Preliminary Discussion of RFD ( Revised ) for news.services.moderated
Nigel Sixsmith
The revisions to my original RFD for news.services.moderated are as
follows;
There are two main areas of change from the original RFD I posted.
1) Name change:
FROM
news.services.moderated (Moderated)
TO
news.news-service-providers (Moderated)
REASON:
The new name conveys the true nature of the new group in a clearer
manner than the previous suggestion.
------
2) Change to Moderation Policy:
FROM:
MODERATION POLICY: news.services.moderated
Moderation to initially be done via robo-moderation with the possibility
of human moderation if robo-moderation proves inadequate at keeping the
group free from the majority of 'noise' that proved so disruptive in the
original alt.binaries.news-servers-comparison group.
It may be that a combination of both robot and human moderation is
needed to ensure the inclusion of 'friendly banter' without such posts
cluttering up the group. This should to be discussed and considered in
depth and if needed, human moderators will need to be found to fulfil
this stipulation if such is agreed upon. Likewise, robo-moderation will
need to be fully discussed and methods decided upon if that method of
moderation is agreed to be needed in this group too.
TO
MODERATION POLICY: news.news-service-providers (Moderated)
Moderation to initially be done via robo-moderation with the intention
of using such a form of moderation for the lifetime of the group, to
help keep the group free from the majority of 'noise' that proved so
disruptive in the original alt.binaries.news-servers-comparison group.
If robo-moderation proves unsuccessful at removing the majority of the
'noise from the group then, after discussions with other group regulars
and other interested parties such as, but not limited to, the Big 8
Management Board and regular participants in news.groups, then
additional human moderation will be considered and implemented as and
when needed. I am hopeful this second step will not need to be taken.
It may be that a combination of both robot and human moderation is
needed to ensure the inclusion of 'friendly banter' without such posts
cluttering up the group. This should to be discussed and considered in
depth and if needed, human moderators will need to be found to fulfil
this stipulation if such is agreed upon. Likewise, robo-moderation will
need to be fully discussed and methods decided upon if that method of
moderation is agreed to be needed in this group too.
REASON:
Clarification and re-enforcement of the intention to moderate only via
robo-moderation method(s) unless deemed absolutely necessary to
implement human moderation after discussions with interested parties.
------
In addition to the two major changes there is one smaller change, which
is as follows;
Distribution of the RFD
FROM:
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
alt.binaries.news-server-comparison
TO:
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
alt.binaries.news-server-comparison
news.groups
REASON:
I feel the addition of news.groups, to the distribution list for this
RFD, will help provide further useful discussion and comments on the
content and implementation of this RFD as well as notify regular users
of news.groups as to my intent to follow through with my agreement to
discuss this RFD in news.groups.
--------
If anyone requires me to post a copy of the original RFD to news.groups
then simply ask and I will do so. Otherwise, a copy of the original RFD
can be found in news.announce.newgroups.
Message-ID: <nan.20070119175150$44...@killfile.org>
--
Nigel Sixsmith
The Art Of Sound Studios
Gilbert, AZ
Kathy Morgan
> 2) Change to Moderation Policy:
>
> (snip)
>
> TO
>
> MODERATION POLICY: news.news-service-providers (Moderated)
>
> Moderation to initially be done via robo-moderation with the intention
> of using such a form of moderation for the lifetime of the group, to
> help keep the group free from the majority of 'noise' that proved so
> disruptive in the original alt.binaries.news-servers-comparison group.
>
> (snip)
>
> It may be that a combination of both robot and human moderation is
> needed to ensure the inclusion of 'friendly banter' without such posts
> cluttering up the group. This should to be discussed and considered in
> depth and if needed, human moderators will need to be found to fulfil
> this stipulation if such is agreed upon. Likewise, robo-moderation will
> need to be fully discussed and methods decided upon if that method of
> moderation is agreed to be needed in this group too.
I think it's unlikely that robo-moderation by itself will be successful.
Do you have some human moderator candidates available? Who will be the
official moderator? (Someone has to handle the robo-mod, so you have to
have at least one moderator even if you stick with robo-moderation.)
Who will control the submission address? What is the submission
address? Have you selected or written the moderation software?
--
Kathy, speaking only for myself
Jeremy Nixon
> 1) Name change:
>
> FROM
>
> news.services.moderated (Moderated)
>
> TO
>
> news.news-service-providers (Moderated)
I think this name is terrible; you're saying "news" twice in a row.
Why not just "news.service-providers"?
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Nigel Sixsmith
wrote:
>Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2) Change to Moderation Policy:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> TO
>>
>> MODERATION POLICY: news.news-service-providers (Moderated)
>>
>> Moderation to initially be done via robo-moderation with the intention
>> of using such a form of moderation for the lifetime of the group, to
>> help keep the group free from the majority of 'noise' that proved so
>> disruptive in the original alt.binaries.news-servers-comparison group.
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> It may be that a combination of both robot and human moderation is
>> needed to ensure the inclusion of 'friendly banter' without such posts
>> cluttering up the group. This should to be discussed and considered in
>> depth and if needed, human moderators will need to be found to fulfil
>> this stipulation if such is agreed upon. Likewise, robo-moderation will
>> need to be fully discussed and methods decided upon if that method of
>> moderation is agreed to be needed in this group too.
>
>I think it's unlikely that robo-moderation by itself will be successful.
I'm concerned too, that this might be the case.
>Do you have some human moderator candidates available? Who will be the
>official moderator? (Someone has to handle the robo-mod, so you have to
>have at least one moderator even if you stick with robo-moderation.)
>Who will control the submission address? What is the submission
>address? Have you selected or written the moderation software?
No to all of the above. At least, not yet though as I said in n.g.p. I
can provide boxes and bandwidth to host robo-moderation software if
absolutely needed but I am hopeful that someone with more expertise than
I have, will step forward and offer to run/host the robo-mod software.
Brian Mailman
> Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) Name change:
>>
>> FROM
>>
>> news.services.moderated (Moderated)
>>
>> TO
>>
>> news.news-service-providers (Moderated)
>
> I think this name is terrible; you're saying "news" twice in a row.
> Why not just "news.service-providers"?
Yes, alt.makes.sentences.from.news-groups.names.
news.* is name of the hierarchy, discussing that topics of "netnews."
*.news-service-providers is the name of the main topic.
news.service-providers.* as a second node would be a hierarchy
discussing the different providers and would be an empty placeholder,
such as n.s-p.supernews news.s-p.teranews, etc.
B/
Nigel Sixsmith
wrote:
That is how I viewed the original suggestion with n-s-p fully describing
the specific group and all it entails. Yes, it is a long name but I
don't see that as any hindrance especially as it needs no further
description to explain what it is about and therefore will remain within
the 80 char limit.
Nigel Sixsmith
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:45:16 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:17:18 -0800, Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>>>> Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1) Name change:
>>>>>
>>>>> FROM
>>>>>
>>>>> news.services.moderated (Moderated)
>>>>>
>>>>> TO
>>>>>
>>>>> news.news-service-providers (Moderated)
>>>>
>>>> I think this name is terrible; you're saying "news" twice in a row.
>>>> Why not just "news.service-providers"?
>>>
>>>Yes, alt.makes.sentences.from.news-groups.names.
>>>
>>>news.* is name of the hierarchy, discussing that topics of "netnews."
>>>*.news-service-providers is the name of the main topic.
>>>
>>>news.service-providers.* as a second node would be a hierarchy
>>>discussing the different providers and would be an empty placeholder,
>>>such as n.s-p.supernews news.s-p.teranews, etc.
>>>
>>
>>That is how I viewed the original suggestion with n-s-p fully describing
>>the specific group and all it entails.
>
>Except of course, the moderated part.
It was pointed out to me that there is no requirement for a moderated
group to have .moderated in it's title. Was that person mistaken?
Jeremy Nixon
> It was pointed out to me that there is no requirement for a moderated
> group to have .moderated in it's title. Was that person mistaken?
No, there is no such requirement. Gary's point is that he feels there
*should* be such a requirement.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Nigel Sixsmith
wrote:
>Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It was pointed out to me that there is no requirement for a moderated
>> group to have .moderated in it's title. Was that person mistaken?
>
>No, there is no such requirement. Gary's point is that he feels there
>*should* be such a requirement.
Ah well, that's open to debate in that case. I'm happy not to include
.moderated myself.
Nigel Sixsmith
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:48:33 -0700, in news.groups, Nigel Sixsmith
><n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:55:48 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:45:16 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:17:18 -0800, Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>>>>>> Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Name change:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FROM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news.services.moderated (Moderated)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news.news-service-providers (Moderated)
<snip>
>>>>That is how I viewed the original suggestion with n-s-p fully describing
>>>>the specific group and all it entails.
