"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote in message
...

snip

This is a Request for Discussion (RFD) to create a new moderated
discussion newsgroup for amateur radio on Usenet.

snip

I read the request and I'm not sure how to respond. Yes, I would like to
see a NG that had the politics and flames flushed out of it by a "duty
roster" of moderators. However, I'm bothered that it is proposed to
*supplement*, not *replace* the other newsgroup. How could I be sure that
some (valid) posters weren't behind in the old, abuse-filled group, toughing
it out???

What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

If my dilemma is too obvious and I shouldn't have bothered stating it, I'm
sorry.

73,
KD6VKW

"Sal M. Onella" wrote:

What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check
*two* newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check
one, that's unfortunately not an improvement.

Unsubscribe from the old newsgroups. End of problem.

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
...

"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote in message
...

snip

This is a Request for Discussion (RFD) to create a new moderated
discussion newsgroup for amateur radio on Usenet.

snip

I read the request and I'm not sure how to respond. Yes, I would like to
see a NG that had the politics and flames flushed out of it by a "duty
roster" of moderators. However, I'm bothered that it is proposed to
*supplement*, not *replace* the other newsgroup. How could I be sure that
some (valid) posters weren't behind in the old, abuse-filled group,
toughing
it out???

What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

If my dilemma is too obvious and I shouldn't have bothered stating it, I'm
sorry.

73,
KD6VKW

Leave the old group for those who want to wallow in the problems.

The simple solution for most of us will be to simply ignore or even delete
the other groups.

a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one,
that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

If my dilemma is too obvious and I shouldn't have bothered stating it,
I'm
sorry.

73,
KD6VKW

Leave the old group for those who want to wallow in the problems.

The simple solution for most of us will be to simply ignore or even delete
the other groups.

Well said, Dee. And what a simple solution it is.

Sal M. Onella wrote:
What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

Ideally, we will wind up with the wheat in one
newsgroup and the chaff in the other. Participants
will use their free will to decide when (if ever)
to make that "clean break".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jan 26, 10:48 pm, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote in ...

snip

This is a Request for Discussion (RFD) to create a new moderated
discussion newsgroup for amateur radio on Usenet.

snip

I read the request and I'm not sure how to respond. Yes, I would like to
see a NG that had the politics and flames flushed out of it by a "duty
roster" of moderators. However, I'm bothered that it is proposed to
*supplement*, not *replace* the other newsgroup. How could I be sure that
some (valid) posters weren't behind in the old, abuse-filled group, toughing
it out???

What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

If my dilemma is too obvious and I shouldn't have bothered stating it, I'm
sorry.

73,
KD6VKW


You'll *NEVER* see me in a moderated group. Not saying that you would
be missing much, but there ya go... I deal with the hecklers,
goofballs, and
wanna be porn stars by not reading their posts. Fairly simple really.
MK

In article .com,
wrote:

You'll *NEVER* see me in a moderated group. Not saying that you would
be missing much, but there ya go... I deal with the hecklers,
goofballs, and
wanna be porn stars by not reading their posts. Fairly simple really.

Don't say never. You just posted to a moderated group.

Like you I can ignore and kill file, but some groups are so infested
that it is not enough because the good people give it up and leave. So
there is nothing left to read after you are done ignoring.

--
Charles

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:27:11 CST, wrote:

On Jan 26, 10:48 pm, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
"Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote in ...

snip

This is a Request for Discussion (RFD) to create a new moderated
discussion newsgroup for amateur radio on Usenet.

snip

I read the request and I'm not sure how to respond. Yes, I would like to
see a NG that had the politics and flames flushed out of it by a "duty
roster" of moderators. However, I'm bothered that it is proposed to
*supplement*, not *replace* the other newsgroup. How could I be sure that
some (valid) posters weren't behind in the old, abuse-filled group, toughing
it out???

Most would stay with the un moderated group. History has shown that.


What I'm saying is that I want a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

I agree.


If my dilemma is too obvious and I shouldn't have bothered stating it, I'm
sorry.

73,
KD6VKW


You'll *NEVER* see me in a moderated group. Not saying that you would

I have used moderated news groups and found in general they are a
waste of time. They end up reflecting the moderators view points and
opposition is stifled. So I avoid them. I see this is cross posted to
a moderated group to which I do not belong.


be missing much, but there ya go... I deal with the hecklers,
goofballs, and
wanna be porn stars by not reading their posts. Fairly simple really.

Which is the self governing mechanism of most news groups.

I see the proposed rec.radio.amateur.moderated as a waste of time and
resources of those who handle such matters. So I would say that in the
long run we would be better off with one un moderated group than an un
moderated group along with a moderated one which dilutes the pool.
Just kill file the posters and threads you don't want to read and let
life go on a lot simpler with more people exposed to the knowledge
that would otherwise be diluted by spreading it into another group.

Me? I would not bother subscribing to a moderated group.
MK
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

FWIW, I have found moderated groups to be not very useful unless they are
for a very narrowly defined topic. I avoid them when possible.

Is there a way to have a newsgroup server reject all cross-posted messages?
The cross posting to multiple news groups seems to be the source of much of
the garbage. I suspect the whole newsgroup concept would be improved if
cross posting were automatically eliminated. (I notice this message is
being cross posted !)

Bill - W2WO

In article , Bill Ogden
wrote:
FWIW, I have found moderated groups to be not very useful unless they
are for a very narrowly defined topic. I avoid them when possible.

Must admit that I don't often get involved in moderated groups either.
news.groups.moderated has had more posts from me than any other, and I've
only posted there twice.

Is there a way to have a newsgroup server reject all cross-posted
messages? The cross posting to multiple news groups seems to be the
source of much of the garbage. I suspect the whole newsgroup concept
would be improved if cross posting were automatically eliminated. (I
notice this message is being cross posted !)

Couldn't say for certain, but some news clients will filter out
crosspostings on download. The one I use, for example, does it.

--
//\ // Chika miyukiatcrashnetorguk
// \// "Word to the wise guy; be nice or be dog food!"

.... NetWare does not have bugs, it has "Undocumented enhancements"