
> Below I posted several answers I found. Which show the answers I was
> given were, in fact, total lies. Thus, I would say it's only natural I
> would assume other answers.. or non-answers... given by the folks that
> lied... are also lies. Wouldn't you agree?
Are you sure they are deliberate lies? I try to verify things I'm told
on Usenet. ESPECIALLY on Usenet. I don't take someone's word for it.
>>>> I found that post to
alt.config within 3 minutes.
>>>
>>> Which is why I didn't. I didn't check any place other than right here
>>> on ASF. I'm so used to Gordon cross posting that the idea he would
>>> have posted to
alt.config without cross-posting here makes the post
>>> seem almost sneaky, for his style. What I'm trying to say here... Ray
>>> is so well known for his cross-posting.. I would have never expected
>>> anything else from him.
>>
>> Well, you have to remember that at the time, Ray was using Juno's free
>> email-only service (which included free dialup access), and posted to
>> Usenet through mail2news gateways. If you've ever used a mail2news
>> service, then you'll understand why there were so little crossposts.
>
> A what? I used to use BBSs... but about the time Usenet andthe Internet
> were developing, I wasn't using so much anymore. By the time I caught
> back up, Usenet was almost considered old and the Internet was in full
> swing. Big mistake on my part to stop fiddling with computers when I
> did... but I made the mistake that going to college to learn about
> computers would be better than actually using computers.
A mail2news gateway allows people with just email access to use Usenet
forums simply by sending emails through a special server.
>> The idea was not to use a "special" news reader, but to use the same
>> Usenet news reader one was already familiar with. To create a
>> moderated ASF, then meant two options:
>
> Well ther was one post that suggested someone was working on source code
> to modify or create a nwes reader with filtration. Threw me because I
> thought, even back then, filters wer already being used. Maybe they had
> the same problems with ignoring posteers that ASF readers have today.
>
>> 1) Going through the same process that was used to create
>> alt.seduction.outfoxing, which was very tiresome and frustrating for
>> those who chose to be the most active participants in its creation.
>
> I thought it was about moderation. Not creating more unused groups.
Why would going through the process to create
alt.seduction.fast.moderated make "more unused groups?" That's an
assumption on your part. The fact is that the same process and procedure
to create alt.seduction.outfoxing would have to be used for
alt.seduction.fast.moderated, with the exception that it would be even
more complicated because a charter would have to be written and a
heirarchy of moderators (and the procedure for people to become a
moderator) would have to be implemented.
>
>> 2) Bypassing that by setting up a private INN server accessible
>> through standard NNTP protocols. Many schools, ISPs and corporations,
>> before wiki software had come into its own, maintained private groups
>> on its personal INN server along with public groups. These private
>> groups are still part of the whole Usenet universe, because they are
>> accessed through the Networked News Transport Protocol (NNTP). These
>> private groups are still part of Usenet, even though they may not be
>> accessible to the public without registering through the school or
>> private company and using that school's or ISP's server.
>
> But those do post to Usenet, right? I don't believe there is a private
> INN server that distributes to Usenet in regards to seduction though.
> If
> there is a seduction group that a private server is posting to, I don't
> believe I've seen it. If they aren't posting to Usenet and/or getting
> feeds from Usenet.. then they aren't connected to Usenet. they are
> completely seperated from it.
>
>> Netcom, back in it's heyday, had private, moderated newsgroups on its
>> Usenet server, accessible only to its customers by password
>> protection, for the purposes of technical support and general customer
>> service information.
>
> That was propigated through Usenet, so others could read it on other
> Usener servers, right? Otherwise, it would not be connected to or a part
> of Usenet. It would be a private service.
>
>> MIT maintained private, moderated newsgroups on its NNTP server.
>
> But again... that was propigated through Usenet. Otherwise, it would not
> be connected to or a part of Usenet. It would be a private service.
Then most Usenet servers, by your argument, are private services.
Netcom's groups could only be seen by people who had passwords to access
Netcom's Usenet server--i.e. Netcom customers.
MIT's servers are available to people who have password access to MIT's
Usenet servers.
Besides the private forums, the administrators of those NNTP servers
ALSO chose to carry public forums such as alt.seduction.fast ON THE VERY
SAME SERVER.
I do not know of a Usenet server that does not require some form of
registration before you can post on it. I do know several that allow you
read-only status, but if I am correct, every single Usenet server
requires you to create a username and password to access it, and the
groups (private and public) it chooses to carry.
