On Feb 1, 1:10�pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message

...





a gazillion newsgroups trimmed to rrap

Dee Flint wrote:

OK John, clean up this newsgroup so I don't have to add filters on an
almost daily basis to eliminate the constant deluge of sex posts, vulgar
posts, etc.

Hi Dee,

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.

I agree that is true. *Yet I see no way to get people to censor themselves.
And yes I can and have added my own filters with no problems. *However this
only makes the filth invisible, it doesn't do a thing to clean it up. *The
real problem is that it spreads. *If person X gets away with it, then person
Y thinks its OK too. *Eavesdrop on a bunch of today's middle school kids and
you'll really get an earful. *That type of behavior gets carried over into
adult life. *Work places now have to have training to let their employees
know it is NOT ok to act this way in the workplace.

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)

But I can't imagine the newsgroup without him. Or Jim, or Dave.

All that I would do would be to return them to the writer and tell him to
delete the name calling and when resubmitted would let them on through. *His
tendency to go off-topic and write long-winded diatriabes doesn't bother me.
I like lively debates and disagreements so long as civility is maintained,
name calling is excluded and ad hominem attacks are not allowed. *His
general writing style is quite good.

"Return them to the writer?" Are you presuming you are a
publication editor now?!? I've been on both sides of an
editor's desk. This is NOT some publication that will appear
three to four months after "acceptance."

Try on the old trite phrase, "If you can't stand the heat, get out
of the kitchen." Remember also that you are NOT the
supreme judge of What Should Be.

"Filtering out" all who do not agree with you is simply the old
self-righteous ostrich syndrome. It really means that you
cannot stand the opinions of your 'opponents' and opposite
viewpoints are not desired. When you try to say you "like
debate" that is just hypocritical lip-service.

What would you do as a censor-moderator to his posts? How about the posts
where two people disagree, and one notes that he thinks the other is being
unrealistic? Obtuse? Stupid? Where is the line?

Telling a person that they are acting stupid is quite different than telling
them they are stupid. *However my opinion is telling them they are acting
stupid is ok, telling them the are stupid is marginal, while name calling is
unacceptable (Nun of the Above, Herr Oberst, and so on).

If someone acts as arrogant as some have in here they
should welcome the "title" they have worked so hard for.
If another wants to ruler-spank what he/she thinks are
naughty children then they should not be upset when the
"children" turn out to be unfriendly to them.

I find the same posts offensive that you do, with the exception of Len's.
But I really prefer to make my own choices instead of have someone else
make them for me.

Well that's the nice thing about keeping the old group in addition to
creating a new one. *A person can choose where to go and when to go there.
The creation of a moderated group gives us the freedon to have it both ways
and enhances our choices.

There can be safety and security among a group of like-minded.
All can sit around and give each other high-fives for being so
"brilliant, brave, strong, wise, etc., etc., etc." In there you
can
severely criticize all who DARE oppose such "brilliant, brave,
strong, wise et-ceteras" in complete, but false, presumption
that you rule. Self-deception in addition to self-righteousness.

Notice that the ones objecting most strenuously are the ones that make a
habit of unpleasant behavior. *It seems to me that they are afraid they will
lose their targets.

"Targets" are a penny a dozen (the price is down due to a glut
on the market). They grow and flourish everywhere.

LA