>>>
>>>Except of course, the moderated part.
>>
>>It was pointed out to me that there is no requirement for a moderated
>>group to have .moderated in it's title. Was that person mistaken?
>
>It is dishonest.
I think that is not true. maybe, not as informative a name as it could
be, yes, but dishonest, no. The problem with adding /.moderated to the
name is two fold.
1) It makes the name extremely long (though it's not impossibly long in
terms of the char limit)
2) It is not needed by over half of all users of Usenet to identify if a
group is moderated or not.
>It is called stealth moderation.
Well, given that the two news clients that are used by more than 50% of
all users of Usenet, clearly indicate if a group is moderated without
the need for the word 'moderated' in the tile, you could say it was
'semi-stealthy' moderation at best, I suppose.
Nigel Sixsmith
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:38:35 -0700, in news.groups, Nigel Sixsmith
><n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:07:46 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It was pointed out to me that there is no requirement for a moderated
>>>> group to have .moderated in it's title. Was that person mistaken?
>>>
>>>No, there is no such requirement. Gary's point is that he feels there
>>>*should* be such a requirement.
>>
>>Ah well, that's open to debate in that case. I'm happy not to include
>>.moderated myself.
>
>If the group is moderated it should so state in the group name.
>
>The name should be a good description of scope of the group, I would
>think a group being moderated be part of the name...
See my earlier response but the description will contain the fact it is
moderated so I'm still not convinced it is needed, given the points I
made in my other response to you about this.
Convince me that adding .moderated to the end of the name will do more
than simply lengthen an already long name and will provide for something
that is not already provided to the user by the majority of news clients
in use or by the description of the group.
Jeremy Nixon
> Wasn't it my 'good buddy' John Stanley who suggested strongly in this
> group (and I am paraphrasing here). that we shouldn't have to cater to
> those who's news clients can't perform the basic functions of a news
> client.... and I would say that identifying if a news group is
> moderated or not, would be one of those 'basic functions', yes?
Yes. A newsreader is told whether a group is moderated; if it fails to
tell the user, that's really not our problem, is it? Weighing down the
name with extra metadata that is readily available otherwise just
doesn't make sense.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Jeremy Nixon
> All moderated groups should be plainly marked if not forced into a
> hierarchy labeled mod.*
All moderated groups *are* plainly marked already.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Steve Bonine
> Yes. A newsreader is told whether a group is moderated; if it fails to
> tell the user, that's really not our problem, is it? Weighing down the
> name with extra metadata that is readily available otherwise just
> doesn't make sense.
Honest question. How is a newsreader told that a group is moderated,
and why would it care? The newsreader transfers articles the same way,
whether the group is moderated or unmoderated. Now if the *server*
configuration is screwed up, that's a problem.
I agree that adding .moderated to moderated newsgroups is usually just
extra metadata. There are exceptions; the rec.radio.amateur proposal
seems a good place to have .moderated in the newsgroup name to reduce
confusion for potential users.
Jeremy Nixon
> Honest question. How is a newsreader told that a group is moderated,
A newsreader is told something like this:
news.groups.proposals 0000001245 0000000001 m
The fourth field being 'm' indicates that the group is moderated.
> and why would it care?
So it can tell the user. I get "(Moderated)" next to the group name at
the top of the screen, for example.
> I agree that adding .moderated to moderated newsgroups is usually just
> extra metadata. There are exceptions; the rec.radio.amateur proposal
> seems a good place to have .moderated in the newsgroup name to reduce
> confusion for potential users.
In that case, .moderated serves the purpose of differentiating the group
from the others.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Steve Bonine
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> and why would it [newsreader] care [that the group is moderated]?
>
> So it can tell the user. I get "(Moderated)" next to the group name at
> the top of the screen, for example.
OK. Mine doesn't. But then again, you could argue that it's not really
a news reader <grin>
>> I agree that adding .moderated to moderated newsgroups is usually just
>> extra metadata. There are exceptions; the rec.radio.amateur proposal
>> seems a good place to have .moderated in the newsgroup name to reduce
>> confusion for potential users.
>
> In that case, .moderated serves the purpose of differentiating the group
> from the others.
Exactly. On the other hand, *adding* it could cause confusion in the
case of an existing hierarchy of moderated groups that don't have
.moderated in their name.
The only thing that's certain is that there will be an uproar in
news.groups no matter whether .moderated is there or not.
nukleus
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:55:48 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:45:16 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:17:18 -0800, Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>>>>> Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Name change:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FROM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> news.services.moderated (Moderated)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TO
>>>>>>
>>>>>> news.news-service-providers (Moderated)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this name is terrible; you're saying "news" twice in a row.
>>>>> Why not just "news.service-providers"?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, alt.makes.sentences.from.news-groups.names.
>>>>
>>>>news.* is name of the hierarchy, discussing that topics of "netnews."
>>>>*.news-service-providers is the name of the main topic.
>>>>
>>>>news.service-providers.* as a second node would be a hierarchy
>>>>discussing the different providers and would be an empty placeholder,
>>>>such as n.s-p.supernews news.s-p.teranews, etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is how I viewed the original suggestion with n-s-p fully describing
>>>the specific group and all it entails.
>>
>>Except of course, the moderated part.
>
>It was pointed out to me that there is no requirement for a moderated
>group to have .moderated in it's title. Was that person mistaken?
Nope. They are just obscessed with this "moderation" thing.
By not adding .moderated to your group name,
you are effectively taking over a namespace
and making it impossible for unmoderated version
of it to exist.
Simple as that.
Secondly, by simply looking at group name,
people should be able to see if it is "moderated"
or not. Otherwise, they may post to your group
till their noses go blue and never seeing their
articles appearing in the group, not even suspecting
they were censored out of existence,
mr. "moderator" wannabe.
Brian Mailman
> It is called stealth moderation.
Don't fall into the fact that some members of the board use
passive-aggressive voice to project their own agenda and make it seem
more generally accepted than it is.
You'd be better served with "I call it stealth moderation."
B/
Jeremy Nixon
> What makes you say that? I believe that if a group is moderated, it
> should have that information in its name. It makes it easier for posters
> to decide IF they wish to send articles to the newsgroup or not based on
> their preference to have others moderate their comments or not.
Why wouldn't they make that choice based on whether the group is moderated,
rather than the name?
How much other metadata are we supposed to overload the name with?
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Jeremy Nixon
> So it would seem and yet, I really was interested in just why Jeremy felt
> that adding moderated to the newsgroup name that is moderated wasn't a
> reasonable thing. Personally, I prefer to know whether or not a group I'm
> posting to is moderated or unmoderated. Consider it a personal quirk if
> you will but it is important to me. I don't believe I'm the only one who
> feels this way.
Of course you're not. Your newsreader can tell you whether a group is
moderated. If it doesn't, it's broken; get a new one.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:16:16 -0500, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:15:23 -0800, pandora <pan...@peak.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:38:35 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:07:46 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It was pointed out to me that there is no requirement for a moderated
>>>>>> group to have .moderated in it's title. Was that person mistaken?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, there is no such requirement. Gary's point is that he feels there
>>>>>*should* be such a requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Ah well, that's open to debate in that case. I'm happy not to include
>>>> .moderated myself.
>>>
>>>Just out of curiousity, why?
>>>
>> Because jeremy doesn't want it and other people do. Why else?
>
>So it would seem and yet, I really was interested in just why Jeremy felt
>that adding moderated to the newsgroup name that is moderated wasn't a
>reasonable thing. Personally, I prefer to know whether or not a group I'm
>posting to is moderated or unmoderated. Consider it a personal quirk if
>you will but it is important to me. I don't believe I'm the only one who
>feels this way.
>
>CWQ
You are not. It is just good manners to announce such in a readily
identifiable manner.
Piece of shit cock gobbling bambis know squat about fuckin manners.
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
"overload"
*snicker*
Hyperbole, shocking. One word becomes "other metadata" in hopes of
branding a single item as "bad".
Who would have thought Jeremy would stoop to such obvious tactics.
Karl Rove would be so proud.
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
>pandora <pan...@peak.org> wrote:
And it comes full circle.
What happened to catering to the masses?
K. A. Cannon
<12s5p1i...@corp.supernews.com> in news.groups on Fri, 02 Feb
2007 07:11:46 -0000:
So everybody should start using trn?
You'd best start your *un-broken* newsreader crusade with the MSOE
users. How typical.
Free hint...it's about the average UseNet user.
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)
Obstinate people can be divded into the opinionated, the ignorant,
and the boorish.
-Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Bk. VII
Daedalus
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 03:05:55 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Bob Officer <bobof...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>
>>> All moderated groups should be plainly marked if not forced into a
>>> hierarchy labeled mod.*
>>
>>All moderated groups *are* plainly marked already.
>
>Where? Point it out in, oh, for example, Agent.
Maybe he thinks Agent is a *broken* newsreader.
Jade
Dave Williams
> Of course you're not. Your newsreader can tell you whether a group is
> moderated. If it doesn't, it's broken; get a new one.
I'm sorry. I thought I was reading John Stanley for a minute. :)
(As a matter of minor interest does OE tell you if a group is
moderated or not?)
Dave
nukleus
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:20:51 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:06:31 -0800, Bob Officer <bobof...@127.0.0.7>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:38:35 -0700, in news.groups, Nigel Sixsmith
>>><n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:07:46 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It was pointed out to me that there is no requirement for a moderated
>>>>>> group to have .moderated in it's title. Was that person mistaken?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, there is no such requirement. Gary's point is that he feels there
>>>>>*should* be such a requirement.
>>>>
>>>>Ah well, that's open to debate in that case. I'm happy not to include
>>>>.moderated myself.
>>>
>>>
>>>The name should be a good description of scope of the group, I would
>>>think a group being moderated be part of the name...
>>
>>See my earlier response but the description will contain the fact it is
>>moderated so I'm still not convinced it is needed, given the points I
>>made in my other response to you about this.
>>
>>Convince me that adding .moderated to the end of the name will do more
>>than simply lengthen an already long name and will provide for something
>>that is not already provided to the user by the majority of news clients
>>in use or by the description of the group.
>
>Not everyone has a newsreader that makes it clear that a moderated
>group is moderated. Not everyone uses a newsreader that even displays
>the description. Not everyone will know that a post gets sent to
>someone who makes a decision as to if a post appears. Not every
>moderator tells people their post was rejected.
>
>Since it doesn't HURT to add .moderated, it should be added. Makes it
>easier for my customers, makes it easier for me. Of course, if you'd
>like to continue to prove that you, speaking at least partially for
>team Calvin don't CARE what news admins think ....
I agree with this post.
Except i add one lil thingy.
By NOT using .moderated,
you effectively take the name space for that group
and no "unmoderated" group on this subject is possible,
unless they change the very group name,
which may make it look like something utterly difficult,
or change the very purpose of the group by sticking
some label on it that does not reflect what it is about.
nukleus
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:15:12 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:38:24 -0800, Bob Officer <bobof...@127.0.0.7>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:48:33 -0700, in news.groups, Nigel Sixsmith
>>><n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:55:48 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>>>><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:45:16 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:17:18 -0800, Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FROM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> news.services.moderated (Moderated)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TO
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> news.news-service-providers (Moderated)
>>
>>
>>>>>>That is how I viewed the original suggestion with n-s-p fully describing
>>>>>>the specific group and all it entails.
>>>>>
>>>>>Except of course, the moderated part.
>>>>
>>>>group to have .moderated in it's title. Was that person mistaken?
>>>
>>
>>I think that is not true. maybe, not as informative a name as it could
>>be, yes, but dishonest, no. The problem with adding /.moderated to the
>>name is two fold.
>>
>>1) It makes the name extremely long (though it's not impossibly long in
>>terms of the char limit)
>
>No, it doesn't matter.
Nowadays, you can have 3 miles long names
and your puter wouldn't even hick up.
>>2) It is not needed by over half of all users of Usenet to identify if a
>>group is moderated or not.
What are you trying to justify?
Your cunningness?
>Over half? Prove it, dipshit. Show how you came to that number.
Looks like this lil dummy is just a cocksucker.
Not sure it is even worth talking to him.
It is like talking to a wall.
Enough.
>>>It is called stealth moderation.
>>
>>Well, given that the two news clients that are used by more than 50% of
>>all users of Usenet, clearly indicate if a group is moderated without
>>the need for the word 'moderated' in the tile, you could say it was
>>'semi-stealthy' moderation at best, I suppose.
>
>Which two are you referring and prove that 50% of the users of usenet
>use them. No wonder you say it's not dishonest. You can't even
>tell what the word means.
nukleus
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:46:41 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>>>group is moderated or not.
>>
>>
>
>
>Based on yesterdays (01-31-07) figures alone, 41% of all posts made to
>Usenet were made by people using OE or Outlook and both clearly identify
>if a group is moderated or not. and this is not counting the many people
>who use OE or Outlook to read and didn't post, compared to other news
>clients.
>
>The total exceeds 50% with ease
Is it supposed to be funny, or what?
Do you, lil biorobot, think that even your delusions
have any validity, then the other half should be just ignored?
>>>>It is called stealth moderation.
>>>
>>>Well, given that the two news clients that are used by more than 50% of
>>>all users of Usenet, clearly indicate if a group is moderated without
>>>the need for the word 'moderated' in the tile, you could say it was
>>>'semi-stealthy' moderation at best, I suppose.
>>
>>Which two are you referring and prove that 50% of the users of usenet
>>use them. No wonder you say it's not dishonest. You can't even
>>tell what the word means.
>
>See the link I provided above and then withdraw your factually incorrect
>comments.
You are just a stupid lil bookworm.
That is about all there is to it.
nukleus
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:20:42 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:12:51 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Based on yesterdays (01-31-07) figures alone, 41% of all posts made to
>>>Usenet were made by people using OE or Outlook
>>
>
>Both can read news therefore both are newsreaders
>
>>>and both clearly identify
>>>if a group is moderated or not. and this is not counting the many people
>>>who use OE or Outlook to read and didn't post, compared to other news
>>>clients.
>>>
>>>The total exceeds 50% with ease
>>
>
>41% plus those that didn't post but just read news (usually accepted as
>10-20% in addition to those that posted) Plus the other news clients
>that can show if a newsgroup is moderated (Xnews for example) plus web
>based news readers using other programs that those provided by MS =
>More than 50%
>
>Again, withdraw your comments and retain some credibility.
What are you masturbating here about,
you funky biorobot?
nukleus
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:55:51 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:20:42 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:12:51 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Based on yesterdays (01-31-07) figures alone, 41% of all posts made to
>>>>Usenet were made by people using OE or Outlook
>>>
>>>Neither of which are newsreaders.
>>
>>Both can read news therefore both are newsreaders
>
>
>>
>>>>and both clearly identify
>>>>if a group is moderated or not. and this is not counting the many people
>>>>who use OE or Outlook to read and didn't post, compared to other news
>>>>clients.
>>>>
>>>>The total exceeds 50% with ease
>>>
>>>So 41% exceeds 50% wth ease. <snipped>
>>
>>41% plus those that didn't post but just read news (usually accepted as
>>10-20% in addition to those that posted) Plus the other news clients
>>that can show if a newsgroup is moderated (Xnews for example) plus web
>>based news readers using other programs that those provided by MS =
>>More than 50%
>>
>>Again, withdraw your comments and retain some credibility.
>
Where's that chainsaw?
>You're trying your best to claim
>victory with statements like usually accepted, you've purposefully
>ignored the facts. You're pathetic.
>
nukleus
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:59:51 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:55:51 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:20:42 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>>><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:12:51 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Based on yesterdays (01-31-07) figures alone, 41% of all posts made to
>>>>>Usenet were made by people using OE or Outlook
>>>>
>>>>Neither of which are newsreaders.
>>>
>>>Both can read news therefore both are newsreaders
>>
>
>...and at that point, with your credibility exiting stage left too,
What "credibility" are you blabbering about,
you lil funkazoid?
>I
>think trying to discuss this with you any further , will accomplish very
>little, so I'll leave you to it.
nukleus
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:47:38 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:33:26 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:20:51 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:06:31 -0800, Bob Officer <bobof...@127.0.0.7>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The name should be a good description of scope of the group, I would
>>>>>think a group being moderated be part of the name...
>>>>
>>>>See my earlier response but the description will contain the fact it is
>>>>moderated so I'm still not convinced it is needed, given the points I
>>>>made in my other response to you about this.
>>>>
>>>>Convince me that adding .moderated to the end of the name will do more
>>>>than simply lengthen an already long name and will provide for something
>>>>that is not already provided to the user by the majority of news clients
>>>>in use or by the description of the group.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wasn't it my 'good buddy' John Stanley who suggested strongly in this
>>>group (and I am paraphrasing here). that we shouldn't have to cater to
>>>those who's news clients can't perform the basic functions of a news
>>>client....
>>
>>You should cater to the newsreaders and news admins. Do you care?
>>Obviously not.
>
>Actually I do care which is why I was spoke out against John Stanley's
>suggestion to filter on the approved header,
You are just a plain lil nazi wannabe,
obscessed with control, oppression and domination.
That is all.
Nothing to it, weally.
Enough.
>as a means of moderation
>because it wouldn't work for the majority of users out there due to
>limitations of the news clients or news readers they are using.
>
>Double edged sword this 'caring' stuff... I'm damned if I do and damned
>if I don't!
>
>
nukleus
>> group (and I am paraphrasing here). that we shouldn't have to cater to
>> those who's news clients can't perform the basic functions of a news
>> client....
You are just a lil nazi dummy,
trying to justify your rotten desire
to control, oppress and dominate,
and the hell will sooner gets frozen
before you see the light of day.
That is all.
Simple as that.
>> and I would say that identifying if a news group is
>> moderated or not, would be one of those 'basic functions', yes?
If you don't have brains.
>Yes.
Zig heil!
>A newsreader is told whether a group is moderated; if it fails to
>tell the user, that's really not our problem,
What are you lying your rotten shark teeth about?
"My problem", "not MY problem".
You are just about the dumbest,
most insensitive THING there is.
Yes, you are not a being,
you are but a thing,
and the thing in somebody's hands.
>is it?
Why are you asking, suxy?
>Weighing down the
>name with extra metadata
What metadata, you idiot?
Do you think people have time to look
at all those buttong, message boxes
and all sorts of crock shit
every time they want to do something?
Do you think they should even read their
news reader's configuration files
when they want to click on some group
they don't know nothing about?
Is there a full screen message box
that pops up when you click on some "moderated" group?
>that is readily available otherwise just
>doesn't make sense.
>
nukleus
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:18:32 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:47:38 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:33:26 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:20:51 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:06:31 -0800, Bob Officer <bobof...@127.0.0.7>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The name should be a good description of scope of the group, I would
>>>>>>think a group being moderated be part of the name...
>>>>>
>>>>>See my earlier response but the description will contain the fact it is
>>>>>moderated so I'm still not convinced it is needed, given the points I
>>>>>made in my other response to you about this.
>>>>>
>>>>>Convince me that adding .moderated to the end of the name will do more
>>>>>than simply lengthen an already long name and will provide for something
>>>>>that is not already provided to the user by the majority of news clients
>>>>>in use or by the description of the group.
>>>>
>>>>Also, upon further thinking.....
>>>>
>>>>group (and I am paraphrasing here). that we shouldn't have to cater to
>>>>those who's news clients can't perform the basic functions of a news
>>>>client....
>>>
>>>Obviously not.
>>
>>Actually I do care which is why I was spoke out against John Stanley's
>>because it wouldn't work for the majority of users out there due to
>>limitations of the news clients or news readers they are using.
>
What else is there under the Sun?
nukleus
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:40:23 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:45:16 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>
>
>>>It was pointed out to me that there is no requirement for a moderated
>>>group to have .moderated in it's title. Was that person mistaken?
>>
>>missing the point?
>
>I got your point. I am still not convinced however, that your point that
>it *should* be a requirement,
There are no shoulds here.
That is the very beauty of usenet.
Just about the only thing that REALLY works is this:
If you don't like it,
don't read it,
don't follow up on it.
All the other "rules and regulations"
are but a pipe dream invented by the assorted nazis,
pumping up their chests
and making all those huffing and puffing sounds,
thinking that they are "better" than others
and THEY are here to dictate
what is what
and who is who.
That is what this whole "moderation" thing
is all about.
Git it?
>has any validity based on my earlier
>responses to Bob.
nukleus
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:49:00 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:40:23 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:45:16 -0700, Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It was pointed out to me that there is no requirement for a moderated
>>>>group to have .moderated in it's title. Was that person mistaken?
>>>
>>>It should, however, be a requirement. Why do you work so hard at
>>>missing the point?
>>
>>I got your point. I am still not convinced however, that your point that
>>responses to Bob.
>
>As I said, not suprising since you're not a news admin and are
>obviously nowhere near as experienced in USENet as are those who are
>explaining why it shoud be there. Your unwillingness to listen makes
>you fit in well with the B8MB.
All these "moderators" and "moderator" wannabies
are made out of the same template.
Jeremy Nixon
> Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course you're not. Your newsreader can tell you whether a group is
>> moderated. If it doesn't, it's broken; get a new one.
>
> I'm sorry. I thought I was reading John Stanley for a minute. :)
So you remember, a week or two ago, when we weren't supposed to be catering
to every broken newsreader someone might be using? What happened to that?