>> Private newsgroups, by their very definition, are not propagated, but
>> that does not mean that they are not part of the Usenet "netnews"
>> universe.
>
> Actually, yes, it does. Usenet, by it's very definition is a publically
> propagated service. That would be akin to saying that the AT&T internal
> network is still a part of the Internet, even though it's completely
> disconnected from the Internet. I belive they even came up with a term
> for this kind of thing... Intranet. And there's even a deal where
> multiple Intranets can be connected, but remain disconnected from the
> Internet.. caled Extranets. But Intranets and Extranets are not part of
> the Internet... even though they use the same protocols and such.
I've already explained this above. Perhaps you can let me know of a
Usenet server that will allow me to post without having to make any sort
of registration ... and free registration still counts as registration.
Before you tell me that anonymous posting bypasses this, I must remind
you that the anonymous remailers themselves are registered to the
specific Usenet servers they post from.
"A lot of the private newsgroups in Usenet are moderated so they allow
only members to post in them. This helps add to the privacy of the
group, by not allowing just anybody to post in the group. The private
newsgroups are not a large collection, but they have a strong following.
A large group of them are Microsoft private groups that carry different
programs and software, and where people can discuss in private.
Some of the private newsgroups are groups that are only created by the
news service provider so that only their customers can read or post in
them." --
http://www.cyberfiber.com/articles/private_newsgroups.htm
>> If there's a public road in a city that's been well-travelled, but is
>> filled with potholes, frequently branched off into dead end roads, and
>> was filled with unsavory characters at every turn, and the citizens
>> build a private road with limited access privileges so that people can
>> get to their destination faster, it only makes sense that the people
>> who could use the private road would do so. A special detour sign
>> marking the road lets people who are about to embark on the public
>> road know that there's a private road which is more comfortable and
>> pleasant to travel.
>
> It only makes sense that since the public road is public, that the public
> road should be repaired. People that want to use a toll road can do so,
> but there is added costs. If they pay those costs, then they can use the
> private toll road. More power to them. But for folks that chose to not
> pay for the toll road, then they can continue to use the public road. And
> there's no reason they should continue to try and get their public road
> repairs just because there is a shiny toll road that is in better
> condition, thanks to the additional revenue stream.
>
> Now, a detour sign is a wonderful idea. A sign that says... "Hey.. here
> is a toll road you can use. Come enjoy the smoother ride on the toll
> road." would be absolutely wonderful. But a sign saying "The road ahead
> is closed to through traffic. The toll road replaces the private road. Do
> not use the public road." Well... it would raise a big stink. It would be
> false and wrong and the highway service would be working their asses off
> to get the signs removed. The public road is still open. It's just not as
> smooth or as expensive as using the toll road.
I don't think anyone has said that alt.seduction.fast doesn't exist on
Usenet anymore. Maybe I missed that post somewhere, since I'm still
posting to it.
> Some folks will want to use the toll road. Others might decide to use the
> public road. Some might even use both. But anyone advertising that the
> toll road is the only road... or that the toll road was built to replace
> the public road... they'd be lying. the toll road is just another option.
>
> Also... on that public road.. if there is more than one toll road to the
> same destination... shoudl there be public signs posted saying that there
> are many many toll roads that can be used. And not just one?
>
>> Now, let's say at the beginning that the road accepted voluntary tolls
>> to help pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the road. Later, they
>> accepted billboard advertising, but as a private road, they maintained
>> control over the advertising.
>
> Okay. Let's also say there are six toll roads all doing that very thing.
> Not just one.
Sure.
>> Is the road part of the system of highways and roads? Yes. Now,
>> imagine that the people who are restricted from that road place a sign
>> underneath the detour sign that says that because the road is private,
>> it is not part of the system of highways and roads, because it did not
>> receive any government money to be built, and that to travel on that
>> road is to betray the intent of the roadway system and fall prey into
>> the hands of the billboard advertisers.
>
> Well... it is, sort of. It's private. There might be additional police
> enforcement. Laws to be followed. Rules enfored. Wher on the public road,
> the rules are equal on the public road... the rules on the private roads
> can vary.
But all roads must meet minimum standards. Even private roads. And
private roads must be subject to the same basic traffic laws regarding
public roads.
They might be more restrictive regarding the height and color of signs,
or they might require that flowers are grown in the median, true. But
those rules are rules of aesthetics. They may also prohibit certain
vehicles from travelling that private road (like mopeds or bicycles) for
safety reasons.
