On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:38:56 -0700, s wrote:

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.

Yeah. I didn't ask for moderation, Wanda did.

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

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.

Amen.

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:43:28 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

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.)

It would be 50Hz given his previous occupation g

--

In article , George Max
wrote:

Yeah. I didn't ask for moderation, Wanda did.

No, she didn't.

She asked *about* moderation, not *for* it.

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:03:57 -0500, (J T)
scribbled:

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.

Me three.

Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ct_Woodworking

Communists! All of you! You all hate america! You kids get the hell
outta my yard! I'm callin the cops, right now!

I mean, it, I'm dialing RIGHT NOW! See? Here I am, dialing. Now you're
gonna get it, you commie agitators. You and your plus-size moderations.
In MY day we didn't have any moderation, and we all got mad and every
discussion turned into chaos and we LIKED it. What's wrong with you
kids today.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:45:27 -0500, (J T)
wrote:

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.

Ordinarily, I might have let it slip, but you cited spelling in the
same sentence you were lambasting the other poster on his grammar as
well.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

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)

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.

I believe this thread has now been Godwinized.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

William D wrote in rec.woodworking:

Andy Dingley wrote in
:

On 15 Nov 2005 23:12:09 GMT, 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.

I wonder if Vito will apply ?

shudder

You mean Vito Kuhn? He did.

http://groups.google.com/group/news....bf2ba22c2c42db

http://groups.google.com/group/news....f59a941c51fbed

Vito might actually become one of the people to make the rules for rec
groups? DEATH OF USENET - FILM AT 11 if a censorious creep like him
gets in there.

else24 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.
"All freakin
hell?" I'll admit, this thread is huge, but spirited. Perhaps even
cathartic. Tom

On 16 Nov 2005 21:15:21 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

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.


Godwin's Law.


Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

I Vote NO for moderation.

Jason Powell


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.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:39:04 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , George Max
wrote:

Yeah. I didn't ask for moderation, Wanda did.

No, she didn't.

She asked *about* moderation, not *for* it.

You're right.

"Andy Dingley" wrote:

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

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

Yes you did. Repeatedly.

You're a dishonest human being, Dingley. I CHALLENGE you to find a quote
where I supposedly proposed moderation to THIS GROUP. You WON'T do it and
you CAN'T do it because it never happened. Either you'll brush me off and
ignore this challenge or you'll be a man and either "PROVE ME WRONG" or
retract your lie. Character assassination won't get you anywhere in this
life. All it does is add extra miles between your soul the Kingdom of the
Lord, and I reckon a liar like you is already pretty far off the mark.

VK

"E. Allen's ghost" wrote:

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.

Try explaining that to some of the thick heads on this forum.

VK

"William D" wrote:

"Vito Kuhn" wrote in
:

"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.

Do you regret that decision now?

No, not at all. The voting system was being abused by a sociopath at the
time. The problem wasn't fixed until MONTHS later.

At that time, it wasn't even POSSIBLE to "MODERATE THIS GROUP".

You're absolutely right about that, but who knows what tomorrow will
bring. I see that you have volunteered to serve on the committee
which will make decisions on the future of all Big 8 newsgroups. If
you're elected to the committee, would you support a removal of that
ban on proposals to change the moderation status of existing
newsgroups?

I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated newsgroup,
the people interested in using it should be the ones to decide if it is
worth creating, instead of a bunch of users in the UNMODERATED parent
group. If enough users in an unmoderated newsgroup want their group to be
moderated, that should be allowed. To answer your question, YES I think
the ban should be lifted and I intend to try and make that happen. But
that isn't the only reason I volunteered for the board. The Big Eight
group list needs a lot of cleaning up. Many dead and useless newsgroups
needs to go away. The new voting system (if there's even going to BE
voting) needs to be tested and established. Lots of stuff needs to be
fixed, and I look forward to being one of the people to make it all
happen.

VK

On 17 Nov 2005 06:21:06 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
wrote:


Try explaining that to some of the thick heads on this forum.

You seem incapable of posting without resorting to name calling in
virtually every instance. The bible teaches tolerance of others'
mortal shortcomings, yet you spew venom in response to every perceived
slight.

If you can't temper your immoderate discourse in casual interchanges,
what hope may we hold that you can keep wise counsel in weightier
matters?

I am certain you will have some vituperative response to this
question--I don't believe you can help yourself. How very
unchristian...and immature.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

In article , Jason Powell
wrote:

I Vote NO for moderation.

That's nice. Be sure to remember it when anyone issues the RFV. (Which
can't happen, since we can't retro-mod.)

Kevin

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:03:57 -0500, (J T)
wrote:

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.

I haven't any money to loan, I don't even get to date sheep and I'm
certainly not living in California!

On 17 Nov 2005 06:10:46 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
wrote:

You're a dishonest human being, Dingley. I CHALLENGE you

Ooh ! Surnames and ALL CAPITALS ! He's frothing at the mouth now.

I supposedly proposed moderation to THIS GROUP.

