Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and it
failed.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Dave Balderstone" wrote:

In article , Vito Kuhn
wrote:

My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
invasion.

Bullsh**. There was never any serious traffic from the start. I know. I
peeked.

Supernews did the right thing and blocked the cross posts to the fam.*
hierarchy from your view. I have over 600 abusive messages archived. 600
messages spread out over weeks is not high traffic by wreck standards,
but IT IS enough to put off new posters if that's THE ONLY TRAFFIC. The
invasion was planned long before the newsgroup creation messages were
sent. The exact words in the threat was that they were going to turn my
hierarchy into "FLUFFY'S LITTER BOX".

VK

"JLD" aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa****@********pussyfuc k.com wrote:

Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and it
failed.

That's an outright LIE. I NEVER "TRIED TO MODERATE THIS GROUP". I
proposed a SEPARATE group and it never failed. The result of the vote was
inconclusive because of vote fraud. WE VOLUNTARILY declined the option to
have a revote. At that time, it wasn't even POSSIBLE to "MODERATE THIS
GROUP".

VK

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:22:12 +0000, Loco-Motiv ,
wrote:

Wanda Pangborn wrote:

......a buncha net nanny horse ****.

I SAY:

Moderation is for pussies. Learn how to use a ****ing killfile.

You supposed to killfile the whole group since they're responding to
the undersirables?


Advice for the day.

Shove it up your ass.

Eric

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
wrote:

Why don't you guys moderate your group?

1) Because moderation isn't a good idea


I'm seeing about 50/50 on that opinion. I can see the pros and cons. This
isn't a group I'll probably be on for a long time, so it really isn't my
place. I was just making a suggestion.


2) Because of a _huge_ bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
from ourselves. There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
mostly over the way he went about it. It's a very touchy subject now.


I'm sorry to hear that. It figures I would put my foot in my mouth the first
time here. I was just trying to be helpful.

If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
"fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals. Not
a thing in it.

Obviously his idea was not something that had a lot of support. In fact I
don't see why he went ahead with it knowing no one would follow him.

The best intentions pave the road to hell and all.

Wanda

Wanda Pangborn wrote:

Why don't you guys moderate your group?

Because then it wouldn't be the same group.

I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was attempted.
You just need a really fair and dedicated moderator, which I know is
easier said than done. Moderators have to be level headed and leave
their egos at the door.

Aren't there some twinkies and donuts waiting for you, fatty?

On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
, wrote:

"Andy Dingley" wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
wrote:

Why don't you guys moderate your group?

1) Because moderation isn't a good idea

With all due respect Andy, that's just YOUR OPINION. There are hundreds
of moderated newsgroups in various hierarchies and many of them are
thriving.

They work very well if they have the support and a good moderator. I
agree. I don't understand all the venom in here against moderation.

It makes no sense why you guys have always been so scared of it.


2) Because of a huge bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
from ourselves.

That's not BY ANY MEANS an accurate account of what happened. I proposed
a SEPARATE GROUP for PEOPLE INTERESTED in a SEPARATE MODERATED GROUP. I
never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated. If the
group passed, reading it and posting to it would have been VOLUNTARY.
Staying in the unmoderated wreck would have been voluntary too if the
group passed, this option would NOT have been taken away from wreckers
and I NEVER proposed anything like that.

But why try to create a whole new hierarchy? Wouldn't a moderated
group work just as well?


There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
mostly over the way he went about it.

Once again, I proposed a SEPARATE GROUP, and I went through all the
proper hoops and channels. It was not my fault that a sociopath from Ohio
named Steve Young flooded the ballot box with forged and "FROGGED" votes.
Later when the vote fraud was detected, Susan and I VOLUNTARILY declined
the revote that was offered to us by the NAN Team.


Why on earth wouldn't you want a revote?

It's a very touchy subject now.

I see that the subject will never be allowed to rest.


It's one of the more interesting stories I've heard in a while.

If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
"fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals. Not
a thing in it.

More hog wash. First of all, the fam.* hierarchy is INACTIVE now.
http://www.family-usenet.com
Second of all, fam.* woodworking was NEVER moderated. Third of all,
current usenet protocols are not advanced enough to keep ANY newsgroup
100% "SAFE". My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
invasion. You use Supernews, and they were the only news service provider
to respect our charters so you probably didn't see any of the cross
posted drivel. But most people DID see all the junk from the swines, and
that kept decent folks from wanting to participate. If you're gonna bad
mouth me, Andy, at least get your details straight.


If you wanted to try and get a moderated woodworking group started
again, I'd certainly read it. I'm sure other people would too. I
don't see why you have to go along with consensus on this since it
doesn't directly affect this group.

JMO

Eric


VK

"E. Allen's ghost" wrote in message
...
On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
, wrote:

"Andy Dingley" wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
wrote:

Why don't you guys moderate your group?

1) Because moderation isn't a good idea

With all due respect Andy, that's just YOUR OPINION. There are hundreds
of moderated newsgroups in various hierarchies and many of them are
thriving.

They work very well if they have the support and a good moderator. I
agree. I don't understand all the venom in here against moderation.

It makes no sense why you guys have always been so scared of it.


2) Because of a huge bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
from ourselves.

That's not BY ANY MEANS an accurate account of what happened. I proposed
a SEPARATE GROUP for PEOPLE INTERESTED in a SEPARATE MODERATED GROUP. I
never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated. If the
group passed, reading it and posting to it would have been VOLUNTARY.
Staying in the unmoderated wreck would have been voluntary too if the
group passed, this option would NOT have been taken away from wreckers
and I NEVER proposed anything like that.

But why try to create a whole new hierarchy? Wouldn't a moderated
group work just as well?


There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
mostly over the way he went about it.

Once again, I proposed a SEPARATE GROUP, and I went through all the
proper hoops and channels. It was not my fault that a sociopath from Ohio
named Steve Young flooded the ballot box with forged and "FROGGED" votes.
Later when the vote fraud was detected, Susan and I VOLUNTARILY declined
the revote that was offered to us by the NAN Team.


Why on earth wouldn't you want a revote?

It's a very touchy subject now.

I see that the subject will never be allowed to rest.


It's one of the more interesting stories I've heard in a while.

If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
"fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals. Not
a thing in it.

More hog wash. First of all, the fam.* hierarchy is INACTIVE now.
http://www.family-usenet.com
Second of all, fam.* woodworking was NEVER moderated. Third of all,
current usenet protocols are not advanced enough to keep ANY newsgroup
100% "SAFE". My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
invasion. You use Supernews, and they were the only news service provider
to respect our charters so you probably didn't see any of the cross
posted drivel. But most people DID see all the junk from the swines, and
that kept decent folks from wanting to participate. If you're gonna bad
mouth me, Andy, at least get your details straight.


If you wanted to try and get a moderated woodworking group started
again, I'd certainly read it. I'm sure other people would too. I
don't see why you have to go along with consensus on this since it
doesn't directly affect this group.

JMO

Eric

In my plus sized moderated group, there was a non moderated group too. It
got lots of spam and trolls, but people read and posted to both groups. I
think if anything it made a better atmosphere for both groups because people
had a choice.

Wanda

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Wanda Pangborn (in
ws.net) said:

| Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned
| earlier. Why don't you guys moderate your group?
|
| I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
| godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was
| attempted. You just need a really fair and dedicated moderator,
| which I know is easier said than done. Moderators have to be level
| headed and leave their egos at the door.
|
| Anyway, just a thought. Thanks again for all your help.

Wanda...

Moderating the wreck would be a full-time job because of the number of
posts and would lengthen response times for legitimate questions.

The trade-off, as you noted, is the number of off-topic, troll, and
occasional venemous posts. Moderating the wreck as been considered a
number of times; and each time the issue arose, most of the
subscribers elected to keep the newsgroup as is, warts and all.


I completely understand your position. Just an idea I had. There are real
cons to it, I suppose.

I'm glad you got the helpful information.


Thanks, Morris! I'll be watching the group for a while to see if I spot any
more ideas.

Wanda


--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

"Paul H" wrote in message
...
Wanda Pangborn wrote in rec.woodworking:

Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned
earlier. Why don't you guys moderate your group?

**** off. We don't need no stinkin' moderator.

Thanks for your intelligent and well balanced commentary.

I think moderation would do wonders by getting rid of trolls like you.

Wanda

"Greg G." wrote in message
...
Greg G. said:


Most wreck denizens are happy to provide a helpful response to a
sincere question.

But do take note that I said 'most'. g


Greg G.

I think I encountered someone having a bad day here. LOL!

Thanks for your encouragement!