> Also... there is a guarentee the public road will remain open
> for quite some time.
No there isn't. If your ISP decided to cancel alt.seduction.fast from
its PRIVATE Usenet feed, you wouldn't be able to access it from your
ISP. You would have to switch ISPs if you wanted to view it from someone
else's PRIVATE Usenet feed.
Or you would have to sign up with a PRIVATE Usenet service and pay for
Usenet access.
Even the totally free Usenet services require you to sign up with a User
ID and password.
Just like
news.east.earthlink.net
Just like
news.speakeasy.net
Just like
discussion.fastseduction.com
I access Usenet through
news.speakeasy.net. I daresay you cannot access
Usenet through them, unless you are also a Speakeasy customer. There are
certain newsgroups that are for Speakeasy customers only. I can see them
just fine, as well as alt.seduction.fast.
Does that mean my ISP's PRIVATE Usenet server really isn't a part of
Usenet? Or does it mean that the administrator of my server has made a
decision what newsgroups its customers will be allowed to participate in
if they choose to do so?
> The public road can shut down while you are in the
> middle, and you'd be stranded. And there's not a damn thing you can do
> about it.
Besides change ISPs.
> That the risk of a private road. It can be shut down without any notice.
> The laws and rules can be changed without you even knowing it. No one's
> closing the public road without a long debate and a lot of council
> meetings and a very long drawn out battle. The laws aren't going to
> change. And with that in mind... should the signs on the public road that
> mention the toll roads state that the private roads are subject to change
> or closure at any time without advanced notice? Should the folks on the
> public roads be given enough information to make an informed decision?
>
> Now.. the sign saying the raod is not part of the public system that you
> mention. You need to amend it just slightly. Yes.. the toll road is not
> part of the public system. The toll road does not receive public
> fubnding. Yes, you might fall prey to billboard advertisers. But no, it's
> not a betrayal of the roadway system... merely an alternative to it. It's
> not art of the public roadway system. And again... the sign should also
> state that there are many toll roads.. and that the many toll roads have
> private laws and law enforcement and that they are suject to closure at
> any time.
>
>
> Just to expand... let's just say there was a private toll road. And let's
> say that toll road has just changed ownership.. and that a new toll road
> was opened by the previous owner. Should that be something that gets
> mentioned on the public roadway? That there is a new toll road. And that
> the other toll road has changed management? Why would folks get all
> pissed off in the idea of mentioning other toll roads? Why would folks
> try to say that one toll road was built specifically as the one and only
> alternative to the public road.. when there are many toll roads that are
> just as clean and smooth as the others?
Well, have there been people who have promoted other forums that are
just as useful as
fastseduction.com?
I haven't seen those posts.
And even then, the market would definitely have its way, wouldn't it?
>>> Up above, you said it was Ray that cried foul and asked From to
>>> remove his posts from the archive. But Form actually said that he was
>>> "purposefully censoring" Ray. No big deal.. but it was Form that cut
>>> Ray out.. not Ray that asked to be cut out.
>>
>> Remember that Ray has removed a number of articles from the archives,
>> which colors the viewpoint of someone looking at it from today's
>> perspective.
>
> No no... It wasn't Ray. Ray removed them form Google. Fromhandle removed
> the from FS.
Precisely. Ray has removed a number of articles from Google, which
colors the viewpoint of someone looking at it from today's perspective.
One might get the impression that Ray didn't ask for Jay to remove any
information.
The answering machine message is out there, I'm sure. Maybe someone has
a link to it that I don't have. I have the message archived somewhere,
but I'd have to locate it.
> That's what he claimed, anyways. Ray didn't ask. Form did
> it. He even called it "purposefully censoring". There's not really any
> coloring to that, is there? That's not what you mean by spin, is it? Ray
> did not ask to be removed from FS... he was "purposefully censored".
> Wouldn't it be just as much spin to say that it was Ray that was asking
> to be removed from FS as it would be to say that Ray's posts not being
> present are a reason that he might hope for a different perspective?
>
> And what's this really got to do with Ray, anyways? After al, the posts
> show the site wasn't created aout or because of Ray. It was to archive
> ASF and provide a place where more than just SS could be discussed. And
> since ASF is not a place that can have more than just SS discussions...
> wouldn't it be just as spin to say that FS is the replacement for ASF as
> to say that FS is the replacement for ASF? Spin can go two ways...