You proposed moderating the group. For simple technical reasons it's
impractical to do this post facto to an existing group in rec.wood's
state, so you wrote the RFD as "rec.woodworking.moderated" You were
thoroughly slapped down over that, so you went away and wrote another
one as "rec.woodworking.all-ages" Even after you enlisted the
fictional Stromboli clan to rig the vote for that one it was finally
slapped down. Eventually you went far enough over the horizon to create
a whole new top-level hierarchy, at which point many people simply
stopped caring.

Then _exactly_ as many wiser people had told you would happen, this all
turned into a trollpit. fam.* is a total and utter failure for any
interpretation of "cleaned up usenet".

So what _have_ you achieved ?

You've made some shiny new trollpens.

You've made yourself look an idiot.

Most of all, you've filled rec.woodworking with a rolling troll party
and stuck a perfectly functional newsgroup high on the troll radar, to
the detriment of all concerned. Overall your contribution to the sum of
world happiness is profoundly negative.


For anyone who cares, this guy even has his own Kook FAQ
http://www.kookology.info/frito/

Tom,
In the name of brevity I invoke Guy's corollary. :-}
Ed

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:20:45 -0700, wrote:

Guy's corollary


I'll see your Guy's Corollary and raise you with Van der Leun's
Corollary.


Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:03:57 -0500, (J T)
wrote:


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.


I haven't any money to loan, I don't even get to date sheep and I'm
certainly not living in California!
Being a Californicator is not as bad as you seem to think.
j4

"Andy Dingley" wrote:

(SNIP HOG WASH LIES AND LINK)

I rest my case. Dingley couldn't find a quote because I NEVER proposed
moderation to rec.woodworking, so the swine started ranting in Swinese
instead. Anyone that cares about the truth can look in Google dot com for
the real story.

One day your lies will catch up with you, Dingley. Just you wait and see
what happens. Mark my words.

VK

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:41:05 -0800, Luigi Zanasi
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:03:57 -0500, (J T)
scribbled:

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.

Me three.


Ya know, the name "Vito" means, "Conquerer" and the name "Kuhn" means
"Bold".

Some things are funny.

Some things are really funny.





Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"Vito Kuhn" wrote in message
...

One day your lies will catch up with you, Dingley. Just you wait and see
what happens. Mark my words.

VK


Oooh, a cyber-threat!
Do you have a waxed mustache that you twirl when you say things like that?

On 17 Nov 2005 06:21:06 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
, wrote:

"E. Allen's ghost" wrote:

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.

Try explaining that to some of the thick heads on this forum.

VK

Get out of the group, Vito. Take your perverted False-Christian anger
somewhere else. Like back to your FAILED fam shack.

"Vito Kuhn" wrote in
:

"William D" wrote:

"Vito Kuhn" wrote in
:

"JLD" 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.

Do you regret that decision now?

No, not at all. The voting system was being abused by a sociopath at
the time. The problem wasn't fixed until MONTHS later.

At that time, it wasn't even POSSIBLE to "MODERATE THIS GROUP".

You're absolutely right about that, but who knows what tomorrow
will bring. I see that you have volunteered to serve on the
committee which will make decisions on the future of all Big 8
newsgroups. If you're elected to the committee, would you support a
removal of that ban on proposals to change the moderation status of
existing newsgroups?

I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated
newsgroup, the people interested in using it should be the ones to
decide if it is worth creating, instead of a bunch of users in the
UNMODERATED parent group. If enough users in an unmoderated newsgroup
want their group to be moderated, that should be allowed. To answer
your question, YES I think the ban should be lifted and I intend to
try and make that happen. But that isn't the only reason I
volunteered for the board. The Big Eight group list needs a lot of
cleaning up. Many dead and useless newsgroups needs to go away. The
new voting system (if there's even going to BE voting) needs to be
tested and established. Lots of stuff needs to be fixed, and I look
forward to being one of the people to make it all happen.

So your motivation in volunteering for the new NAN committee is so that
you can empower ordinary Usenet posters to have their favorite
unmoderated Big 8 groups become moderated?

So your candidacy for the committee isn't about helping out the Big
8...it's *really* about control and censorship.

"Vito Kuhn" wrote in
:

"William D" wrote:

"Vito Kuhn" wrote in
:

"JLD" 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.

Do you regret that decision now?

No, not at all. The voting system was being abused by a sociopath at
the time. The problem wasn't fixed until MONTHS later.

At that time, it wasn't even POSSIBLE to "MODERATE THIS GROUP".

You're absolutely right about that, but who knows what tomorrow
will bring. I see that you have volunteered to serve on the
committee which will make decisions on the future of all Big 8
newsgroups. If you're elected to the committee, would you support a
removal of that ban on proposals to change the moderation status of
existing newsgroups?

I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated
newsgroup, the people interested in using it should be the ones to
decide if it is worth creating, instead of a bunch of users in the
UNMODERATED parent group. If enough users in an unmoderated newsgroup
want their group to be moderated, that should be allowed. To answer
your question, YES I think the ban should be lifted and I intend to
try and make that happen. But that isn't the only reason I
volunteered for the board. The Big Eight group list needs a lot of
cleaning up. Many dead and useless newsgroups needs to go away. The
new voting system (if there's even going to BE voting) needs to be
tested and established. Lots of stuff needs to be fixed, and I look
forward to being one of the people to make it all happen.

