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

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

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Moderator: Susan Welchel
Moderator: Vito Kuhn

Did I miss a memo?


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

LRod wrote:
Did I miss a memo?

Same one everybody did, seems like Vito got a wild hair. Strikes
me like a lousey idea.
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 Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:06:50 GMT, dave in Fairfax
wrote:

Strikes me like a lousey idea.

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.

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 ?

dave in Fairfax wrote in
:

LRod wrote:
Did I miss a memo?

Same one everybody did, seems like Vito got a wild hair. Strikes
me like a lousey idea.
Dave in Fairfax

Amen to what Dave & LRod said. Completely civilized is usually boring.

I filter out all kinds of crap in analog life. My own filters. Why should
digital life be any different?

Patriarch

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:06:50 GMT, dave in Fairfax
wrote:

Strikes me like a lousey idea.

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.

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 think we may just get an answer to the burning question "what if
they made a whiney net-nanny's group and nobody came?"


Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." - Lily Tomlin

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:01:41 +0100, LRod
wrote:

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

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

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Ditto.

Every moderated NG I've seen either stunk or died when the moderator
lost interest. They were all slow to post, reminding me of the old
Fidonet groups.

Has this "Vito" ever posted here about woodworking?

I also don't see how eBay and For Sale posts for tools or equipment
are hurting this group. Maybe Vito can be the king of his own Yahoo
group.

I prefer self-moderation. Filters and proxies are available for free
if someone wants them. Heck, Robert B. even graciously writes proxy
rules for those who can't or don't want to! G

Barry

Tue, Sep 7, 2004, 12:37am (EDT+4) (Vito=A0Kuhn)
skipped his meds:
SNIP

I bet you'd try to suck the fun out of a rock.



JOAT
A clear case of sub-optimization with respect to the ratio of effort to
enhanced effects.
- Myki

Attaboy: http://www.dailywav.com/0702/attaboy5.wav

Andy Dingley wrote:
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.

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 make it a point, with this exception and occas stupidity, to not
x-post. I doubt that this group that Vito is longing for will
ever get off the ground, even ssuming it gets a "yes" vote. He
has managed to miss the point and the ethos of this NG, which
along with RCW is one of the few left that has common decency as a
core value and pleasant give and take as a manner. Take a look at
the wRECk and you see the remnants of the the older porch and
pond. why would we want to give that up for a sterile serving of
pablum. Thanks for catching the extra e BTW. %-)

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 Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:13:53 +0000, B a r r y wrote:

Has this "Vito" ever posted here about woodworking?

According to Google Groups, our pal Vito posted fairly regularly
throughout the first half of '02, then disappeared. Mysteriously on Sept 4
a handful of utterly contentless posts (much like this one) appeared with
his name.

As far as I can tell, Susan Welchel has never posted here.

Good luck, Vito, old boy. I'll be staying right here if you don't mind.

--
Joe Wells

There are numerous ways to filter out the junk. Many applications
are very effective. Personally, I dislike moderated groups although
they might be of value to some people. A moderator may omit posts
which are actually related to woodworking, and I tend to read
"slightly off" topic posts (remember the shop dog that passed away?)
Plus, moderated groups delay posts and I occasionally I appreciate
quick responses.

I too dislike moderated newsgroups. Even normally fair moderators can
occasionally act against the best interest of the group (everyone has
his/her own agenda now and then). I can filter out people I don't want to
hear from pretty effectively even with OE. I prefer I have that control
rather than some moderator I don't know and have no way to judge.

Do you really want someone else deciding what you can read? That's what a
moderated Ng is.

If you want that, there are thousands of email lists and forums that are
moderated and the owner/moderator can decide for you what you are allowed to
read, and you will never even know what you might have missed.

"Phisherman" wrote in message
news
There are numerous ways to filter out the junk. Many applications
are very effective. Personally, I dislike moderated groups although
they might be of value to some people. A moderator may omit posts
which are actually related to woodworking, and I tend to read
"slightly off" topic posts (remember the shop dog that passed away?)
Plus, moderated groups delay posts and I occasionally I appreciate
quick responses.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:06:50 GMT, dave in Fairfax
wrote:

Strikes me like a lousey idea.

snip

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 ?

