|
Schlecks' Schlock!
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. 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. 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? 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. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Xnews rulez! |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Michael Coslo ) writes:
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. No, I wouldn't call it censorship. After all, they have other outlets to spout off. If some outside force put a clamp on their speaking, that would be censorship. 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) I really hate to admit this, but I have been paying attention since this issue of a moderated newsgroup came up. And while there are some obvious spewers here, I now see it's not just their fault. There really is too much animosity between some posters, so everything turns into that animosity, rather than discussing the specific issue at hand. The people behind the proposed moderated newsgroup might start with talking to some of the sensible ones, convincing them to stop dredging up the past of regular posters here. Or convince them that making a single statement, and walking away from that thread says a lot more than keeping the thread going for weeks and arguing over small points (especially when it's often a rehash of the last long thread). I talk about "sensible posters" because while it may reflect my bias, I do think some are more likely to see the damage they are doing to the newsgroup than others. And if "one side" can stop it, then that doesn't leave much fuel for "the other side". The animosity in this (well these, since .misc tends to be in tandem with this newsgroup for many posts) newsgroup is actually reflected in the discussion of this proposed moderated newsgroup. I take offence to what really appears to be an "outsider" wanting to bring a moderated newsgroup and then thinks that's reason to extend it to the whole hierarchy. Yet the hostility here is such that everything has become binary, either you're for or against something, and if you sound like your own "the other side" that places you there even if you're trying to make a third point or build common ground. In looking at this situation more closely, again since the RFD came down, realistically the proponent has been after a moderated newsgroup for a long time. The "straw vote" some years back, and various comments about the decline of usenet. Even, as a recent post reminds me, the email to new posters about the hierarchy. I've been around so long that I'd completely forgotten about that and likely I'm not the only one. Yet, where is his presence? I'm not even talking about being part of the "community" of posters, I'm talking about coming to the hierarchy as a whole, trying to unite it in the first place rather than dealing with two of the newsgroups and then when the proposed name is wrong, seeing that as an opportunity to get all the topics into this one moderated newsgroup. There is a sizeable difference between posting a formal RFD, and actually being a real person and saying something like "we do have a problem here, how can we fix it", because then it's some guy like a neighbor. Instead the proponent has come with an answer that hasn't necessarily been seen as the answer. I'm not arguing that there is a problem in .misc and .policy (and the rest of the hierarchy when it spills over), and even not arguing that something shouldn't be done about it, I'm not convinced enough preliminary work has been done to show that a moderated newsgroup is the only solution. There used to be a guide to the hierarchy, well it's still on the web and I'm pretty sure it was periodically posted to the newsgroups. That ought to be resurrected as a prelude to talk of a moderated newsgroup. Because then it's addressing the hierarchy as a whole, rather than the nonsense of posting the RFD to .policy and .misc and then turning the discussion to "well maybe we should make it a moderated newsgroup for all the hierarchy". The 2nd RFD broadened the posting, yet it still didn't deal with the whole hierarchy (or the notion that if .antennas and .dx have talked about moderated versions in the past, it may be because the feud here spills over there, something that again might be limited by one side refusing to argue with the other). Then there's the issue of there being moderated "newsgroups" already. All that web-based stuff. Lots of people have moved there, we see it as the number of posts drop. Though I'm not completely convinced it's an issue of moderation, they may have found they prefer the web based areas, and so they left as soon as they were developed. So the intent of the proposed moderated newsgroup, that it will bring back posters, may turn out to be something that does't happen. Michael VE2BVW |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Michael Coslo wrote:
And at what level do we censor. And let us mince no words, a post that does not get past the moderator is censored. Technically, the moderator would have to be some sort of official in order for him to be able to possess the power of censorship. It is not censorship when QEX rejects my material. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Schlecks' Schlock!
"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 |
Schlecks' Schlock!
"Michael Black" wrote in message ... Michael Coslo ) writes: 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. No, I wouldn't call it censorship. After all, they have other outlets to spout off. If some outside force put a clamp on their speaking, that would be censorship. 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) I really hate to admit this, but I have been paying attention since this issue of a moderated newsgroup came up. And while there are some obvious spewers here, I now see it's not just their fault. There really is too much animosity between some posters, so everything turns into that animosity, rather than discussing the specific issue at hand. The people behind the proposed moderated newsgroup might start with talking to some of the sensible ones, convincing them to stop dredging up the past of regular posters here. Or convince them that making a single statement, and walking away from that thread says a lot more than keeping the thread going for weeks and arguing over small points (especially when it's often a rehash of the last long thread). I talk about "sensible posters" because while it may reflect my bias, I do think some are more likely to see the damage they are doing to the newsgroup than others. And if "one side" can stop it, then that doesn't leave much fuel for "the other side". The animosity in this (well these, since .misc tends to be in tandem with this newsgroup for many posts) newsgroup is actually reflected in the discussion of this proposed moderated newsgroup. I take offence to what really appears to be an "outsider" wanting to bring a moderated newsgroup and then thinks that's reason to extend it to the whole hierarchy. Yet the hostility here is such that everything has become binary, either you're for or against something, and if you sound like your own "the other side" that places you there even if you're trying to make a third point or build common ground. In looking at this situation more closely, again since the RFD came down, realistically the proponent has been after a moderated newsgroup for a long time. The "straw vote" some years back, and various comments about the decline of usenet. Even, as a recent post reminds me, the email to new posters about the hierarchy. I've been around so long that I'd completely forgotten about that and likely I'm not the only one. Yet, where is his presence? I'm not even talking about being part of the "community" of posters, I'm talking about coming to the hierarchy as a whole, trying to unite it in the first place rather than dealing with two of the newsgroups and then when the proposed name is wrong, seeing that as an opportunity to get all the topics into this one moderated newsgroup. There is a sizeable difference between posting a formal RFD, and actually being a real person and saying something like "we do have a problem here, how can we fix it", because then it's some guy like a neighbor. Instead the proponent has come with an answer that hasn't necessarily been seen as the answer. I'm not arguing that there is a problem in .misc and .policy (and the rest of the hierarchy when it spills over), and even not arguing that something shouldn't be done about it, I'm not convinced enough preliminary work has been done to show that a moderated newsgroup is the only solution. There used to be a guide to the hierarchy, well it's still on the web and I'm pretty sure it was periodically posted to the newsgroups. That ought to be resurrected as a prelude to talk of a moderated newsgroup. Because then it's addressing the hierarchy as a whole, rather than the nonsense of posting the RFD to .policy and .misc and then turning the discussion to "well maybe we should make it a moderated newsgroup for all the hierarchy". The 2nd RFD broadened the posting, yet it still didn't deal with the whole hierarchy (or the notion that if .antennas and .dx have talked about moderated versions in the past, it may be because the feud here spills over there, something that again might be limited by one side refusing to argue with the other). Then there's the issue of there being moderated "newsgroups" already. All that web-based stuff. Lots of people have moved there, we see it as the number of posts drop. Though I'm not completely convinced it's an issue of moderation, they may have found they prefer the web based areas, and so they left as soon as they were developed. So the intent of the proposed moderated newsgroup, that it will bring back posters, may turn out to be something that does't happen. Michael VE2BVW Let's treat it with a free market approach. Set it up and let it stand or fall on its own. Dee, N8UZE |
Schlecks' Schlock!
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:46:35 -0500, Michael Coslo wrote:
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201) ............................................... Xnews rulez! Uh, huh. |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Cecil Moore wrote in news:Virwh.2339$4H1.628
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net: Michael Coslo wrote: And at what level do we censor. And let us mince no words, a post that does not get past the moderator is censored. Technically, the moderator would have to be some sort of official in order for him to be able to possess the power of censorship. It is not censorship when QEX rejects my material. We aren't talking about QEX though. This is - at best - a forum for discussion of ideas. 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. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Schlecks' Schlock!
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. |
Schlecks' Schlock!
"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. etc. |
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
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 |
Schlecks' Schlock!
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 |
Schlecks' Schlock!
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 |
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
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 |
Schlecks' Schlock!
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 |
Schlecks' Schlock!
"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 - |
Schlecks' Schlock!
" 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 - |
Schlecks' Schlock!
"KH6HZ" wrote in news:8wOwh.239345$fh6.215432
@newsfe13.lga: Dave Heil wrote: Yep. Nobody has an innate right to post to a newsgroup. Or, as we summarized in our Constitutional Law class in college: "Your right to free speech does not mean you're entitled to a pulpit". You remind me that there is a sizable fraction of people in the US who believe that there shouldn't be free speech. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Schlecks' Schlock!
KH6HZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: Yep. Nobody has an innate right to post to a newsgroup. Or, as we summarized in our Constitutional Law class in college: "Your right to free speech does not mean you're entitled to a pulpit". Right--or even a soapbox. If you buy, pay for and carry your own pulpit or soapbox, you may gripe. Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Mike Coslo wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in news:8wOwh.239345$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. That's not right, Mike. I can write letters to the editors of all the magazines I want. None of them is obliged to print my letters. I can stand up in the middle of a movie theater and espouse some political opinion. I'll be escorted out. I can attempt to heckle some politician during a speech. I'll be shown the door. There are venues where you have a right to speak and venues where you don't have a right to be heard. 73, Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
wrote in message ... On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:39:23 -0600, Mike Coslo wrote: "KH6HZ" wrote in news:8wOwh.239345$fh6.215432 : Dave Heil wrote: Yep. Nobody has an innate right to post to a newsgroup. Or, as we summarized in our Constitutional Law class in college: "Your right to free speech does not mean you're entitled to a pulpit". You remind me that there is a sizable fraction of people in the US who believe that there shouldn't be free speech. excellent observation - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ for someone who's so into free speech, look what I found on your blog trying to post a a dozen or so insulting coments to this blog just doesn't work since i moderate them obvious not the "straight" forward guy you profess to be -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote in
link.net: Mike Coslo wrote: "KH6HZ" wrote in news:8wOwh.239345$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. That's not right, Mike. I can write letters to the editors of all the magazines I want. None of them is obliged to print my letters. I can stand up in the middle of a movie theater and espouse some political opinion. I'll be escorted out. I can attempt to heckle some politician during a speech. I'll be shown the door. There are venues where you have a right to speak and venues where you don't have a right to be heard. Hi Dave, There certainly are. But we're not talking about a person in a movie theatre. I'd much prefer to make the decision on whether or not I will see someone's posts than have someone else make that decision for me. And there lies the major problem. Those strange folk that live near you are an obvious censor target, as well as those folk who were posting a gazillion flames to each other the last year or so. But what about the moderator who simply doesn't like another person. As an example, Cecil and Len are in some people's killfiles. But I enjoy both of them very much. I would assume that anyone who would put Len in a killfile would also censor his posts. Those "anyones" could be moderators. And Cecil is an enjoyable person to spar with on occasion, as well as a source of knowledge. Heck, I just looked at my bozo bin, and I have a couple hundred people in there at least. I'm a censoring junkie. One weird post about what some guy wants to do to another guy earns a permanent trip to the bin. But I'm deciding what shows up on my screen. Others may want other people to decide what they see or don't see. Sheeple. Hence my stance that there is a sizable number of people who beleive that free speech is a nuisance. Honestly, what would you do if you didn't have Len to fight with? I suspect you would get bored and eventually stop posting. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Schlecks' Schlock!
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? |
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in link.net: Mike Coslo wrote: "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. That's not right, Mike. I can write letters to the editors of all the magazines I want. None of them is obliged to print my letters. I can stand up in the middle of a movie theater and espouse some political opinion. I'll be escorted out. I can attempt to heckle some politician during a speech. I'll be shown the door. There are venues where you have a right to speak and venues where you don't have a right to be heard. Hi Dave, There certainly are. But we're not talking about a person in a movie theatre. I'd much prefer to make the decision on whether or not I will see someone's posts than have someone else make that decision for me. That's fine, Mike. If you'd like to continue to post here, you may continue to do so. I have no doubt that you'd be able to post anything you've posted in the past to the moderated group. And there lies the major problem. Those strange folk that live near you are an obvious censor target, as well as those folk who were posting a gazillion flames to each other the last year or so. But what about the moderator who simply doesn't like another person. What about him or her? Are you saying that you believe that the moderators would be likely to not pass through a post base upon not liking someone? As an example, Cecil and Len are in some people's killfiles. Okay. I certainly understand why one of them might be. Mark is in my killfile. But I enjoy both of them very much. I would assume that anyone who would put Len in a killfile would also censor his posts. I'm not following your logic. I think it is likely that many of Len's posts wouldn't make it in the moderated group--not because of who he is, but because he can't control himself. Those "anyones" could be moderators. And Cecil is an enjoyable person to spar with on occasion, as well as a source of knowledge. Cecil is going to be one of the moderators. You think the other moderators are going to stop his posts? Heck, I just looked at my bozo bin, and I have a couple hundred people in there at least. I'm a censoring junkie. One weird post about what some guy wants to do to another guy earns a permanent trip to the bin. That's not easy. Some of these guys change their posting names all of the time. Even Mark has oodles of names he posts under. But I'm deciding what shows up on my screen. Others may want other people to decide what they see or don't see. Sheeple. Post here. You can make all of the decisions you like. I don't know why you feel that you have to limit yourself to the moderated group. Hence my stance that there is a sizable number of people who beleive that free speech is a nuisance. You can find all sorts of free speech on this and other newsgroups. Look at what some people choose to do with their right of free speech. I can go to all sorts of places where I limit my right of free speech--the theater I wrote of, a courtroom, a church, a school, a public ceremony. There are also situations where someone's right of free speech infringes my rights. Honestly, what would you do if you didn't have Len to fight with? I suspect you would get bored and eventually stop posting. If and when the moderated group comes into play, I doubt you'll see me post here. According to Len, his time here is coming to an end anyway. I don't need Leonard Anderson to make me complete. Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Cecil Moore wrote:
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. Careful, Cecil! You could be accused of making a prickish remark. Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Honestly, what would you do if you didn't have Len to fight with? I suspect you would get bored and eventually stop posting. If and when the moderated group comes into play, I doubt you'll see me post here. According to Len, his time here is coming to an end anyway. I don't need Leonard Anderson to make me complete. Dave K8MN The only person who "needs" Len is, Len himself. Aside from his "down his nose" attitude, Len is a meaningless sidebar in these groups. |
Schlecks' Schlock!
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
You remind me that there is a sizable fraction of people in the US who believe that there shouldn't be free speech. Hardly. Please do not put words in my mouth. I fully support the right of folks like Mark Morgan to spew their excrement all they want. However, I also realize that freedom of speech does not mean you are entitled to a free printing press provided by the government. Your freedom of speech does not mean I have to be forced to listen (or read) what you type. Tell me Mike, 1) do you read each and every posting in this newsgroup? 2) Do you have a kill-file, or selectively choose to ignore postings from certain posters? If you answered either No to #1 or Yes to #2, then by your definition you are practicing "censorship", aren't you? 73 kh6hz |
Schlecks' Schlock!
for someone who's so into free speech, look what I found on your blog you lack the right to violate my copyright nor does endorsing free speech means I am under any obligation to assit person in comting a crime http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ -- Poor Mark. He likes to paint himself as the defender of free speech on these boards. Problem is that there is no paint on his canvas. |
Schlecks' Schlock!
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. |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
Cecil is going to be one of the moderators. You think the other moderators are going to stop his posts? I'm not a moderator, Dave, I'm a technical consultant. And I have already had postings rejected. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
Careful, Cecil! You could be accused of making a prickish remark. How do I prove that it is not a "prickish remark"? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Schlecks' Schlock!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 01:53:04 -0000, "Dean M" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:39:23 -0600, Mike Coslo wrote: for someone who's so into free speech, look what I found on your blog you lack the right to violate my copyright what copyright would that be Mark? I see nothing on your "blog" other than the fact you invite comments. So what I read is that you only invite comments that you personally approve? Isn't that censorship? Isn't that the job of a moderator?? Isn't that what and a couple of others are all in a bother about? nor does endorsing free speech means I am under any obligation to assit person in comting a crime A crime Gracie? Unfortunately the only crime I can see is the general lack of spelling and sentence structure on your part. But then again, I see that from several others as well I was just curious as to why you seem to be up in arms about newsgroup censorship when you yourself is guilty of censorship as well Oh well, I guess you can have you kayak and heat it too http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: Cecil is going to be one of the moderators. You think the other moderators are going to stop his posts? I'm not a moderator, Dave, I'm a technical consultant. And I have already had postings rejected. I stand corrected. Do you understand why your posts were rejected? Do you think they were rejected because a moderator didn't like you? Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: Careful, Cecil! You could be accused of making a prickish remark. How do I prove that it is not a "prickish remark"? :-) There's you'll dilemma. If you question the claim, it'll become "Marvy". Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
Do you understand why your posts were rejected? Do you think they were rejected because a moderator didn't like you? A moderator asked me to make an off-topic posting so he could exercise and test the rejection process. Part of my role as consultant is to be the guinea pig for such. I may even have the dubious honor of being the first posting ever rejected from that newsgroup. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Schlecks' Schlock!
"Dean M" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:39:23 -0600, Mike Coslo wrote: "KH6HZ" wrote in news:8wOwh.239345$fh6.215432 : 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. excellent observation - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ for someone who's so into free speech, look what I found on your blog trying to post a a dozen or so insulting coments to this blog just doesn't work since i moderate them obvious not the "straight" forward guy you profess to be indeed have you loked at my new punce blog yet? http://www.ipunce.blogspot.com/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Schlecks' Schlock!
"an old fiend" wrote:
indeed have you loked at my new punce blog yet? I would think a new "putz" blog would be fitting. |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: Do you understand why your posts were rejected? Do you think they were rejected because a moderator didn't like you? A moderator asked me to make an off-topic posting so he could exercise and test the rejection process. Part of my role as consultant is to be the guinea pig for such. I may even have the dubious honor of being the first posting ever rejected from that newsgroup. :-) I just hope they don't send you a certificate. From what I've read here, you might be the first rejected but not the most rejected. Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com