On Feb 1, 7:06�pm, wrote:
On Feb 1, 4:10 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message

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.

I censor my self daily, yet many of you'se guys still don't like what
I say. *Maybe it's just the message.

Nah. The recipients just act like the (fictitious)
Colonel Jessup, blurting out "They can't handle
the truth!" as their excuse.

Those who watched the film "A Few Good Men"
seem to have forgotten that the Colonel was
arrested in court and taken out under guard.

No sweat...they can't see their own parallel
since they can't fathom drawing two lines
in the same direction from anything said
against their self-righteous opinions.
shrug

LA

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

Mike Coslo wrote:
If I have an idea, and I'm not allowed to post it, or
if I have a reply to anoters post that is simply a bit off the topic, as
converstations between friends sometimes veer from an original subject,
then call it what we will, of we're not allowed to say it - it is
censored. That is what a moderator does.

Take a look at the dictionary definition of "censor".
If the government were involved, it would definitely
be censorship. But a group of ordinary citizens getting
together and abiding by a set of rules probably doesn't
meet the definition, IMO. The moderators of QRZ.COM
sometimes delete a posting they find objectionable.
That's not censorship, that's just the golden rule -
The guys with the gold make the rules. :-)
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
I censor my self daily, ...

Would you mind quoting the dictionary definition
of "censor" that you are using above?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
If I have an idea, and I'm not allowed to post it, or if I have a
reply to anoters post that is simply a bit off the topic, as
converstations between friends sometimes veer from an original
subject, then call it what we will, of we're not allowed to say it -
it is censored. That is what a moderator does.

Take a look at the dictionary definition of "censor".
If the government were involved, it would definitely
be censorship. But a group of ordinary citizens getting
together and abiding by a set of rules probably doesn't
meet the definition, IMO. The moderators of QRZ.COM
sometimes delete a posting they find objectionable.
That's not censorship, that's just the golden rule -
The guys with the gold make the rules. :-)

Yep. Nobody has an innate right to post to a newsgroup. Nobody has a
right to do or say anything he or she wants about an ISP either. Roger
Wiseman found that out the hardway when he made his comments about a
woman who runs a local ISP. His access was yanked in a heartbeat.

There are numerous other moderated newsgroups. None of them seem to
have a problem because the socially handicapped are simply not permitted
to post to them. One has no more right to post to those groups than a
person has a right to appear on CNN to make a statement.

Anyone may go outside his house, stand on the walk and expound on his
views for hours at a time. No one is forced to listen.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

Yep. Nobody has an innate right to post to a newsgroup.

Or, as we summarized in our Constitutional Law class in college:

"Your right to free speech does not mean you're entitled to a pulpit".

73
kh6hz

"KH6HZ" wrote in news:I4ywh.62168$oA1.29390
@newsfe19.lga:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

it is censored. That is what a moderator does.

No, you're not censored.

You could post to another USENET forum.
You could email your idea individually to people.
You could form another forum.
You could set up a web site dedicated to your idea.

Or a person in say Cuba could swim across the ocean and arrive in
America, and then say what he had to say.

Explain the situation if I were to be reading the group, then reply to
the group, and the "Moderator" decides that I strayed a bit too far off
topic. No postee. Are those folk going to see my post made in earnest to
anothers post? The exact thing happened to ich Clark from the rraa
group. Call it what you will. Newspeak is all the rage.

I'll use plain talk. The post was censored.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

" wrote in
oups.com:

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, vulg
ar
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
themsel
ves.
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
p
erson
Y thinks its OK too. *Eavesdrop on a bunch of today's middle school
kid
s and
you'll really get an earful. *That type of behavior gets carried over
i
nto
adult life. *Work places now have to have training to let their
employe
es
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
Anders
on.
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.

I filter based on content, not whether or not I agree with the
poster. My wife walked in one day while I was reading the group and
wondered what kind of filthy things I was involved in. If someone is
going to post abberant stuff, they go into the bozo bin. As well as
people who feel compelled to post hundreds of unreadable messages a day.



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
the re.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.

I've seen it in action, Len. I belong to one moderated group to get
schedules of events. If a disagreeing post makes it onto the board, the
"moderator" clamps down and people are wanred on to post any more
disagreeing posts.

The newsgroup is like watching Teletubbies. All nice and cozy, with
people saying "I like that", and others saying "yea, I like that too,
isn't it wonderful? Yes, it's really wonderful. Isn't ot great that it's
wonderful?"

Ick.



- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"KH6HZ" wrote in news:8wOwh.239345$fh6.215432
@newsfe13.lga:

Dave Heil wrote:

Yep. Nobody has an innate right to post to a newsgroup.

Or, as we summarized in our Constitutional Law class in college:

"Your right to free speech does not mean you're entitled to a pulpit".

You remind me that there is a sizable fraction of people in the US
who believe that there shouldn't be free speech.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

KH6HZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Yep. Nobody has an innate right to post to a newsgroup.

Or, as we summarized in our Constitutional Law class in college:

"Your right to free speech does not mean you're entitled to a pulpit".

Right--or even a soapbox. If you buy, pay for and carry your own pulpit
or soapbox, you may gripe.

Dave K8MN