On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:58:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


--snip--

Just to be OT: Relax, breathe, and read this:


Jewish Zen
----------

snip

Love it!

It's strange, 'though....I never knew before that I'm Jewish.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This group is sort of like a bunch
of people with a common interest sitting around the stove in the feed store.
It's not a technical meeting called to address the problem of an unexpected
failure in the static test article.

Sure, the conversation may be weighted toward the common interest, but it will
deviate in all kinds of directions as a normal part of the ebb and flow of a
conversation among friends and the individual thought processes. (That's
assuming, of course, that there are "thought" processes. Some of the stuff I've
seen makes me less than certain about that.)

That's completely normal, natural, and, IMO, to be desired. There is no need
for, nor should there be, an overseer to crack the whip and keep the
conversation limited to the "common interest". If that were the case, I think
you'd find a lot of empty chairs around the stove. I find myself dropping by the
feed store quite frequently. Not necessarily because I need to buy some feed,
but just to see what the guys are up to now.

If there happens to be a group of guys over in the corner arguing about
politics, religion, what's the best computer OS, or showing off the latest
French postcards, it's easy enough to ignore them. And, if there is nobody
talking about anything that interests me, I can run on over the bank, take care
of business, and drop by again later.

If you want to wall off a separate room and put a guard on the door, go ahead,
but I suspect that it's going to be awfully dry, cold, and very boring inside.



Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

In news.groups John McCoy wrote:
wrote in :

The issue
at hand is whether an existing topic space, with existing readership,
can be made usable (again)

You have slightly jumped the gun here, ru. The question of whether
the existing topic space is unusable has not been determined (and
I would say the evidence is that the current group is very usable,
hence the trend to oppose creating a .mod group).

Ultimately, that is what this proposal would determine if it is
followed through. If there are enough people that vote for it's
creation, then that would indicate that enough people think the
existing group is not usable and that the proposed group should
be created. Basically, that's what matters most, barring
moderation issues. So in some sense, whether the existing
group is considered usable or not by a majority is irrelevant.

It doesn't hurt to have an idea of what the consensus is beforehand,
but generally that's to gauge what to write in the proposal
rather than if the proposal should go forward. In the face of
great opposition, yes, a proponent may consider withdrawing.
But I don't consider lack of interest or lack of need to be
adequate reasons to oppose a proposal... lack of YES votes should
take care of that. When I say opposition, I mean views along the
lines of the proposed group adversely affecting the readership of
the proposed group because of the way the proposal is composed,
or will adversely affect existing groups. Generally, if there
is a segment of usenet readers that want a group to read about
a topic with more focus or specialization, then opposers should
seriously consider if they are trying to prevent others from
creating a group of their own, and why. The converse is also
true, though; supporters should also seriously consider if they
are trying to help others get their group or help themselves
get their group (the former isn't really appropriate, while the
latter is), and why.

Having said all that, I'm waiting to hear from the proponents
about the moderation issues, because I think that will be their
stumbling block.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

wrote in :

I'm waiting to hear from the proponents

I only see one proponent for this proposal. Was there an error? Perhaps the
second moderator should be added to the lists of proponents too? It looks
unusual that there is only one proponent..but two moderators.

--
Bill

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:26:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

More seriously, it will be interesting to see if very many respond to
this request positively. rec.ww has its own unique flavor, but it is akin
to a real-world shop, where people talk about all sorts of things in
addition to the wood project de' jour.

I subscribed to rec.woodworking briefly before I retired, looking for
a post-retirement hobby, and I found the group to be an extremely
pleasant place, with a charming personality. Very little acrimony,
too. And helpful to the ignorant (moi). Unless it has changed
dramatically, I'd think that this request is doomed to failure.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:30:32 GMT, Tom Veatch wrote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This group is sort of like a bunch
of people with a common interest sitting around the stove in the feed store.
It's not a technical meeting called to address the problem of an unexpected
failure in the static test article.

