"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.

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).

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.

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.

Dee, N8UZE

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.

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

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

On Feb 2, 10:36 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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

Why? Are you going to join Dave Heil in playing Headmaster?

wrote:
Would you mind quoting the dictionary definition
of "censor" that you are using above?

Why? Are you going to join Dave Heil in playing Headmaster?

No, just trying to politely point out that you will not
find the definition of the way you are using the word.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 2, 10:36 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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

Why? Are you going to join Dave Heil in playing Headmaster?

Can you do any better? You could better spend your time coaxing Mark to
avail himself of a spell check program instead of making excuses for him.
Mark has entered these newsgroups sounding, and typing, like an illiterate
idiot. Dyslexia aside, Mark is a barely functional, self-proclaimed savant,
and that is being generous. You should know better. At least YOU can be
somewhat literate, though there are doubts about that, too.

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

" 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 -

" wrote in
On Feb 1, 1:10?pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message

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.

Agree, except I just don't "filter." I've had long practice
in skim-reading to "sort" out what MIGHT be worthwhile to read
in more detail.

My wife and I have "his and her" computers here in the home
office. We can see each others' screens just by turning to
glance at them. We DO respect that each of us have different
interests in addition to common ones. Heh heh, when I'm
doing schematics using Paint, she kids me about "doing dirty
pictures again." [they result in very clean schematics,
really...:-) ]


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).

Riiiight, and "Foghorn Lenhorn" is perfectly acceptable in
addition to "novice in radio" and other snarly epithets.
As long as one is a morse code enthusiast (nee' evangelist).


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.

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.

Mike, no sweat, know where you are coming from. Due to
chronological age differences, I've been "seeing" that for a
half-century-plus...IN radio and away from the 'Net, the BBSs,
and all that computer-modem comms things. Computer comms
weren't really widespread until around 1980 and my experience
goes three decades before that.

Been there, done that, might have a garage sale to get rid of
all those old T-shirts. :-)

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.

heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh...

Been a LONG time since I baby-sat kiddies watching Satiddy TV
shows.
But, I CAN envision some purple dinosaurs doing what you describe.
Some of them are in here!. We've got the self-defined "Mr. Rogers"
types being almost nauseatingly 'pleasant' and absolutely NON-
violent
but being able to sneer and talk-down the "inferior" types with a
SEG all over their phizz.

The "ostrich syndrome" is very real in human groupings. Folks WANT
to see only what is acceptiable to Them. The parallel is that the
world only revolves about Them and Theirs and all who don't go
around in Their circles should be "eliminated." Deep down they are
both ego-driven and don't have the guts to see/experience REALITY.
Reality ain't pleasant 24/7. The universe wan't created to serve
Them despite their firm convictions that is was SO (and nyah-nyah).

Excuse me, the Masters are calling and expect me to Serve Them.
Little do they know what I put in Their cervezas. :-)

Irreverently yours,
LA