Barely posted is right. DAGS of Groups and Web shows nothing except
the current proposal.

I too think the idea is a non-starter.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wgoffe...oodworking.htm

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:01:41 +0100, LRod
wrote:

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

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

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Moderator: Susan Welchel
Moderator: Vito Kuhn

Did I miss a memo?



Seems like we have an answer to the question, "Who died and made you
newsgroup monitor?" ;-)

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.

To summarize: I don't think a new group such as this would be very
interesting, nor a very good idea.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Mark & Juanita wrote:
To summarize: I don't think a new group such as this would be very
interesting, nor a very good idea.



I don't see any need for it either. My filters seem to keep the crap down to a
dull roar.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:33:52 -0400, (J T) wrote:

Tue, Sep 7, 2004, 12:37am (EDT+4) (Vito*Kuhn)
skipped his meds:
SNIP

I bet you'd try to suck the fun out of a rock.


Simple, succinct, eloquent -- I love it! :-)

Much better than the wordy response I came up with.



JOAT
A clear case of sub-optimization with respect to the ratio of effort to
enhanced effects.
- Myki

Attaboy: http://www.dailywav.com/0702/attaboy5.wav

In article , Mortimer
Schnerd, RN wrote:

I don't see any need for it either. My filters seem to keep the crap down to
a
dull roar.

Most of my filters for rec.woodworking haven't been used for 60 - 90
days. The OT threads are usually clearly labelled as such if I wanted
to filter them out.

So we have a proposal that no one has spoken in favor of, proposed by
two people who have little record on usenet (one who hasn't posted on
rec.woodworking since mid-2002 and one who according to Google has
*never* posted on usenet) and no experience moderating a newsgroup.

I doubt it will even get to a 2nd RFD.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:01:41 +0100, LRod
wrote:


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


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

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Moderator: Susan Welchel
Moderator: Vito Kuhn

Did I miss a memo?




Seems like we have an answer to the question, "Who died and made you
newsgroup monitor?" ;-)

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.

To summarize: I don't think a new group such as this would be very
interesting, nor a very good idea.



- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net



This is right up there with the censorship pushed through by a bunch of
idiots that controls political ads by citizens within 30-60 days of anelection.

Gary Newman wrote:
a bunch of crap

A Google shows you never posted here before. A sock puppet
perhaps?
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/

Gary Newman wrote:
lol, thanks for proving my point
That's right Dave, you are arguing with yourself and now you have outed
yourself, must be a split personality.
You obviously have no clue what a sockpuppet is, but if commenting without
a clue were a crime, several people here would be in jail.
Get out of ignorance free card, do not pass go, do not get your chisels
sharpened...
sock puppet
n. [Usenet: from the act of placing a sock over
your hand and talking to it and pretending it's talking back] In
Usenet parlance, a pseudo through which the puppeteer posts
follow-ups to their own original message to give the appearance that
a number of people support the views held in the original message.

Gee, and here I was thinking that you might be an incarnation of
BAD. I know what a sock puppet is, I'm just not sure that you
aren't one. Have fun.
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/

In article , reply-to, is, disabled, to, stop, spam wrote:
Gary Newman wrote:
[snipped]

Gee, and here I was thinking that you might be an incarnation of
BAD. I know what a sock puppet is, I'm just not sure that you
aren't one. Have fun.

He might be, but he's not BAD -- unless the BADboy changed ISPs, newsservers,
*and* newsreaders.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In news.groups Gary Newman wrote:

Having said all that, I would still oppose a moderated group... there are
plenty of web forums for people who want that sort of stuff.

Web forum are not the same as usenet forums. Some folks prefer
usenet over web forums from a technical standpoint. The issue
at hand is whether an existing topic space, with existing readership,
can be made usable (again), not whether it should be moved off usenet.
Sometimes, when the readership proves to have too little discipline,
moderation is the only solution left. Whether it proves to be a
viable solution can only be determined by trying it (starting with
whether it can manage to get to a vote).

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.

Dear Woodworkers:

news.groups is for discussions about the creation of new newsgroups.

If you have a comment about whether to create rec.woodworking.moderated
please post it to rec.woodworking and news.groups.

If you have a comment about anything else, please post it to
rec.woodworking only without crossposting it to news.groups.

We have a job to do, and do not need the additional noise from
you crossposting your flamewars here.

Thanks in advance for helping.

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 19:12:49 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

In news.groups Gary Newman wrote:

Having said all that, I would still oppose a moderated group... there are
plenty of web forums for people who want that sort of stuff.

Web forum are not the same as usenet forums. Some folks prefer
usenet over web forums from a technical standpoint. The issue
at hand is whether an existing topic space, with existing readership,
can be made usable (again),

At issue here is whether rec.ww is un-usable (now). I suspect the
concensus, with a few exceptions will be that it is not un-usable as it
currently stands.

not whether it should be moved off usenet.
Sometimes, when the readership proves to have too little discipline,
moderation is the only solution left. Whether it proves to be a
viable solution can only be determined by trying it (starting with
whether it can manage to get to a vote).

ru

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:18:31 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , reply-to, is, disabled, to, stop, spam wrote:

Gee, and here I was thinking that you might be an incarnation of
BAD. I know what a sock puppet is, I'm just not sure that you
aren't one. Have fun.

He might be, but he's not BAD -- unless the BADboy changed ISPs, newsservers,
*and* newsreaders.

....and learned speling and grammar...

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:18:53 -0700, Guy Macon wrote:

Dear Woodworkers:

news.groups is for discussions about the creation of new newsgroups.

If you have a comment about whether to create rec.woodworking.moderated
please post it to rec.woodworking and news.groups.

The .moderated group was brought up by a non-participant of the
rec.woodworking newsgroup for unknown reasons. As such, discussing
that person's non-participation in the group is relevant to the
discussion.

If you have a comment about anything else, please post it to
rec.woodworking only without crossposting it to news.groups.

We have a job to do, and do not need the additional noise from
you crossposting your flamewars here.

Do you have a FAQ which talks about the foolishness of creating a
moderated group when the person suggesting same is unlikely to be
a positive influence in the process? That'd be helpful. Serious
question - I've seen many groups where a .moderated is created by
someone with an agenda, and the .moderated group languishes and dies
because of non-participation.

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).

John

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

snip
At issue here is whether rec.ww is un-usable (now). I suspect the
concensus, with a few exceptions will be that it is not un-usable as
it currently stands.

Those who find currently unusable now are likely taking a break, and may,
or may not, return.

So it goes with most of life's activities. I wish parts of them were more
civilized, too, but nobody really wants me to be the moderator for THAT
forum.

I don't want the job, either.

Patriarch

Dave Hinz says...

The .moderated group was brought up by a non-participant of the
rec.woodworking newsgroup for unknown reasons. As such, discussing
that person's non-participation in the group is relevant to the
discussion.

Actually, the proposed moderator's non-participation in the group is
relevant to the discussion, but the proponent's non-participation
is irrelevant. Iit shouldn't matter who makes the proposal; the
proposal stands or falls on it's own merits. The moderator, on the
other hand, will have total control over the group, and thus discussing
his character, abilities, and commitment is very much on-topic.

Please keep your discussion related to the proposal when you crosspost
to news.groups and please don't crosspost to news.groups when you are
enaging in generalized flaming.

If you have a comment about anything else, please post it to
rec.woodworking only without crossposting it to news.groups.

We have a job to do, and do not need the additional noise from
you crossposting your flamewars here.

Do you have a FAQ which talks about the foolishness of creating a
moderated group when the person suggesting same is unlikely to be
a positive influence in the process?

No, because it doesn't matter who suggests the name.

That'd be helpful. Serious question - I've seen many groups where
a .moderated is created by someone with an agenda, and the .moderated
group languishes and dies because of non-participation.

In those cases, the correct thing to do is to attack the proposal, not
the proponent.

On 8 Sep 2004 20:04:03 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:



Do you have a FAQ which talks about the foolishness of creating a
moderated group when the person suggesting same is unlikely to be
a positive influence in the process? That'd be helpful. Serious
question - I've seen many groups where a .moderated is created by
someone with an agenda, and the .moderated group languishes and dies
because of non-participation.