Wanda

"William D" wrote in message
46.159...
Dave Balderstone wrote in
tone.ca:

In article 59,
William D wrote:

But* Russ Allbery recently announced his intention to resign from
Big 8 administration by next October. He will be replaced by a
new committee of ordinary Usenet posters.

Nobody knows what will replace the nan mods.

That will be decided by the soon-to-be-named committee members.

From Message-ID:
http://groups.google.com/group/news....f59a941c51fbed

"Russ and I will discuss the lists and decide how many people will be
on the initial Board. The number is not yet determined, so list
everyone, from most to least desirable. This is going to be the last
step before we actually name a Board which will then be empowered to
decide upon the general Big8 issues. So we are almost there."

The scene in news.groups is a mess right now, and personally I
have no faith things will get sorted out to *anybody's*
satisfaction the way in any foreseeable future.

We'll see.


Moderating unmoderated groups would be great for usenet if you ask me. So
much unnecessary noise here these days.

But it's up to the people who post here. (Even the cranky ones who insulted
me for no reason)

Wanda

On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
wrote:

1) Because moderation isn't a good idea

With all due respect Andy,

You've never shown any respect for anyone else in any of this fiasco.
You are a nasty little egotist, trying to carve out some piece of a
community that's already working fine, just so that you can lord it over
your own personal dominion. Worst of all, you don't even contribute to
the group - your interest is that of the control freak, not the
woodworker.

that's just YOUR OPINION.

Of course - that's why I sign the posts. I usually write far too
verbosely, so if I drop the matter in a single line, then you might well
assume that I see it as an issue that's really not useful to discuss
further. There are arguments both for and against, you can guess which I
support. I respect the views of anyone who thinks differently, I just
happen to despise you and your methods.

I never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated.

Yes you did. Repeatedly. When that little dose of megalomania was
slapped down you then switched to creating new moderated groups, then
finally your pathetic little attempt at building your own private troll
reserve.

On 16 Nov 2005 17:27:26 GMT, "moose" , wrote:

Wanda Pangborn wrote:

Why don't you guys moderate your group?

Because then it wouldn't be the same group.

It would probably be better.


I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was attempted.
You just need a really fair and dedicated moderator, which I know is
easier said than done. Moderators have to be level headed and leave
their egos at the door.

Aren't there some twinkies and donuts waiting for you, fatty?

Way to treat a lady, dickhead.

For instance, this stupid reply could have been refused by a good
moderator. No more jerks like you picking on others.

Eric

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
wrote:

1) Because moderation isn't a good idea

With all due respect Andy,

You've never shown any respect for anyone else in any of this fiasco.
You are a nasty little egotist, trying to carve out some piece of a
community that's already working fine, just so that you can lord it over
your own personal dominion. Worst of all, you don't even contribute to
the group - your interest is that of the control freak, not the
woodworker.

that's just YOUR OPINION.

Of course - that's why I sign the posts. I usually write far too
verbosely, so if I drop the matter in a single line, then you might well
assume that I see it as an issue that's really not useful to discuss
further. There are arguments both for and against, you can guess which I
support. I respect the views of anyone who thinks differently, I just
happen to despise you and your methods.

I never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated.

Yes you did. Repeatedly. When that little dose of megalomania was
slapped down you then switched to creating new moderated groups, then
finally your pathetic little attempt at building your own private troll
reserve.

Andy's correct, though a little harsh (only a little) in expression.

Wanda Pangborn wrote:



Thanks, Morris! I'll be watching the group for a while to see if I spot any
more ideas.

Wanda




My god, troll, you haven't had ANY ideas to date. Just throwing out lures.

Dave

Advice for the day.

Shove it up your ass.

Eric

ROTFLMAO

Thanks
Ed

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:15:10 +0000, LRod wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:57:17 -0500, (J T)
wrote:

...often lack basic spelling and grammer skills...

Physician, heal thyself. "grammar."

He's talking about an ancestor.

On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, Vito Kuhn wrote:
"Andy Dingley" wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
wrote:

Why don't you guys moderate your group?

1) Because moderation isn't a good idea

With all due respect Andy, that's just YOUR OPINION. There are hundreds
of moderated newsgroups in various hierarchies and many of them are
thriving.

How the **** did you get out of the killfile?
plonked again, with prejudice)

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:41:38 -0500, Wanda Pangborn wrote:

"William D" wrote in message
46.159...

We'll see.

