Nate Bargmann wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:11:09 -0600, Mike Coslo wrote:

Not in question. Richard might agree with me that his rejected post was
just a sneak preview.

Of what, exactly? So a new group is planned that will be moderated. Big
deal. The other groups are still wide open for anyone to post. I don't
see the reason for alarm.

Lets take your postings here, Nate.

Richard and myself were making comments on his rejected post, and
finding some humor in the whole process. Moderation has a certain
inherent humor.

You apparently believe that our posts are somehow sour grapes, or simple
bitterness. Perhaps if this were a moderated group, and you were the
moderator, you would censor our posts.

No, Nate, what I find incredibly amusing might be displayed for all by
the simple task of googling up rrap for the last couple years. What
prompted the censored newgsroup (no Newspeak here, my good man!) is that
filth. Which eventually spread over all the rra groups.

Fast forward to the present, and we see an example of comparative
posting. Richards erudite, if sometimes acerbic, but always entertaining
posts are apparently held in the same contempt as the filth spewed by a
group of challenged folk.

And that is humor in the vein of "Look out what you ask for - you just
might get it".

I could care less about the moderated group. I suspect that after an
initial flurry of interest, many users will drift away.

I take care of my own self in the newsgroups, thankyouverymuch. I
wonder about people who have to have a censor take care of them. I find
them funny too.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -