(VK) wrote in message ...
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group rec.woodworking.all-ages

Reasons for creating an all-ages subgroup of rec.woodworking:

1-To offer an alternative to the only Big-8 general woodworking group,
rec.woodworking, which has proven to be an unsafe environment for
children

2-To offer woodworkers a higher signal to noise ratio than
rec.woodworking provides

Both of these "problems" are solvable by opening your own message
board on a web site, if you can't be bothered to create filters in
your news reader. This list of rationales simply hijacks the Usenet
infrastructure for a private message board run by people who want to
be top dog without any accountability. Visit their web site and read
their manifesto of management by royal decree.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:27:15 -0400, Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that you can not simply set a filter ... or even dozens of
them ... and block out the crude postings.

Personally, I'm up to 265 different filters so far.

Peter Teubel
Milford, MA
http://www.revolutionary-turners.com

In article , Chuck
wrote:

Moderated newsgroups have been around
for years, and are well within the bounds of UseNet
infrastructure...and in THIS instance at least, one is heartily
recommended.

You'll note, however, that the RFD for a moderated group has been
withdrawn. The latest proposal is simply to create another unmoderated
group that would duplicate rww content.

Too bad the proponents didn't have the guts to take the moderated group
to a vote.

Chuck wrote:

Very often, many of the people who scream and protest against a
moderated newsgroup are those who made the original one intolerable in
the first place.

As opposed to those like yourself who scream *for* a moderated group
and have contributed nothing positive to the current state of affairs?


Chuck Vance

On 20 Sep 2004 10:41:23 -0700, (mbrooks) wrote:


Both of these "problems" are solvable by opening your own message
board on a web site,

How many web sites are on UseNet? How do you access Wood Central with
Free Agent?

That's like saying, "You can cut down on airline hijackings by
building more railroads." The point is to have a USENET newsgroup
that isn't filled with obnoxious, self-obsessed blowhards who have THE
answer to everything, (and will tell you so, in so many 4-letter
words) as well as keeping out the spammers.

if you can't be bothered to create filters in
your news reader. This list of rationales simply hijacks the Usenet
infrastructure for a private message board run by people who want to
be top dog without any accountability.

Uh, no, it does no such thing. Moderated newsgroups have been around
for years, and are well within the bounds of UseNet
infrastructure...and in THIS instance at least, one is heartily
recommended. I used to read rcw all the time but gave up on it after
it was taken over by the people and their attendant attitudes who,
oddly enough, are exactly who and what the moderated newsgroup will be
targeting for filtration.

Very often, many of the people who scream and protest against a
moderated newsgroup are those who made the original one intolerable in
the first place.


--
Chuck *#:^)
chaz3913(AT)yahoo(DOT)com
Anti-spam sig: please remove "NO SPAM" from e-mail address to reply.


September 11, 2001 - Never Forget


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Anonymous wrote in
newsan.2004.09.21.22.44.47.449008@notarealserver .com:

When the time comes to vote, vote your conscience but please,
let's not argue the finer points on this fine forum.


This discussion is supposed to be taking place in news.groups only. I don't
understand why people keep crossposting it back here.

--
Bill

On 22 Sep 2004 01:14:21 GMT, Woodchuck Bill
wrote:

This discussion is supposed to be taking place in news.groups only.

Why?

I don't understand why people keep crossposting it back here.

Because it's not a new group in isolation, it's a modification to an
existing group (or as close as Vito can manage).


--
Smert' spamionam

Anonymous wrote:

I'm curious. Just what practical steps do you think he should have
performed but has not? Never mind ... it was an entirely rhetorical
question.

I think someone who complains about the current state of affairs
might take the time to post some useful woodworking info. (IMHO, the
group is what we as individuals make it.) A quick Google search on his
email address shows he has contributed 4 messages to the wreck since
2002, and one of those was his latest missive. So unless he has been
posting under other aliases, he really has nothing to complain about.

As a side note I haven't seen screaming by anyone on this list yet. If you
want to see what screaming looks like, join MDLUG (or post on Slashdot)
and praise Microsoft security. :-)

This is not a politics list. It is about taking a hunk of wood and making
something round (and hopefully both beautiful and useful). Can we drop
this thread? When the time comes to vote, vote your conscience but please,
let's not argue the finer points on this fine forum.

Ooops, I just realized that you are posting from r.c.w. Maybe
that's where the confusion lies. The RFD is aimed at rec.woodworking.
That's why we are discussing it. It cuts to the very heart of what the
wreck is all about.

Some of us consider it to be like a virtual shop with an open door.
You stop by to see what's being discussed knowing that sometimes it's
directly about woodworking and sometimes it's about politics or
whatever. If you don't like the threads that are active (i.e., the
conversations that are taking place) you move along or start one more to
your liking.

I've got no real problem with some of the OT stuff (aside from
spammers and obvious trolls), because it's easy enough to skip it. But
I've found that most lists/groups/whatever that are moderated become
stagnant and eventually die. A little controversy is better than a
forced politeness, IMHO.

OK, I'll shutup now. :-)


Chuck Vance

Howdy!

In article ,
Woodchuck Bill wrote:
Anonymous wrote in
newsan.2004.09.21.22.44.47.449008@notarealserve r.com:

When the time comes to vote, vote your conscience but please,
let's not argue the finer points on this fine forum.


This discussion is supposed to be taking place in news.groups only. I don't
understand why people keep crossposting it back here.

The RFD was cross-posted to rec.woodworking. It's germane to rec.woodworking.
Why is it inappropriate to have this discussion running in news.groups *and*
rec.woodworking? I don't understand why you don't understand it.

Some of us don't regularly read news.groups, but are quite interested in
this RFD.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

You got that right. I think their big fear is that if there were a
meaningful alternative their afraid no one would show up to listen to their
rants. They shouldn't fear, there is no shortage of people who like that
sort of stuff.


Very often, many of the people who scream and protest against a
moderated newsgroup are those who made the original one intolerable in
the first place.


--
Chuck *#:^)
chaz3913(AT)yahoo(DOT)com
Anti-spam sig: please remove "NO SPAM" from e-mail address to reply.


September 11, 2001 - Never Forget


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Anonymous wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:41:23 -0700, mbrooks wrote:

(VK) wrote in message
...
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group rec.woodworking.all-ages

Reasons for creating an all-ages subgroup of rec.woodworking:

1-To offer an alternative to the only Big-8 general woodworking group,
rec.woodworking, which has proven to be an unsafe environment for
children

2-To offer woodworkers a higher signal to noise ratio than
rec.woodworking provides

Both of these "problems" are solvable by opening your own message board on
a web site, if you can't be bothered to create filters in your news
reader. This list of rationales simply hijacks the Usenet infrastructure
for a private message board run by people who want to be top dog without
any accountability. Visit their web site and read their manifesto of
management by royal decree.

I read it and I see no such intent. You can solve your own problem with it
by not subscribing. I, myself, am pretty darned tired of having to play
'oneupmanship' with the sexually obsessed spammers and those who feel some
sense of power in profanity. I am tired of blocking a word with one
spelling (the correct and original spelling) and the spammers simply
defeat the filter with an interposed character or by dividing the
"no-no word" into two or more pieces.

The reality is that you can not simply set a filter ... or even dozens of
them ... and block out the crude postings.

The reason people like these attempt to set limits is because other people
fail to limit themselves.

Sorry. I side with those who want a little tamer content.

Bill

Are you saying this proposed newsgroup would be immune to spam, trolls
and bad talking folks?

--

Gerald Ross, Cochran, GA
To reply add the numerals "13" before the "at"
............................................
Politicians and diapers need changing
often for similar reasons.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----