" 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 -