.... snip
If there happens to be a group of guys over in the corner arguing about
politics, religion, what's the best computer OS, or showing off the latest
French postcards, it's easy enough to ignore them. And, if there is nobody
talking about anything that interests me, I can run on over the bank, take care
of business, and drop by again later.

If you want to wall off a separate room and put a guard on the door, go ahead,
but I suspect that it's going to be awfully dry, cold, and very boring inside.



Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time. Since it is
*rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
are all doing for fun.

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com wrote in
:

If*you*will*check*the*proposal,*the*proposed*moder ator*and*the*proponent
are one and the same entity; thus the discussion of both is equivalent and
thus germaine to the topic at hand.

I realize that they are the same person in this case.**I*was
encouraging the woodworkers to use the correct "this moderator
stinks! vote no!" instead of the incorrect "this proponemt stinks!
vote no!."**(note:*I*have*no*opinion*as*to*whether*the* proponent/
moderator actually stinks.**I*am*just*advising*those*wh*think*he
does.)

OTOH, most of the woodworkers are unlikely to be interested in the
exact workings of newsgroup creation. In this case, it is likely
to confuse matters by adding a irrelevant point (ie that the
proponant's character is unimportant), when the proponant's character
does matter because he is a proposed moderator.

Don't forget, Guy, that people who hang round news.groups are much
more interested in the process of creating groups then the people
who don't. Those other people aren't going to be tested on their
knowledge of the exact format of newsgroup creation.

PS I'm posting from news.groups.

--
Penny Gaines
Usenetting since 1993

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:26:15 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

If you want to wall off a separate room and put a guard on the door, go ahead,
but I suspect that it's going to be awfully dry, cold, and very boring inside.



Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time.

Not a chance. The same reasons would apply.

Since it is
*rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
are all doing for fun.

A good point , but the wrong emphasis. Try rec.*woodworking*. Also
"all doing for fun" [which is just fine] should include "fun for all".
The objection, mine at least, to OT threads is not so much that they
are there, but that they are at a point of taking over completely.
That beer-soaked group in the corner gets louder and louder until
nobody can hear themselves speak; a subtle, but important difference.
Trying to find useful information about actual woodworking becomes a
chore, not a pleasant evening's occupation. Nobody complains when
sent to a site that holds useful information, and nothing but useful
information. They point other people there as well, as a good place
to visit. The reason people complain is because there is something to
complain about. This becomes not such a good place to visit, so a
whole lot of potentially good contributors, who simply don't want to
wade through the crap, are lost in the shuffle.

Bill.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn"
wrote:

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated


The great beauty of the Wreck is its lack of moderation.

It is an immoderate society of equals without equal.

Your request for discussion will suffer concussion, percussion,
repercussion - and plain old cussin'.

NetNazis need not apply to the Wreck - The Wreck needs no guidance.

It is as it ever was, a beacon in the darkened sea of UseLessNet,
shining its weird light on fools and philosophers alike, with no more
respect for one than the other.

As Wreckers, we will beat on each other but those who are not Wreck
shall only beat on their empty drums.

Get you along Fisherman, your lures are without attraction and your
hooks are dull.

You are as a fart in a windstorm, a pimple on the ass of time, a
baitless barb in a sea of well-fed fishes.

I wish you well

Whatever your agenda

Keep hold of your pudenda

It is your only friend.



(burma shave)


Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Greetings and Salutations....

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:34:52 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:26:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

More seriously, it will be interesting to see if very many respond to
this request positively. rec.ww has its own unique flavor, but it is akin
to a real-world shop, where people talk about all sorts of things in
addition to the wood project de' jour.

