View Single Post
  #5   Report Post  
Old February 1st 07, 10:13 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
Dee Flint Dee Flint is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 618
Default Schlecks' Schlock!


"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
Michael Coslo ) writes:

The point is as I see it, that when we place what we see and read into
the hands of others, we might not see what we want to see. I am
perfectly happy to use Xnews to get rid of the fringe elements.

And at what level do we censor. And let us mince no words, a post that
does not get past the moderator is censored.

No, I wouldn't call it censorship. After all, they have other outlets
to spout off. If some outside force put a clamp on their speaking, that
would be censorship.

An example is that you have decided to filter out posts from Len
Anderson. On the other hand, I enjoy reading his posts, even though I
don't always agree with them, and sometimes the arguments with Jim and
Dave can get a little circular. (from all posters)

I really hate to admit this, but I have been paying attention since this
issue of a moderated newsgroup came up. And while there are some obvious
spewers here, I now see it's not just their fault.

There really is too much animosity between some posters, so everything
turns into that animosity, rather than discussing the specific issue
at hand.

The people behind the proposed moderated newsgroup might start with
talking to some of the sensible ones, convincing them to stop dredging
up the past of regular posters here. Or convince them that making a
single
statement, and walking away from that thread says a lot more than keeping
the thread going for weeks and arguing over small points (especially when
it's
often a rehash of the last long thread).

I talk about "sensible posters" because while it may reflect my bias,
I do think some are more likely to see the damage they are doing to the
newsgroup than others. And if "one side" can stop it, then that doesn't
leave much fuel for "the other side".

The animosity in this (well these, since .misc tends to be in tandem
with this newsgroup for many posts) newsgroup is actually reflected in
the discussion of this proposed moderated newsgroup. I take offence
to what really appears to be an "outsider" wanting to bring a moderated
newsgroup and then thinks that's reason to extend it to the whole
hierarchy.
Yet the hostility here is such that everything has become binary, either
you're for or against something, and if you sound like your own "the other
side" that places you there even if you're trying to make a third point
or build common ground.

In looking at this situation more closely, again since the RFD came down,
realistically the proponent has been after a moderated newsgroup for a
long
time. The "straw vote" some years back, and various comments about the
decline of usenet. Even, as a recent post reminds me, the email to
new posters about the hierarchy. I've been around so long that I'd
completely forgotten about that and likely I'm not the only one. Yet,
where is his presence? I'm not even talking about being part of the
"community" of posters, I'm talking about coming to the hierarchy as a
whole, trying to unite it in the first place rather than dealing with two
of the newsgroups and then when the proposed name is wrong, seeing that as
an opportunity to get all the topics into this one moderated newsgroup.

There is a sizeable difference between posting a formal RFD, and actually
being a real person and saying something like "we do have a problem here,
how can we fix it", because then it's some guy like a neighbor. Instead
the proponent has come with an answer that hasn't necessarily been seen
as the answer. I'm not arguing that there is a problem in .misc and
.policy
(and the rest of the hierarchy when it spills over), and even not arguing
that something shouldn't be done about it, I'm not convinced enough
preliminary work has been done to show that a moderated newsgroup is
the only solution.

There used to be a guide to the hierarchy, well it's still on the web
and I'm pretty sure it was periodically posted to the newsgroups. That
ought to be resurrected as a prelude to talk of a moderated newsgroup.
Because then it's addressing the hierarchy as a whole, rather than the
nonsense of posting the RFD to .policy and .misc and then turning the
discussion to "well maybe we should make it a moderated newsgroup for
all the hierarchy". The 2nd RFD broadened the posting, yet it still
didn't deal with the whole hierarchy (or the notion that if .antennas
and .dx have talked about moderated versions in the past, it may be
because the feud here spills over there, something that again might
be limited by one side refusing to argue with the other).

Then there's the issue of there being moderated "newsgroups" already.
All that web-based stuff. Lots of people have moved there, we see it
as the number of posts drop. Though I'm not completely convinced it's
an issue of moderation, they may have found they prefer the web based
areas, and so they left as soon as they were developed. So the intent
of the proposed moderated newsgroup, that it will bring back posters,
may turn out to be something that does't happen.

Michael VE2BVW


Let's treat it with a free market approach. Set it up and let it stand or
fall on its own.

Dee, N8UZE