You gentlemen do understand that the moderators of news.groups.proposals
are not the same people proposing the creation of
rec.radio.amateur.moderated and moderating it?

The creation of a moderated group does not threaten the existence of the
current rra* hierarchy either. The current groups will continue on just
as they are.

- Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

Nate Bargmann wrote in news:MO-
:

You gentlemen do understand that the moderators of news.groups.proposals
are not the same people proposing the creation of
rec.radio.amateur.moderated and moderating it?

Quite aware. They are examples of moderators however.


The creation of a moderated group does not threaten the existence of the
current rra* hierarchy either. The current groups will continue on just
as they are.

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

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

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.

- Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:38:15 -0600, 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.

Hi Nate,

You confuse our amusement of impotent autocracy with alarm? Or are
you speaking of the very little effort required to alarm the school
hall monitors?

I visited the group to observe the response to my first reaction.
Basically their position is that taking responsibility for yourself
with your own killfile management is a task too great for the mass of
humanity. In clearer terms, the moderators have a very low opinion of
those they "protect." The veneer of respectability flaked off the
surface quite quickly.

The sand-bagged "proposal" comes with only one acceptable solution,
the justification for their thread of 120-odd follow-on responses
(white noise chatter) doesn't change that one iota. It was obvious my
solution's rejection was waiting in the wings like a coup de gras.

[Actually it is coup de grâce, pronounced grahs. Most americans
pronounce gras as grah. The difference is coup de grâce is the
killing blow for the grace of a quick death. A coup de gras is a blow
of fat - certainly more accurately rendered there (pun intended). If
I am to merit expulsion for rhetorically tweaking a nose, I may as
well murder them with panache.]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:38:15 -0600, 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.

Hi Nate,

You confuse our amusement of impotent autocracy with alarm? Or are
you speaking of the very little effort required to alarm the school
hall monitors?

I visited the group to observe the response to my first reaction.
Basically their position is that taking responsibility for yourself
with your own killfile management is a task too great for the mass of
humanity. In clearer terms, the moderators have a very low opinion of
those they "protect." The veneer of respectability flaked off the
surface quite quickly.

It's apparently hard to download a copy of a free newsreader and install
it, RTFM, and set up the newsgroups to be as sanitary as I like. 4
keystrokes, and I never have to see a person's posts again.

The sand-bagged "proposal" comes with only one acceptable solution,
the justification for their thread of 120-odd follow-on responses
(white noise chatter) doesn't change that one iota. It was obvious my
solution's rejection was waiting in the wings like a coup de gras.

I wonder if anyone ever considered that maybe the censored group was
just an extension of the infighting? The ultimate gigging, the neener,
neener, neener to the whackies?


[Actually it is coup de grâce, pronounced grahs. Most americans
pronounce gras as grah. The difference is coup de grâce is the
killing blow for the grace of a quick death. A coup de gras is a blow
of fat - certainly more accurately rendered there (pun intended).

Don't pour water on that bacon fire, kids!


If
I am to merit expulsion for rhetorically tweaking a nose, I may as
well murder them with panache.]

Always good with maple syrup.... psst, Richard, you spelled pancakes
wrong ....

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:04:50 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:

If
I am to merit expulsion for rhetorically tweaking a nose, I may as
well murder them with panache.]

Always good with maple syrup.... psst, Richard, you spelled pancakes
wrong ....

Ah Mike! C'est un bon mot.

"Nate Bargmann" wrote in message
...
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.

- Nate

The reason for their alarm is they know people will go to the Moderated
group to get away from their
crap they are posting, thus they then wont have anyone left to hear their
drivel. The self imposed
importance thus will go away and they will be once again left to what they
really are.

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:47:20 GMT, "R. Scott"
wrote:

The reason for their alarm is they know people will go to the Moderated
group to get away from their
crap they are posting, thus they then wont have anyone left to hear their
drivel. The self imposed
importance thus will go away and they will be once again left to what they
really are.

Two amazing things about this:
1. It's taken 25 years to figure it out;
2. It hasn't happened yet;
3. They have to ask permission to see if it sounds like a good idea?

This is second in competency only to the Department of Homeland
Security: "All Katrina victims, assemble for your safety at the Sport
Coliseum. Busses, food, and water will arrive someday. Excuse the
bathrooms that are out of order and use the hallway."

Actually I encourage the development of a moderated group, they
deserve it. I can imagine some of our erstwhile visitors moving there
to author 1000 one entry threads. It'll be like a virtual hair trap
in the tub.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:47:20 GMT, "R. Scott"
wrote:

The reason for their alarm is they know people will go to the Moderated
group to get away from their
crap they are posting, thus they then wont have anyone left to hear their
drivel. The self imposed
importance thus will go away and they will be once again left to what they
really are.

Two amazing things about this:
1. It's taken 25 years to figure it out;
2. It hasn't happened yet;
3. They have to ask permission to see if it sounds like a good idea?

This is second in competency only to the Department of Homeland
Security: "All Katrina victims, assemble for your safety at the Sport
Coliseum. Busses, food, and water will arrive someday. Excuse the
bathrooms that are out of order and use the hallway."

Actually I encourage the development of a moderated group, they
deserve it. I can imagine some of our erstwhile visitors moving there
to author 1000 one entry threads. It'll be like a virtual hair trap
in the tub.


Your "one post thread" statement got me to wondering. If the moderator
doesn't like any of the answers to a question, do they "moderate" the
answers? (I'd use censor, but I fear I may have been abusive of the more
delicate readers here) Is the moderator duty bound to m-moderate
incorrect answers?

Is there any legal responsibility in all this? Which is to say would
the cen... dammit! Moderator have any responsibility to block our posts
about charging up capacitors in school, and shocking people with them?
Are they leaving themselves open to litigation?

Would posts about Isotron Antennas be allowed??

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:
Is the moderator duty bound to m-moderate incorrect answers?

One way to handle such is the same way as "editor's
note" is handled in technical publications.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com