I subscribed to rec.woodworking briefly before I retired, looking for
a post-retirement hobby, and I found the group to be an extremely
pleasant place, with a charming personality. Very little acrimony,
too. And helpful to the ignorant (moi). Unless it has changed
dramatically, I'd think that this request is doomed to failure.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

I have to agree here. Not only is there a fairly
good history of "on topic" postings, but, very few flame
wars (and I have been a part of BOTH). It is generally a
good resource for WW discussion and information.
As for moderation...I think the REAL problem is that
moderating a news group is a big job under the best circumstances
and, for a high volume group such as this could well be a
FULL TIME job. Anybody want to take that on?
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:08:42 -0400, Bill Rogers wrote:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:26:15 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

.... snip
Since it is
*rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
are all doing for fun.

A good point , but the wrong emphasis. Try rec.*woodworking*. Also
"all doing for fun" [which is just fine] should include "fun for all".
The objection, mine at least, to OT threads is not so much that they
are there, but that they are at a point of taking over completely.
That beer-soaked group in the corner gets louder and louder until
nobody can hear themselves speak; a subtle, but important difference.

This issue has been discussed numerous times and I know that neither of
us is going to convince the other, however, since I like the analogy, there
are a few points worth commenting on:
It is very easy to shut the door on that boistrous group in the corner
(wouldn't necessarily equate them to a beer-soaked group so much as an
intensely serious groups of partisans trading barbs, but that's a different
analogy). A threaded newsreader (I believe outlook and know that Agent and
Gravity are threaded) doesn't really make closing the door that hard, and
frankly doesn't make that group in that room all that boistrous. A simple
glance at a topic line such as "Is lying about the reason for a war an
impeachable offense" does not require a large amount of grey matter rubbing
against itself to recognize as off-topic, a single keystroke ("x" in Agent)
closes that door and 100 milliseconds later the topic of "Question about a
Disston Saw" is seen being discussed in an adjacent area.



Trying to find useful information about actual woodworking becomes a
chore, not a pleasant evening's occupation.

As I said, a threaded newsreader takes 1/10 of a second to mark an entire
OT thread as read with no more than a glance at the thread's subject line.
A brief look at the subject lines in my newsreader this evening reveals
On-topic threads: 37
Off-topic threads: 4

This hardly seems a difficult chore. More of a chore is separating
through the on-topic posts to detemine which are of interest. Again, same
criteria applies, not interested in "cordless drill/driver"? A simple "x"
and it doesn't matter if 1 or 100 postings have occured to that thread, I
only see one line and move on to the next topic.

Nobody complains when
sent to a site that holds useful information, and nothing but useful
information. They point other people there as well, as a good place
to visit. The reason people complain is because there is something to
complain about. This becomes not such a good place to visit, so a
whole lot of potentially good contributors, who simply don't want to
wade through the crap, are lost in the shuffle.

Bill.

Well Said Tom

Tom Watson wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn"
wrote:


REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated



The great beauty of the Wreck is its lack of moderation.

It is an immoderate society of equals without equal.

Your request for discussion will suffer concussion, percussion,
repercussion - and plain old cussin'.

NetNazis need not apply to the Wreck - The Wreck needs no guidance.

It is as it ever was, a beacon in the darkened sea of UseLessNet,
shining its weird light on fools and philosophers alike, with no more
respect for one than the other.

As Wreckers, we will beat on each other but those who are not Wreck
shall only beat on their empty drums.

Get you along Fisherman, your lures are without attraction and your
hooks are dull.

You are as a fart in a windstorm, a pimple on the ass of time, a
baitless barb in a sea of well-fed fishes.

I wish you well

Whatever your agenda

Keep hold of your pudenda

It is your only friend.



(burma shave)


Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

I agree that the OTs can be tiresome at times (they are frequently entertaining
too!). On the other hand, moderated groups tend to be stale and die an early
death. I kinda like the picture of a bunch of old codgers (and Mary Schafer,
Juanita too) sitting around the stove at the old hardware store. Things aren't
always on topic or interesting for everyone, but if you listen, you will get
something out of it.

Grant

Bill Rogers wrote:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:26:15 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

If you want to wall off a separate room and put a guard on the door, go ahead,
but I suspect that it's going to be awfully dry, cold, and very boring inside.



Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time.

Not a chance. The same reasons would apply.

Since it is
*rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
are all doing for fun.

A good point , but the wrong emphasis. Try rec.*woodworking*. Also
"all doing for fun" [which is just fine] should include "fun for all".
The objection, mine at least, to OT threads is not so much that they
are there, but that they are at a point of taking over completely.
That beer-soaked group in the corner gets louder and louder until
nobody can hear themselves speak; a subtle, but important difference.
Trying to find useful information about actual woodworking becomes a
chore, not a pleasant evening's occupation. Nobody complains when
sent to a site that holds useful information, and nothing but useful
information. They point other people there as well, as a good place
to visit. The reason people complain is because there is something to
complain about. This becomes not such a good place to visit, so a
whole lot of potentially good contributors, who simply don't want to
wade through the crap, are lost in the shuffle.

Bill.

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:26:15 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time. Since it is
*rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
are all doing for fun.


FWIW, there's a rash of "RFD yada.yada moderated" this week. I've seen
nearly identcial threads with similar headers in a bunch of different
newsgroups.

In article , Dave Mundt
wrote:

As for moderation...I think the REAL problem is that
moderating a news group is a big job under the best circumstances
and, for a high volume group such as this could well be a
FULL TIME job. Anybody want to take that on?

That remains the problem with this proposal.We have little or no
information regarding the experience of the proposed moderators, and no
information about the procedures and tools they propose to use in that
moderation.

Until that information is forthcoming, the proposal is worthless, IMO.

And if the information isn't forthcoming reasonably soon, I will
conclude that this proposal's goal was simply to waste people's tiime
and voice a gripe on the part of the proponent rather than a serious
attempt to form a new group.

djb

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:44:04 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" "Charles
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:26:15 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time. Since it is
*rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
are all doing for fun.


FWIW, there's a rash of "RFD yada.yada moderated" this week. I've seen
nearly identcial threads with similar headers in a bunch of different
newsgroups.

Just out of curiosity, are the moderators the same?

/end hint of agenda

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:14:59 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:44:04 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" "Charles
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:26:15 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time. Since it is
*rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
are all doing for fun.


FWIW, there's a rash of "RFD yada.yada moderated" this week. I've seen
nearly identcial threads with similar headers in a bunch of different
newsgroups.

Just out of curiosity, are the moderators the same?


I only glanced after the first two, but they seemed more than a little
similar.

wrote in :

In news.groups John McCoy wrote:
wrote in :

The issue
at hand is whether an existing topic space, with existing readership,
can be made usable (again)

You have slightly jumped the gun here, ru. The question of whether
the existing topic space is unusable has not been determined (and
I would say the evidence is that the current group is very usable,
hence the trend to oppose creating a .mod group).

Ultimately, that is what this proposal would determine if it is
followed through. If there are enough people that vote for it's
creation, then that would indicate that enough people think the
existing group is not usable and that the proposed group should
be created. Basically, that's what matters most, barring
moderation issues. So in some sense, whether the existing
group is considered usable or not by a majority is irrelevant.

Well, the wording of your original statement (topic space...
can be made usable) implies the replacement of the current group
with the moderated group (yes, I recognize that the way things
work right now, a true replacement isn't possible). It may not
be obvious to everyone reading this thread that both a mod and
a non-mod group can exist in parallel.

With both groups potentially existing, two questions arise: firstly,
would the new .mod group attract enough readership to be viable (and,
as you say, the vote will reveal that; I suspect the answer will be
no, but we shall see); and secondly if the proposed moderators
understand and are capable of doing what they propose (which I do
not beleive to be the case, and on which grounds I'll vote no if
the proposal reaches a CFV).

John

Dave Balderstone wrote:
And if the information isn't forthcoming reasonably soon, I will
conclude that this proposal's goal was simply to waste people's tiime
and voice a gripe on the part of the proponent rather than a serious
attempt to form a new group.

I'm thinking that this "may" have been one of the best trolls
yet. Put it together, an unknown drops in, incites a riot and
disappears. Excellent job, I'd say. Took us all in
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

On 11 Sep 2004 01:02:30 -0700, (VK) wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the existing group

Exactly.


Some specific questions:

- Who are you ? You're near invisible from previous postings. Why
should we give moderator status to you of all people, let alone
someone else who we have never heard of at all ? Why has there been
no attempt made to even talk to some of the high volume posters and
see if they would be interested in sharing the moderation task ?

- A hotmail address isn't a convincing technical argument for being
capable of moderating this high volume ng single-handed.

- How _are_ you going to deal with single-handed moderation of a very
large group ?

- How do postings arrive in rec.woodworking.moderated ? Will they
be posted to it, or are you planning to make it a digest of the
existing rec.woodworking traffic ? I can tell you know that you do
_not_ have my agreement to repost any of my postings into this new ng.

- How are you going to exclude the puppy whizzer etc. from a
moderated group ? There is a problem with these fools (best dealt
with by killfiling), but do you think forged moderation is really
beyond the wit of trolls ?


I accept that it's your right as a usenet user to post any deluded RFD
you might wish to. However there seems to be a total absence of any
support for it, and I look forward to the CFV (if any) being
thoroughly defeated.

(VK) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . ..

Trying to decide at this point which proposal is worst, this one or te
satanism one.

If you are comparing me to a satanist, then you have got a real
problem. I am a God-fearing Christian. I will not longer reply to
anyone with such a disrespectful tone.

So, before the new group has even been put to a vote, the proposed
moderator has

(a) demonstrated an inability to understand the content of a
message in plain english--whereas the original poster was merely
comparing two RFDs, the proposed moderator immediately takes personal
offense.

(b) demonstrated an inability to respond impartially--rather than
addressing the comment, he insults the original poster and resolves to
ignore him.

(c) brought off-topic, irrelevant personal details into the
discussion--the fact that he is a "God-fearing Christian" is of no
interest, except to demonstrate potential biases the proposed
moderator will bring with him. Tell me, will posts from Jewish
woodworkers be permitted? What if a black muslim wishes to
participate? Or a (gasp) ATHEIST?

Normally, none of those questions would cross my mind, but from
personal experience, someone who responds to trivial matters by
trumpeting their status as a God-Fearing Christian, what I hear quite
often is someone trumpeting narrow-minded, intolerant bigotry and
hypocrisy.

google-user responds:

Normally, none of those questions would cross my mind, but from
personal experience, someone who responds to trivial matters by
trumpeting their status as a God-Fearing Christian, what I hear quite
often is someone trumpeting narrow-minded, intolerant bigotry and
hypocrisy.


And, gasp, you've just slipped into politics, describing our current Prez. Or,
rather, quoting his description of himself.

Charlie Self
"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and
hurry off as if nothing happened." Sir Winston Churchill

On 12 Sep 2004 01:52:40 -0700, (VK) wrote:

I expect to have a nice
subscriber base, judging from the e-mail support I have been getting
from likeminded folk.

I don't believe you.

Now you've already admitted to having a secret and undisclosed plot
for at least one extra moderator, selected solely by you and
undisclosed in the RFD, so already I don't regard you as a
particularly open or trustworthy person.

If anyone really _is_ in favour of this proposal, would they please
care to speak up openly ?

On 12 Sep 2004 02:07:06 -0700, (VK) wrote:

We have a total of seven connections.

Unless you live in a real server bunker, I don't see your "seven
connections" as especially reliable. Where do they run? To the same
telegraph pole ? Down the same garden path? It's still exposed to
these same single point failures.


There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.

Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.


What sort of UPS capacity do you have on the house ? And if you did
lose power / gain a plumbing flood, would you still be interested in
mod duties ?

Co-resident moderators just aren't distinguishable moderators from a
reliability viewpoint, even if they are from the volume aspect.

