Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Spike writes
On 02/12/14 15:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Jerry Stuckle
writes
On 12/2/2014 10:07 AM, Spike wrote:

*For now* the moderators are different. but with a freemason-type
succession policy nothing can be guaranteed.

More unfounded conjecture.

If the moderation policies out to be unsatisfactory, there are remedies
- and if all else fails, simply pretend that the moderated NG doesn't
exist - which is what I already do with the 98,299 NGs out there, but I
don't subscribe to.

Wrong argument, Ian. We're talking about the succession, not about the
moderation policies

So you are objecting to the moderators, and their heirs and successors,
regardless of their actual moderation policies?

He's objecting to anything and everything he can think of, regardless of
whether it makes sense or not. Desperate times, desperate measures. There's
a very good chance that the moderated group will pass the vote, you see.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone