wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 27, 9:27 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"Leo" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:29:15 -0400, "KH6HZ" wrote:

"Leo" wrote:

Since the new moderated group was created (whose mission was to
improve communication and raise the bar on decency over the Policy
group), everyone seems to have disappeared. The moderated group is
virtually dead, containing primarily bulletins from Amateur groups
around the world and the odd post hare and there....

I suspect the reason why the .moderated group is dead is due to the
'standards' the moderators have decided to implement.

For example, I was recently banned from the .moderated group.

My "crime"? I had 3 rejected postings in a period of 4 months.

That's just weird.

When your posts were rejected, were you advised of the specific reason
for rejection? Given an opportunity to explain, or revise the
offending post? And where was the 'three strikes' rule documented - I
read over the charter just after the group was established, and I
don't recall that being stated.

I'm all for moderated groups, normally - they provide valuable
filtering of off-topic and malicious posts. And I agree with you - if
the moderators are practising abject censorship instead of moderation,
then it becomes a forum consisting only of those who share similar
thoughts of what is appropriate and what is not. In other words, a
closed group.

No thanks. I'd rather that I remain the judge of what I believe to be
appropriate, rather than delegate that task to a group of net nannies!

Normally I would agree with you. However, I got really tired of having
to
create new filters on a nearly daily basis to eliminate the hundreds of
posts that flooded this news group on a regular basis. Those posts had
nothing to do with policy and everything to do with personal wars. It
was
impossible to carry on any type of discussion without it being hijacked
or
turned into personal attacks. Even now, only a handful of posts make it
through the filters.

There's no particular virtue in staying in the swamp.

Dee-

Dee, I've never filtered anyone. I either read them or I don't.

You CW buffs claim you can copy a single signal out of a pile-up, so
why do you bother with rrap filters?


Same reason that I use the narrowest possible filter on the radio and that
is to select the signals that I am interested in and that's true for both
voice and CW.,