Well there is not one FAQ that says foolish as I recall, however there
are two FAQs that discuss moderated groups.

http://www.swcp.com/~dmckeon/mod-faq.html

http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html

also in my sig is a link to n.g FAQ, that points to creation process
in the big-8

Hopes this helps some.

--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html

Doug Miller wrote:
He might be, but he's not BAD -- unless the BADboy changed ISPs, newsservers,
*and* newsreaders.

Hi Doug, I figured that HWSNBN might be feeling deprived and have
done just that. Conversley, I have 3 ISP's, 2 OS's and run 4
browsers, depending on what I'm doing. So I don't put it against
anybody else to do the same or even more.

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/

Dave Hinz wrote:
He might be, but he's not BAD -- unless the BADboy changed ISPs, newsservers,
*and* newsreaders.

...and learned speling and grammar...


"Speling" ?




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

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


Thanks in advance for helping.



OK, I'll help. If someone wants to have a moderated woodworking
newsgroup,.let them. There are thousands of useless (IMO) groups that I
don't participate in. I would not participate in a moderated newsgroup of
any subject. Moderation ranks right up there with book burning. I don't
like censorship in my conversations.

I'll just continue using rec.woodworking as in the past.
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

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

I've given this a little more thought and have the following
observations and opinions:

RATIONALE: rec.woodworking.moderated

This group is proposed as a moderated global forum for the discussion
of woodworking topics. The group is a moderated subgroup of
rec.woodworking (The Wreck, as it is commonly referred to by
subscribers), which is averaging more than 10,000 posts per month
in 2004.

Reasons for creating a moderated version of rec.woodworking:

1-To ensure that woodworking remains the only topic of discussion

*****************************
/begin hidden agenda

2-To help divide the traffic of busy newsgroup that is very difficult to keep up with

/end hidden agenda
*****************************

3-To provide a family-safe environment to discuss woodworking topics,
free of foul language and pornography links

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

Basically this is just another way of suggesting "split the wreck," a
proposal that has been suggested many times before and roundly
excoriated each time some self important, know-it-most newbie proposes
it by the regular users of the Wreck. I have no expectations but that
it will be scuttled yet again.

MODERATOR INFO: rec.woodworking.moderated

Moderator: Susan Welchel
Moderator: Vito Kuhn

Frankly, other than the fact that the proposed moderator(s) apparently
can't keep up with the Wreck traffic (see highlighted area above), I
couldn't care less if they want to take their dolls and...er, start a
new newsgroup. I do think they need to delete all (TM)'ed references,
such as "the Wreck," "jummy wood," and "klown hammer" or any
derivatives or diminuitives in their activities. Most real Wreckers
won't want to have any association with "wreck liters" (TM, here and
now).

Administrative contact address:

Article submission address:

Proponent: Vito Kuhn

I suggest an email alias of in order to conform
with the "truth in advertising" concept.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:00:04 -0700, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com
wrote:

Dave Hinz says...

The .moderated group was brought up by a non-participant of the
rec.woodworking newsgroup for unknown reasons. As such, discussing
that person's non-participation in the group is relevant to the
discussion.

Actually, the proposed moderator's non-participation in the group is
relevant to the discussion, but the proponent's non-participation
is irrelevant. Iit shouldn't matter who makes the proposal; the
proposal stands or falls on it's own merits. The moderator, on the
other hand, will have total control over the group, and thus discussing
his character, abilities, and commitment is very much on-topic.

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

--snip--

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


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

Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated,
already?

Wherever you go, there you are. Your luggage, another story.

Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then
what
do you have? Bupkes!

Be patient and achieve all things. Be impatient and achieve all
things
faster.

There is no escaping karma. In a previous life, you never called, you
never wrote, you never visited. And whose fault was that?

The Buddha taught that one should practice loving kindness to all
sentient beings. Still, would it kill you to find a nice sentient
being
who happens to be Jewish?

Let your mind be as a floating cloud. Let your stillness be as the
wooded glen. And sit up straight. You'll never meet the Buddha with
such round shoulders!

