John Macnab wrote in
message ...
Your intentions are good, it's just very difficult to do unless the group(s)
are strictly moderated. A mistake is one thing, but what about those that
INTENTIONALLY spam the newsgroups? What do you suggest about those?

Surely this is less of a "problem" than continual posting about American
football and politics, or military history, or...
Not much to be done, I suspect.

Dear Mr Macnab,

If the chess newsgroups were 'strictly moderated', then far fewer posts should
be allowed to be written here, and some trolls should not be permitted to write
here at all.

For the record, some of my favourite posts have been OT or
misguidedly cross-posted

Thanks for having expressed your appreciation of at least one of my OT posts.

I would submit that the ordinary daily events of chess news tend not to be a
sufficiently fertile field for many writers to plough with great interest.
Consequently, some writers practise trolling or aim to incite 'flame wars'.
In my opinion, a reasonable tolerance of some declared off-topic posts is
preferable to encouraging more trolling or provoking more 'flame wars'.

If one can accept that chess newsgroups represent a 'virtual' chess club, then
one can accept that each chess newgroup represents a room of that chess club.
In my opinion, rec.games.chess.*misc* is the place for any general discussions
(which need not always be strictly about chess) that should not be confined
strictly to any of the other chess newsgroups. There presumably always will
be some readers who would take no interest in any particular discussion, yet
to what extent should they have the right to deprive all other persons from
participating in that discussion? It seems to me that should depend on the
specific circumstances and merits of the discussion.

--Nick

"sandirhodes" wrote in message
news:7bmQb.13141$zy3.4010@okepread01...
"John Macnab" wrote
Surely this is less of a "problem" than continual posting about
American football ...

Well, since you brought it up, I guess I'll mention the Eagles ...
oh, wait! LOL!!

Dear Mr Campbell,

What's so funny about what happened to the Philadelphia Eagles? :-)
Perhaps you should consider posting more often about Manchester United? :-)

--Nick

"Nick" wrote
Dear Mr Campbell,

What's so funny about what happened to the Philadelphia Eagles? :-)
Perhaps you should consider posting more often about Manchester United? :-)

--Nick

Although I was brought up with American football, rather than the football that the rest of the world plays, I have attempted to be
interested in what we call 'soccer,' but never really got into it. To be honest, I would probably rather watch Australian Rules
Football than either of the other versions, but I haven't seen it offered here for many years.

To consider posting about Manchester United would be unwise, as I have absolutely no knowledge of the team, its league, or any
controversies that may be associated with it (although curiosity did force me to look up the nickname -- Reds, yes?). In fact, my
experience with professional football in the USA is rather limited as well, although seeing that the Eagles lost to an 'underdog'
was fun. I tend to gravitate towards the college game, but only because we have a team that seems to be one of the best each
season.

REC

Harold Buck wrote in message ...
In article ,
Dave Littell wrote:

Harold Buck wrote:
diatribe deleted

What do you think?


I think Sam Sloan is a hell of a lot more irritating than a few
crossposts.


He doesn't irritate me so much, because I killfiled him a LONG time ago
and now only see his posts when someone is foolish enough to reply to
them.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

______________________________
The killfile is ineffective as to Sam Sloan because he posts very
little to which someone does not respond.

KidDon

In article ,
(KidDon) wrote:

The killfile is ineffective as to Sam Sloan because he posts very
little to which someone does not respond.



Yeah, but I don't mind posts that say, "Sam, you're a moron," as much as
I mind Sam's posts!

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

"sandirhodes" wrote in message
news:bj%Qb.14553$zy3.5553@okepread01...
Nick wrote:
What's so funny about what happened to the Philadelphia Eagles? :-)
Perhaps you should consider posting more often about Manchester United? :-)

(snipped)
To consider posting about Manchester United would be unwise, as I have
absolutely no knowledge of the team, its league, or any controversies that
may be associated with it...

Dear Mr Campbell,

I was joking about John Macnab's specific reference to 'American football'.

I mentioned Manchester United only because it's the most famous football club
in the English Premier League and one of the most famous football clubs in the
world. (David Beckham, a former player for it, is one of the most famous
sportsmen in the world.) So I supposed that it's more likely that you could
have heard of Manchester United than of another football club.

Your self-restraint in not writing on subjects about which you are ignorant
is a commendable example to us all. :-)

--Nick

Why do you even bother??? Don't you have anything better to do with your
time?


"Harold Buck" wrote in message
...
There are obviously many people on these groups who are clueless about
the purpose of the groups. The fundamental principle is that just
because it has something to do with chess DOES NOT mean that it should
be posted to every group that has to do with chess because "someone
there might be interested." Someone on these groups might be interested
in my chicken wings recipe, but that doesn't mean it's right to post it
here.

People who want to read about chess computing, but who don't care about
politics or analysis or other stuff, should be able to go to
rec.games.chess.computers and see only on-topic posts. Similar
statements apply to the other groups.

I'm not naiive enough to believe that this post is going to stop the
people who insist on posting to every chess group. But what if--every
time we notice it happening--we reply to the message, trim the groups
it's posted to appropriately, and then include the message "CROSSPOST
LIST TRIMMED" at the top?

This would have the negative effect of slightly increasing the noise on
the non-trimmed groups. However, if people followed up, it would only go
to the proper groups, cutting down noise after that.

I must admit that I personally don't always remember to check the
crosspost list before I reply. However, seeing this message would get me
in the habit of looking more often.

What do you think?

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

"Nick" wrote
Your self-restraint in not writing on subjects about which you are ignorant
is a commendable example to us all. :-)

Thanks.

While we're at a lull, here, I have a question for you. I ask you, only because you seem to be from Great Britain, and may know the
answer, as well as some insight.

I saw an American movie the other day that used a phrase it claimed to be popular in the latter 19th century in GB ("merry Andrew").
I just wondered if it is true that it was in use at that time, and if so, if it is still in use today. I believe the connotation
was inflammatory, if not derogatory, but I am not sure. Does this sound at all familiar?

Thanks in advance,

REC

[ Groups trimmed to rec.games.chess.misc. ]

sandirhodes wrote:
I saw an American movie the other day that used a phrase it claimed to
be popular in the latter 19th century in GB ("merry Andrew").

I just wondered if it is true that it was in use at that time, and if
so, if it is still in use today.

The OED defines a merry-andrew or merry-Andrew as being `one who
entertains people by means of antics and buffoonery; a clown; properly (in
early use), a montebank's assistant.' It gives citations ranging from
Dryden in the late C17 through to the late C19th. There are quite a few
derivatives (merry-andrew as a verb, merry-andrewize, merry-andrewism)
cited from the mid-to-late C19th which suggests that the word may have
been popular around that time.

There are no C20th citations and I've never heard the word in use.


I believe the connotation was inflammatory, if not derogatory, but I
am not sure.

Doesn't seem to be anything more than slightly derogatory to me. The
etymology is entirely unclear, though an Andrew was once a valet or
gentleman's servant.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Laptop Chainsaw (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a lethal weapon that you can put
on your lap but it's invigorating!

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:06:25 -0600, "sandirhodes"
wrote:

"Nick" wrote
Your self-restraint in not writing on subjects about which you are ignorant
is a commendable example to us all. :-)

I saw an American movie the other day that used a phrase it claimed to be popular in the latter 19th century in GB ("merry Andrew").
I just wondered if it is true that it was in use at that time, and if so, if it is still in use today.

It's still used. Example: When Nick needs reinforcement, his Merry
Andrew, Trollsby, often provides a diversion.