Moderating unmoderated groups would be great for usenet if you ask me. So
much unnecessary noise here these days.

Killfiles work very well. It's not like the trolls and idiots are hard
to spot.

But it's up to the people who post here. (Even the cranky ones who insulted
me for no reason)

There's a reason, but you don't understand the history to know that Vito
is that reason. Putting up a sock-puppet isn't beyond his tactics, so
when a relatively unknown poster came in and posted on a touchy subject
(that would be you), you're immediately associated with Vito and his
vote-fraud history on that same tactic. Unfair, perhaps, but not "for
no reason".

Dave Hinz

Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 2:15pm (EST+5) (LRod) doth accuse:
Physician, heal thyself. "grammar."

I got some keys that stick, that's my excuse. Anyway, spelling
don't got nothing to do with grammar/grammer.



JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:22:12 +0000, Loco-Motiv wrote:

Moderated is good, only neo-con can post whatever
pleases them.

Wanda Pangborn wrote:

......a buncha net nanny horse ****.

I SAY:

Moderation is for pussies. Learn how to use a ****ing killfile.

Advice for the day.

Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 5:44pm (EST+5)
(Andy*Dingley) sayeth a bunch of good sense stuff:
You've never shown any respect for anyone snip

Anything Andy says on this, you can consider it said by me also.

That does not apply to loaning money, dating guys, or living in
Californery.



JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 6:13pm (EST+5) (Dave*Hinz)
doth sayeth:
He's talking about an ancestor.

LMAO



JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

Moderating unmoderated groups would be great for usenet if you ask me. So
much unnecessary noise here these days.

But it's up to the people who post here. (Even the cranky ones who insulted
me for no reason)

Wanda

That's the scariest post to date. Don't stop with the newsgroups. Lets
moderate the internet. Then the newspapers, then books. I think
there's precedent for moderating the written word for the greater good
of society. Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia, China, Iran.
I find your noise unnecessary and worse.

I'm adding you to my killfile. Your kind is dangerous.

Ed

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:08:48 -0700, wrote:

Moderating unmoderated groups would be great for usenet if you ask me. So
much unnecessary noise here these days.
But it's up to the people who post here. (Even the cranky ones who insulted
me for no reason)

That's the scariest post to date. Don't stop with the newsgroups. Lets
moderate the internet. Then the newspapers, then books. I think
there's precedent for moderating the written word for the greater good
of society. Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia, China, Iran.
I find your noise unnecessary and worse.

Um. Ed? She isn't pushing anything, she's expressing her opinion.
Naiive and misguided, perhaps, but she even says "It's up to the people
who post here", which to me indicates that she's not pushing _anything_.

I'm adding you to my killfile. Your kind is dangerous.

I think you have jumped several conclusions to get from where she is to
where you are.

On 15 Nov 2005 23:12:09 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, William D
quickly quoth:

BOTTOM LINE: It can be done *if* there is support.

If this group were moderated, it would lose only some of its ugliness
and ALL of its functionality, charm, and interest. Once that happened,
all the users would bail and it would die.

Let's hope there is never -any- support whatsoever.

-----
= The wealth of reality, cannot be seen from your locality. =
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:56:44 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Luigi Zanasi quickly quoth:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:15:09 -0800, Larry Jaques
scribbled:

For those of you who can't handle a real man's crunchy peanut butter,
try the BABY FOOD AISLE.

So, you like crunchy bits in your butter too? Or cream cheese? or

Jo, just crunchy peanut butter. That's why it's called "crunchy",
WeeGee.


brie? or mascarpone? or are they all also baby food? It's called
"butter" for a reason.

I don't do brie or mascarpone. (Any relation to Al Carpone? groan)


Or do you agree with the sentiments Pratchett
identified:

Sham Harga had run a successful eatery for many years by always
smiling, never extending credit, and realizing that most of his
customers wanted meals properly balanced between the four food groups:
sugar, starch, grease and crunchy bits.
Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms

I seriously attempted to read Pratchett books twice and failed both
times. His style got under my skin before the end of the 3rd page
and his totally schizophrenic style of bouncing between totally
different concepts/situations/personalities 60 times per second
truly hurts (hertz.) No, I don't agree with anything he said, at
least not in its entirety. I did like the "crunchy bits" bit, tho.

Besides, here in the States, the 4 food groups are "sugar, caffeine,
fat, & preservatives."

-----
= The wealth of reality, cannot be seen from your locality. =
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message


I think you have jumped several conclusions to get from where she is to
where you are.