To practice Zen and the art of Jewish motorcycle maintenance, do the
following: Get rid of the motorcycle. What were you thinking??

Drink tea and nourish life. With the first sip, joy. With the
second,
satisfaction. With the third, Danish.

If there is no self, whose arthritis is this?

Be aware of your perceptions. Be aware of your body. But not every
physical sensation is a symptom of a terminal illness.

To find the Buddha, look within. Deep inside you are ten thousand
flowers. Each flower blossoms ten thousand times. Each blossom has
ten
thousand petals. You might want to see a specialist.

The Tao has no expectations. The Tao demands nothing of others. The
Tao does not speak. The Tao does not blame. The Tao does not take
sides. The Tao is not Jewish.

Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this and
attaining Enlightenment will be the least of your problems.

--
Guns don't kill people. Rappers do!
-----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Rap-free Website Development

For what it's worth I'm not particularly opposed to a moderated
woodworking newsgroup, but I wouldn't visit it if it did exist. The
reason is I occasionally enjoy the off topic comments (especially Tom
Watson's stories for example) and the flame wars can go nicely with
lunch too And I'm always looking for a bargain so the occasional
FS and FA postings generate a click from me. They're easily ignored
if I want to and that's okay too.

I prefer rec.woodworking as is and not a watered down version. So,
now that I've blathered on, if you're wanting to know if this is a
vote for, against, or an abstain, since there hasn't been much support
for one (I wouldn't stand in the way) I'll vote no for now.

Thanks,
Mike

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com wrote in message ...
Dear Woodworkers:

news.groups is for discussions about the creation of new newsgroups.

If you have a comment about whether to create rec.woodworking.moderated
please post it to rec.woodworking and news.groups.

If you have a comment about anything else, please post it to
rec.woodworking only without crossposting it to news.groups.

We have a job to do, and do not need the additional noise from
you crossposting your flamewars here.

Thanks in advance for helping.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:55:17 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Having said all that, I would still oppose a moderated group... there are
plenty of web forums for people who want that sort of stuff.

Sorry I missed the original posting. However, I have major problems
with a moderated group. The moderator sits on a very high horse.
Having no other choice, I'd rather put up with the B.S. that is easily
filtered out as the alternative. A good newsreader allows you to list
according to headers in the same thread, so they are all lumped
together, and readily deleted.

That said, the OT posters are still the most ignorant people I have
ever had the displeasure to meet. They are totally arrogant and
self-serving, and common courtesy is not in their vocabulary. There
is no need for them to post completely OT, even if labelled as such.
They do it, like little children and spammers, simply to show that
they can. It shows clearly their mentality. If they had more than
one brain cell between them they'd be able to form their own
discussion group elsewhere. That done, there'd be a lot more decent
people posting relevant topics for discussion, making this newsgroup
what it should be; informative about woodworking.

So, no moderation, but those responsible for the OT crap should know
that they are seen to be as stupid and ignorant as they make
themselves out to be. Now watch for their intelligent replies.

Bill.

Larry Jaques wrote in
news

--snip--

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


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

snippage

Thanks, Larry!

Mark & Juanita says...

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

Dave Hinz says...

The .moderated group was brought up by a non-participant of the
rec.woodworking newsgroup for unknown reasons. As such, discussing
that person's non-participation in the group is relevant to the
discussion.

Actually, the proposed moderator's non-participation in the group is
relevant to the discussion, but the proponent's non-participation
is irrelevant. Iit shouldn't matter who makes the proposal; the
proposal stands or falls on it's own merits. The moderator, on the
other hand, will have total control over the group, and thus discussing
his character, abilities, and commitment is very much on-topic.

If you will check the proposal, the proposed moderator 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.)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:46:45 GMT, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
He might be, but he's not BAD -- unless the BADboy changed ISPs, newsservers,
*and* newsreaders.

...and learned speling and grammar...

"Speling" ?

Somewhere there's a Usenet rule that any message mentioning the spelling of
another poster, must contain at least one spelling error. I figure since
it's got to be there anyway, I'd put it where I knew where it was.

Dave Hinz