In article ,
Woodchuck Bill wrote:

I only see one proponent for this proposal. Was there an error?
Perhaps the second moderator should be added to the lists of
proponents too? It looks unusual that there is only one proponent..
but two moderators.

There's nothing unusual about proponent and moderator lists differing.
Proponents are people who are involved in crafting an RFD and a CFV,
and who at least in theory actively collaborate in pushing the
proposal on news.groups, *and* in assessing comments on the proposal
(whether on news.groups, in e-mail, or elsewhere) and considering
possible changes.

Moderators are people who, well, moderate newsgroups. They decide
whether to post posts, and they have various other jobs depending
on circumstances. But they rarely act as text editors or salesmen,
which are the two basic jobs proponents have. (Especially if you
think of "salesmen" in a relatively sophisticated way. I've worked
at industrial companies where a salesman might be involved in going
back to the plant people and saying "OK, can we do this? If so,
what can I tell them about specifications and ...")

Now, in *this* case, it's pretty obvious that the only salesman
involved is the official proponent, so he's the only one who should
be listed. Text editing is more complicated, because moderators do
after all have to live with what the proponents write; but the
other moderator candidate could be text editing behind the scenes.
It is also possible that she doesn't exist, although that's not my
read of the proponent's character based on his posts so far.
Whatever. The unusual thing here is a moderated group proposal
with so little artillery behind it, not the details of which names
appear where on the RFD.

The *amusing* thing here is that the hostile reactions of the
rec.woodworking people have me just about ready to bet real money
that within two years, we'll see a moderated group proposal here
from them with wide consensus behind it, a la the recent
screenplays discussion.

Moderated group proposals from out of the blue are somewhat
unusual, but it's not at all unusual that when they happen, they
start someone scratching his or her head and saying "Hmmm, why
not?" And if the traffic figures and other problems quoted are
at all real, then I'd sorta expect that to happen in this case too.

Assuming, of course, that the proponent doesn't snatch victory
from the jaws of defeat and actually a) pass a vote and b) get a
working group set up. I'm not ready to bet real money on either
of *those* propositions, though.

Joe Bernstein

--
Joe Bernstein, bookseller and writer
http://www.panix.com/~josephb/

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:18:34 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
wrote:

In article ,
Woodchuck Bill wrote:

I only see one proponent for this proposal. Was there an error?
Perhaps the second moderator should be added to the lists of
proponents too? It looks unusual that there is only one proponent..
but two moderators.

.... snip
The *amusing* thing here is that the hostile reactions of the
rec.woodworking people have me just about ready to bet real money
that within two years, we'll see a moderated group proposal here
from them with wide consensus behind it, a la the recent
screenplays discussion.


I wouldn't bet too much money on that joe. :-) I've been a participant
in rec.ww for coming up on 10 years. If you do a google search on "split
the group", you will note that this proposal comes up every now and again
with various discussions pro and con for splitting the group, which has
occasionally included someone calling for a moderated group as well. It's
not that folks on this group are unknowledgeable of the possibilities, this
just hasn't been seen as a needed change.


Moderated group proposals from out of the blue are somewhat
unusual, but it's not at all unusual that when they happen, they
start someone scratching his or her head and saying "Hmmm, why
not?" And if the traffic figures and other problems quoted are
at all real, then I'd sorta expect that to happen in this case too.

Not saying it won't happen, but given past history, it seems very
unlikely. Traffic figures are probably realistic, problems quoted are most
likely overstated. Most trollish problems have been resolved through
filters and kill-files.


Joe Bernstein

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:37:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Most trollish problems have been resolved through
filters and kill-files.

Moderators don't kill trolls, killfiles do ?


(with apologies to Newport's finest)

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:43:54 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

You don't define "foul" language.

I suggest Googling some not-too-distant thread in rec.wood There
_have_ been problems with troll attacks from Puppy Wizard, the forged
anti-JOAT, and even our own pet buffoon BAD (who is at least genuinely
interested in woodworking). No-one is supporting these, or would
oppose any real means to avoid them. As an empirical definition of
"foul", just take a look.