Especially when you say the same thing twice. I think you need to get
some sleep.
>
> The solution to spin is anti-spin. Opposing spin in the opposite
> direction.
>
>> The infamous "you can do what you want with this message" telephone
>> answering machine message clearly indicates that Ray asked to be
>> removed. But Ray didn't expect that all of his messages would be
>> removed from the archive. However, it was the easiest solution and
>> wouldn't leave any doors open that "defamatory material" regarding Ray
>> was in the archive on Jay's site.
>
> I haven't read an answering machine message. Might be hard to do, since
> answering machines usually don't teletype. Formhandle's post clearly
> shows, more than an answering machine message, that Formhandle
> "purposefully censored" Ray. Form says it where it can be seen. It's in
> the acrhives. The answering machine thing... it could be archived.. but I
> didn't see any mention of it in Form's post. It makes it appear that Form
> did it to piss Ray off. I think Form even says that, also.
>
> What's that spin thing about, again? It does work in two directions,
> doesn't it? Is the counter to a Usenet archived posting now an answering
> machine message? I wouldn't think so. now, if you thing that this is
> somehow somethign that "works to Ray's favor"... feel free. To me, it's
> just a simple fact. Form made a comment about censoring Ray from FS. I
> didn't see any post from Ray asking to be censored from FS at or about
> that time.
Ray called Jay and, in the answering machine message, threatened him
with legal action if he didn't remove "defamatory material" from his
archive. In that message, Ray said, "You can do what you want with this
message," so it was posted up on the internet for a while, much to Ray's
consternation.
Here's a transcript of that message:
[beep]
Hi, if this is Formhandle, or the person who runs the
fastseduction.com
website, this message is for you. This is Ray Gordon calling. Uh, your
archive contains a number of anonymous, defamatory remarks about me, and
while it may be immune under section 230 from civil action, um, I
believe that it is not immune under criminal libel statues due to the
anonymous nature of the, uh, postings? So, um, if you... If I find
any... defamatory remarks about me in your archive, I intend to report
them to the police as a criminal violation of Pennsylvania Statute T.S.
18, section 4414. Um... You can do what you want with this message, but
I just wanted to let you know I'm, I'm in the process of, uh,
eliminating any sources of defamatory material regarding me. So, um,
that's the purpose of this message, do whatever you need to do, and so
will I. Thank you very much. I'm calling on Tuesday, at three, I'm
sorry---
[beep]
MESSAGE ENDS
>>> Yep. Hell... as I recall.. the Grand Dame (ASF) even got mentioned in
>>> some obscure book by a NY Post writer about how to treat seduction
>>> like a game. Or some such stuff. Every once in a great while, some
>>> new guy writes here about how he read the book, saw the newsgroup
>>> mentioned, and it inspired him to look here.
>>>
>>> Where he is promptly informed he should be going to that web forum
>>> site we were just discussing.
>>
>> And informed by another poster that the NNTP based private usenet
>> server that is the engine behind the web interface
>> (
fastseduction.com's usenet server would still work fine even without
>> the web interface, so it's not technically a web forum anymore--be
>> sure you have your facts straight) is run by a private company and
>> accepts advertising.
>
> So. That's not a false statement, is it?
Is the web interface REQUIRED to use
fastseduction.com? No, it isn't. So
calling it just a "web forum" automatically places a false restriction
on it.
> So why should the person get
> such information? Is there a reason that information should not be
> broadcast on a public foum in the clear? A reason to hide that
> information? Now... again... though... Why shouldn't that person ALSO
> be informed that there are MANY other forums out there he can chose from?
Hey, so why don't you do just that? Why not inform others about the many
other forums out there. I'm sure you must know all of them. So go ahead.
Inform them. What in blue tarnation is stopping you? Does Jay have a gun
to your head threatening to pull the trigger if you so much as mention
another site other than his?
Instead of just complaining about what you perceive as a problem, you
could be part of what you perceive to be the solution.
>> Then people are able to make up their own minds whether to go or stay.
>
> But not really. A person that is not informed is not making an informed
> decision. Again then.. why not.. on that public road.. .why not give them
> ALL the information? Why not let them have the ability to make an
> INFORMED decision... as opposed to being told... falsely.. that there is
> only one alternative for them to pick from?
So you really do believe people are sheep. Gee thanks. And here I was,
thinking I had a brain that I could use.
Oh wait, I'm posting to Usenet ... never mind.