He is expressing that everyone should have free speech, except those that
don't agree with him.

I hope you're pleased with yourself Wanda. There we were, all quiet and
peaceful, and then YOU pipe up and whisper "Psst. Moderate?" and then
all freakin hell breaks loose.

I just hope you're satisfied with all the damage you've caused. Just
LOOK what you've done. My, my, MY. Your friends over at plus-sized
communist agitators must be pret-ty proud of you.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:35:29 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
, wrote:


"E. Allen's ghost" wrote in message
.. .
On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
, wrote:

"Andy Dingley" wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
wrote:

Why don't you guys moderate your group?

1) Because moderation isn't a good idea

With all due respect Andy, that's just YOUR OPINION. There are hundreds
of moderated newsgroups in various hierarchies and many of them are
thriving.

They work very well if they have the support and a good moderator. I
agree. I don't understand all the venom in here against moderation.

It makes no sense why you guys have always been so scared of it.


2) Because of a huge bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
from ourselves.

That's not BY ANY MEANS an accurate account of what happened. I proposed
a SEPARATE GROUP for PEOPLE INTERESTED in a SEPARATE MODERATED GROUP. I
never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated. If the
group passed, reading it and posting to it would have been VOLUNTARY.
Staying in the unmoderated wreck would have been voluntary too if the
group passed, this option would NOT have been taken away from wreckers
and I NEVER proposed anything like that.

But why try to create a whole new hierarchy? Wouldn't a moderated
group work just as well?


There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
mostly over the way he went about it.

Once again, I proposed a SEPARATE GROUP, and I went through all the
proper hoops and channels. It was not my fault that a sociopath from Ohio
named Steve Young flooded the ballot box with forged and "FROGGED" votes.
Later when the vote fraud was detected, Susan and I VOLUNTARILY declined
the revote that was offered to us by the NAN Team.


Why on earth wouldn't you want a revote?

It's a very touchy subject now.

I see that the subject will never be allowed to rest.


It's one of the more interesting stories I've heard in a while.

If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
"fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals. Not
a thing in it.

More hog wash. First of all, the fam.* hierarchy is INACTIVE now.
http://www.family-usenet.com
Second of all, fam.* woodworking was NEVER moderated. Third of all,
current usenet protocols are not advanced enough to keep ANY newsgroup
100% "SAFE". My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
invasion. You use Supernews, and they were the only news service provider
to respect our charters so you probably didn't see any of the cross
posted drivel. But most people DID see all the junk from the swines, and
that kept decent folks from wanting to participate. If you're gonna bad
mouth me, Andy, at least get your details straight.


If you wanted to try and get a moderated woodworking group started
again, I'd certainly read it. I'm sure other people would too. I
don't see why you have to go along with consensus on this since it
doesn't directly affect this group.

JMO

Eric

In my plus sized moderated group, there was a non moderated group too. It
got lots of spam and trolls, but people read and posted to both groups. I
think if anything it made a better atmosphere for both groups because people
had a choice.

Wanda

Vito is a flaming kook, you dim bitch. He doesn't care about anything
but controlling usenet.

Jade

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
wrote:

Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned earlier.
Why don't you guys moderate your group?

I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was attempted. You
just need a really fair and dedicated moderator, which I know is easier said
than done. Moderators have to be level headed and leave their egos at the
door.

Anyway, just a thought. Thanks again for all your help.

Wanda


Two moderated woodworking groups are www.sawmillcreek.org and
www.woodcentral.com if you'd like to take a look at what a moderated
group looks like.


I've been coming around rec.woodworking for a long time, mostly
lurking, sometimes posting. I doubt anyone will ever go along with
moderating it. Just my 2 cents.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:49:25 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message


I think you have jumped several conclusions to get from where she is to
where you are.

He is expressing that everyone should have free speech, except those that
don't agree with him.

Yup, and throwing in comparison to nazis in the process. Always a good
mind-changer, that.

On 16 Nov 2005 12:49:30 -0800, wrote:
I hope you're pleased with yourself Wanda. There we were, all quiet and
peaceful, and then YOU pipe up and whisper "Psst. Moderate?" and then
all freakin hell breaks loose.

I just hope you're satisfied with all the damage you've caused. Just
LOOK what you've done. My, my, MY. Your friends over at plus-sized
communist agitators must be pret-ty proud of you.