But that's not what moderation does. Moderation is easily defeated by
the deliberate troll. Moderation's main target is the OT posting and
that can be all too subjective.

I don't _want_ Christian flamewars in rec.woodworking, and there have
been a few. You can't kf these posters, because they're genuine
posters in an OT thread. On the whole I'd rather it didn't happen, and
I rarely comment myself (and hopefully in a fairly objective and
even-handed manner when I have done so). Likewise Bush/Kerry. It's
not a big problem though (the volume just isn't - get over it) and
it's a very small price to pay for the atmosphere of the group.

What's "woodworking" anyway ? I really wouldn't want to see
large-scale crossposts from alt.home-repair or uk.d-i-y. So far the
moderation guidelines appear to permit this.

I don't know if rec.wood has a spam problem. The servers I use, rent
from or own have spam-clean feeds anyway.


Of the huge number of Usenet groups I read and post to (I Have No
Life), rec.woodworking is just about the least broken. Why fix it ?

Well, from my standpoint, I think he (Vito)is a CONTROL FREAK! I think
he wants to exert absolute control over those that don't share his
point-of-view. I will stick with the regular Wreck - I have been on (and
off) it for years. I have made some good online wrecker acquaintances
that I wouldn't change for anything - even though we very often disagree
with each other's position. At least on the Old Wreck, one can express
his opinion - a lot like visiting each other's woodshop. While
woodworking is sure the topic of choice, having a Net Nanny that would
kick one of us out for using an F-word, S-word or other innocuous
explanation is an unacceptable choice.

He can go off and form his own group. And then...uh....stay there. And
leave the unadulterated Wreck for men and women with stronger
constitutions...

my .02 worth

Philski

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Has Don Vito actually posted any other ww stuff here? I lost my
messages a while back, but do not remember much if any input from him.

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated

Newsgroup line:
rec.woodworking.moderated Woodworking discussion group for all ages. (Moderated)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
a world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup rec.woodworking.moderated.

************************************************** ***
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

If you're going to comment on this thread, please check that your
follow-ups are at least x-posted to news.groups, which is the correct
place to discuss RFDs. If they're not, then they can tend to get lost
from sight of the official process.

I'm not commenting on the thread, so I only post here. How does Don
Vito manage to send a message to thge wreck, but make it that my reply
_only_ goes to news.groups?
************************************************** ***
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I agree.

But yes, it's a lousy idea. I also _really_ don't like the idea of two
self-appointed moderators who don't even have real email address. One
is a lurker who has barely posted and the other is completely unknown.
Why not just call it rec.woodworking.me.me.me ?

************************************************** ***
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.

In article ,
Old Nick wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

If you're going to comment on this thread, please check that your
follow-ups are at least x-posted to news.groups, which is the correct
place to discuss RFDs. If they're not, then they can tend to get lost
from sight of the official process.

I'm not commenting on the thread, so I only post here. How does Don
Vito manage to send a message to thge wreck, but make it that my reply
_only_ goes to news.groups?

There is a 'magic incantation' to do that automatically.

Look at the 'full headers' of the original posting.

See the header named "Followup-To:"?

Care to guess what it's purpose is? grin

http://www.pacificnet.net/~johnr/cgi...DogintheManger

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I agree.

But yes, it's a lousy idea. I also _really_ don't like the idea of two
self-appointed moderators who don't even have real email address. One
is a lurker who has barely posted and the other is completely unknown.
Why not just call it rec.woodworking.me.me.me ?

************************************************** ***
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.

http://www.pacificnet.net/~johnr/cgi...DogintheManger

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I agree.

But yes, it's a lousy idea. I also _really_ don't like the idea of two
self-appointed moderators who don't even have real email address. One
is a lurker who has barely posted and the other is completely unknown.
Why not just call it rec.woodworking.me.me.me ?

************************************************** ***
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:01:03 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 12 Sep 2004 02:07:06 -0700, (VK) wrote:

We have a total of seven connections.