So your motivation in volunteering for the new NAN committee is so that
you can empower ordinary Usenet posters to have their favorite
unmoderated Big 8 groups become moderated?

So your candidacy for the committee isn't about helping out the Big
8...it's *really* about control and censorship.

"Vito Kuhn" wrote in message
...
"Andy Dingley" wrote:

(SNIP HOG WASH LIES AND LINK)

I rest my case. Dingley couldn't find a quote because I NEVER proposed
moderation to rec.woodworking, so the swine started ranting in Swinese
instead. Anyone that cares about the truth can look in Google dot com for
the real story.

One day your lies will catch up with you, Dingley. Just you wait and see
what happens. Mark my words.

VK


Vito.

There's no need to threaten anyone. This is all my fault for bringing up the
idea. I proposed moderating the group. You are being completely irrational.
It's only a newsgroup for heaven's sake! If you want to be mad at someone be
mad at me, but don't call people liars.

Obviously you harbor a lot of animosity because your ideas were not well
received at all. Neither was it well received when I brought it up to the
people here. You really shouldn't take it so personally. Sometimes in life
people don't embrace your ideas. It's something you can learn from instead
of be bitter and resentful about. Maybe, like I'm doing now, you should say
to yourself that this idea was not a good idea and the feedback I got proves
that. It's all trial and error. It doesn't mean you're a failure because
your experiment with a new heirarchy didn't work either.

I admire your chutzpa! And as we say in my spirit circle - "Mother Spirit,
Bless My Path!" All things will come to pass.

Wanda

"gw" wrote:


"Vito Kuhn" wrote in message
...

One day your lies will catch up with you, Dingley. Just you wait and
see what happens. Mark my words.

VK


Oooh, a cyber-threat!
Do you have a waxed mustache that you twirl when you say things like
that?

How was that a "CYBER-THREAT"? Dingley knows what I'm talking about, and
so does his soul. I'm talking about his fate in the NEXT LIFE. He's a
real swine. He thinks he pulled a fast one on me by posting a defamatory
warning to the Supernews support group so they wouldn't carry the fam.*
hierarchy newsgroups, but it didn't work and his sneaking around did him
no good. My best friend Ernie told me all about this little stunt of his.

VK

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:57:33 -0500, Wanda Pangborn wrote:

There's no need to threaten anyone. This is all my fault for bringing up the
idea. I proposed moderating the group. You are being completely irrational.

Yes, he is. You're wasting your time trying to (a) care about what he
says, and especially to (b) explain anything to him.

It's only a newsgroup for heaven's sake! If you want to be mad at someone be
mad at me, but don't call people liars.

He can't help it, it's what he's like. (don't bother, Vito, you're
wedged firmly in the killfile with the rest of your type).

Obviously you harbor a lot of animosity because your ideas were not well
received at all. Neither was it well received when I brought it up to the
people here.

The reaction you got was because of his tactics, not so much your
message in itself.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:01:53 -0500, "gw" wrote:


"Vito Kuhn" wrote in message
...

One day your lies will catch up with you, Dingley. Just you wait and see
what happens. Mark my words.

VK


Oooh, a cyber-threat!
Do you have a waxed mustache that you twirl when you say things like that?



heh. vito's own personal private god is gonna reach down and smack his
peepee.

On 17 Nov 2005 18:44:32 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
wrote:

so the swine started ranting in Swinese instead.

That's the last line from my favourite poem, a little known
collaboration between Kipling and Edward Lear.

One day your lies will catch up with you, Dingley. Just you wait and see
what happens. Mark my words.

There's a "Mwaa ha ha ha" missing from that last statement.

On 17 Nov 2005 00:40:28 +0800, "JLD"
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa****@********pussyfuc k.com, wrote:

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


So you don't want to be censored, but you don't mind censoring her?

Sounds fair...

Eric

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:33:59 +0000, "Jason Powell"
, wrote:

I Vote NO for moderation.

Jason Powell

Thanks. Someone will make a note.

Eric



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.

On 17 Nov 2005 06:21:06 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
, wrote:

"E. Allen's ghost" wrote:

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.

Try explaining that to some of the thick heads on this forum.

VK

Don't need to. Just ask for the group to be created. It sounds like
you want to moderate anyway. I dont' see the problem with just
starting it. I'll read it, as I said.

Eric

On 17 Nov 2005 20:42:43 GMT, Dave Hinz , wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:27:13 -0500, E Allen's ghost wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 00:40:28 +0800, "JLD"
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa****@********pussyf uck.com, wrote:

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

So you don't want to be censored, but you don't mind censoring her?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

I don't think moderating this or any other group is censoring anyone,
if that's what you mean.

Eric

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:27:13 -0500, E Allen's ghost wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 00:40:28 +0800, "JLD"
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa****@********pussyfu ck.com, wrote:

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

So you don't want to be censored, but you don't mind censoring her?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

E. Allen's ghost wrote:


I don't think moderating this or any other group is censoring anyone,
if that's what you mean.

Eric


Then you are clueless about what moderators actually do, Eric.

Dave