See what I mean about it being easy to spot the ones who are safe to
ignore?

E. Allen's ghost wrote:
..


If you wanted to try and get a moderated woodworking group started
again, I'd certainly read it. I'm sure other people would too. I
don't see why you have to go along with consensus on this since it
doesn't directly affect this group.

He doesn't, but...there are, and have been for some time, other
woodworking newsgroups that are moderated. They do quite well. I'm most
familiar with woodcentral.com, and Ellis Walentine has both the
experience and talent to do a good job there. He was also smart enough
to get together with a bunch of capable people at the outset some years
ago.

Vito simply tried to entice as many people here into a moderated NG run
by him and his girlfriend, emphasizing Christianity more than
woodworking, after he was unable to turn this NG into a moderated unit.

That ****ed numerous people off, so he's out there by himself now,
which may be what he deserves. Or not. It is what he's got, possibly as
a lesson on why not to jerk other people around too much.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:22:09 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
wrote:


"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
wrote:

Why don't you guys moderate your group?

1) Because moderation isn't a good idea


I'm seeing about 50/50 on that opinion.

if you're seeing as high as 50% for moderation, it's because those who
feel it's their mission in life to control others are vocal WAAAAAAAY
beyond true percentage.



I can see the pros and cons. This
isn't a group I'll probably be on for a long time, so it really isn't my
place. I was just making a suggestion.


2) Because of a _huge_ bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
from ourselves. There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
mostly over the way he went about it. It's a very touchy subject now.


I'm sorry to hear that. It figures I would put my foot in my mouth the first
time here. I was just trying to be helpful.

If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
"fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals. Not
a thing in it.

Obviously his idea was not something that had a lot of support. In fact I
don't see why he went ahead with it knowing no one would follow him.

I guess he figured GOD would force all of us to do things Vito's way.
after all, Vito is god's chosen one....




The best intentions pave the road to hell and all.

Wanda

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:38:58 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
wrote:


"Paul H" wrote in message
...
Wanda Pangborn wrote in rec.woodworking:

Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned
earlier. Why don't you guys moderate your group?

**** off. We don't need no stinkin' moderator.

Thanks for your intelligent and well balanced commentary.

I think moderation would do wonders by getting rid of trolls like you.

Wanda



Wanda-
I see that you are using outlook express. now while I don't use or
really even approve of OE, I do understand that it is capable of
filtering.
one of the basic ground rules here is DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. use your
kill filter, use your delete key and if necessary set up a proxy
server for better filtering capability.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:00:22 -0600, George Max
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
wrote:

Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned earlier.
Why don't you guys moderate your group?

I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was attempted. You
just need a really fair and dedicated moderator, which I know is easier said
than done. Moderators have to be level headed and leave their egos at the
door.

Anyway, just a thought. Thanks again for all your help.

Wanda


Two moderated woodworking groups are www.sawmillcreek.org and
www.woodcentral.com if you'd like to take a look at what a moderated
group looks like.

and they are just fine. woodworking.com is another. nothing at all
wrong with them. but they already exist. anybody here who can't handle
the wreck is free to pop over to the creek. different strokes and all
that. there is no need to turn rec.woodworking into anything else.



I've been coming around rec.woodworking for a long time, mostly
lurking, sometimes posting. I doubt anyone will ever go along with
moderating it. Just my 2 cents.

In article , Vito Kuhn
wrote:

Supernews did the right thing and blocked the cross posts to the fam.*
hierarchy from your view. I have over 600 abusive messages archived. 600
messages spread out over weeks is not high traffic by wreck standards,
but IT IS enough to put off new posters if that's THE ONLY TRAFFIC. The
invasion was planned long before the newsgroup creation messages were
sent. The exact words in the threat was that they were going to turn my
hierarchy into "FLUFFY'S LITTER BOX".

So your incompetence managing your hierarchy is what killed it? I
thought crossposts weren't allowed.

--
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a
well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy
free health care and 100 percent literacy." -- John Derbyshire

In article ews.net,
Wanda Pangborn wrote:

Thanks, Morris! I'll be watching the group for a while to see if I spot any
more ideas.

There are lots of very helpful people here. Take your time, use to use
a killfile judiciously, don't post when you're PO'd and you'll fit in
fine and get the maximum benefit with minimum stress and frustration.

;-)

--
"I'm a man, but I can change... If I have to... I guess." -- Red Green