Unless you live in a real server bunker, I don't see your "seven
connections" as especially reliable. Where do they run? To the same
telegraph pole ? Down the same garden path? It's still exposed to
these same single point failures.

Well, he's got hotmail, and 6 "AOL Free 1000 Hours" CDs, so he's set.
Cut the guy some slack, he's clearly thought this through.

There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.
Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.

Yup. Hell, I've got more computers than that in my workshop.

What sort of UPS capacity do you have on the house ? And if you did
lose power / gain a plumbing flood, would you still be interested in
mod duties ?

Prediction: If by some random chance this actually passes, it'll wither
and die just like every other "I want a moderated group because I can"
group.

Co-resident moderators just aren't distinguishable moderators from a
reliability viewpoint, even if they are from the volume aspect.

....and when he gets bored with it, it'll just die, taking up namespace.
Seen it happen for more than a dozen years, over and over and over.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:01:03 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 12 Sep 2004 02:07:06 -0700, (VK) wrote:

We have a total of seven connections.

Unless you live in a real server bunker, I don't see your "seven
connections" as especially reliable. Where do they run? To the same
telegraph pole ? Down the same garden path? It's still exposed to
these same single point failures.

Well, he's got hotmail, and 6 "AOL Free 1000 Hours" CDs, so he's set.
Cut the guy some slack, he's clearly thought this through.

There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.
Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.

Yup. Hell, I've got more computers than that in my workshop.

What sort of UPS capacity do you have on the house ? And if you did
lose power / gain a plumbing flood, would you still be interested in
mod duties ?

Prediction: If by some random chance this actually passes, it'll wither
and die just like every other "I want a moderated group because I can"
group.

Co-resident moderators just aren't distinguishable moderators from a
reliability viewpoint, even if they are from the volume aspect.

....and when he gets bored with it, it'll just die, taking up namespace.
Seen it happen for more than a dozen years, over and over and over.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:18:34 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein wrote:

The *amusing* thing here is that the hostile reactions of the
rec.woodworking people have me just about ready to bet real money
that within two years, we'll see a moderated group proposal here
from them with wide consensus behind it, a la the recent
screenplays discussion.

I'm not familiar with the screenplays discussion, so I hope I'm not making
an obvious point here, but... Yes, it's possible, likely even, that within
a couple of years we'll have another troll infestation and some of the more
motivated, technical, and participating folks in the group will have had
enough to fix it. Right now, the S:N ratio is held good enough by
killfiles and/or a "trollfilter" that one of the members has developed.
The "usual suspect" is away at the moment (...or maybe he's got a webtv
account now...), but he's almost immediately recognizable so that's more
a gnat than a real problem.

So, yes, maybe at some point a moderated group will be appropriate, but
this proposal is at the wrong time, from the wrong person, for the
wrong reasons.

Dave Hinz

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:18:34 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein wrote:

The *amusing* thing here is that the hostile reactions of the
rec.woodworking people have me just about ready to bet real money
that within two years, we'll see a moderated group proposal here
from them with wide consensus behind it, a la the recent
screenplays discussion.

I'm not familiar with the screenplays discussion, so I hope I'm not making
an obvious point here, but... Yes, it's possible, likely even, that within
a couple of years we'll have another troll infestation and some of the more
motivated, technical, and participating folks in the group will have had
enough to fix it. Right now, the S:N ratio is held good enough by
killfiles and/or a "trollfilter" that one of the members has developed.
The "usual suspect" is away at the moment (...or maybe he's got a webtv
account now...), but he's almost immediately recognizable so that's more
a gnat than a real problem.

So, yes, maybe at some point a moderated group will be appropriate, but
this proposal is at the wrong time, from the wrong person, for the
wrong reasons.

Dave Hinz

Dave Hinz writes:
There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.
Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.
Yup. Hell, I've got more computers than that in my workshop.

Heck, I have more computers than that on my DESK.