I guess we're only supposed to do it when it fits the agenda of the
anti-Board.
> (As a matter of minor interest does OE tell you if a group is
> moderated or not?)
I have no idea, or any way to look.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Dave Balderstone
<jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
> Dave Williams <da...@clues.com> wrote:
> > Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Of course you're not. Your newsreader can tell you whether a group is
> >> moderated. If it doesn't, it's broken; get a new one.
> >
> > I'm sorry. I thought I was reading John Stanley for a minute. :)
>
> So you remember, a week or two ago, when we weren't supposed to be catering
> to every broken newsreader someone might be using? What happened to that?
> I guess we're only supposed to do it when it fits the agenda of the
> anti-Board.
What the fuck are you talking about? It was board members and
supporters that were whining about how usenet has to cater to OE and
Google, not the other way 'round.
Jeremy Nixon
> What the fuck are you talking about? It was board members and
> supporters that were whining about how usenet has to cater to OE and
> Google, not the other way 'round.
It wasn't me. I said the different-Approved-header thing probably
wouldn't be very useful, but I never said *that*. But the converse
of your statement is that it was the opposition who said we shouldn't
cater to them, and now are suddenly saying we must.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Dave Balderstone
<jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> > What the fuck are you talking about? It was board members and
> > supporters that were whining about how usenet has to cater to OE and
> > Google, not the other way 'round.
>
> It wasn't me. I said the different-Approved-header thing probably
> wouldn't be very useful, but I never said *that*.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I reviewed the thread. I know damned well you didn't participate.
Dave Balderstone
<n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was clearly told, in no uncertain terms, by members of the
> "Anti-Board' and it's supporters, that John Stanley's suggestion that I
> should consider moderating a group based on the Approved Header even
> though OE and Outlook (and several other News Clients and methods or
> reading news) cannot filter on that field. I was told that we should
> not cater to the masses and if OE and Outlook are 'broken' or 'not fully
> featured' News Clients that cannot filter on that field then so be it
> and that is not the fault of Usenet.
>
> I am then told by the 'Anti-Board' and it's supporters, when I suggested
> that there was no need for the use of .moderated to be added to the name
> of the group I am proposing, because some News Clients can identify if a
> group is moderated without the need for .moderated in the title, that I
> should add .moderated because some News Clients cannot display whether
> or not a group is moderated and that I *should* cater to 'broken' or
> 'not-fully featured' news clients!
>
> When I said "A" the 'Anti-Board' says "B"
>
> When I said "B" the 'Anti-Board' says "A"
>
> Plainly the truth is that no matter what I might say, the "Anti-Board'
> is going to say the opposite simply because they feel I am a supporter
> of the "Board"
>
> Either I should cater to those who have "broken' or 'not fully featured'
> News Clients or I shouldn't (and I have already made my mind up as to
> which it will be) but the "Anti-Board" needs to make up it's mind
> because at the moment it appears to be a simply case of 'Kindergarten
> Politics' that they are playing at.
There is no organization called the "anti-Board", fuckwit.
I wish I could say the fact that some individuals made one argument and
DIFFERENT individuals made a DIFFERENT argument is now some how license
for Board members (an identifiable organization) to whinge again amazes
me, but I can't say that.
Dave Balderstone
<jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
There is no "THE opposition". There is only "opposition".
The people who oppose the board don't have a mailing list, or wiki, or
bylaws, or moderated newsgroup with trained seals as mods and a "chair"
who can bypass the seals and the group's charter.
So take your accusations of hypocrisy, and turn them inward.
Aratzio
because:
SHHH, he is on a role.
Aratzio
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
because:
>In article <12s7ssk...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremy Nixon
*we* need a web shite with a wiki. Maybe Jonathan will host it too.
Dave Balderstone
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
With cheese and mayo, apparently.
Dave Balderstone
<n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:53:59 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>
> >There is no organization called the "anti-Board", fuckwit.
>
> I would agree with that statement.
>
> However, there is a 'disorganization made up of the same group of people
> that I am calling the "Anti-Board" rather than having to name them each
> and every time..
> >
> >I wish I could say the fact that some individuals made one argument and
> >DIFFERENT individuals made a DIFFERENT argument is now some how license
> >for Board members (an identifiable organization) to whinge again amazes
> >me, but I can't say that.
>
> Exactly, because if you did, it wouldn't be true.
How do you know what amazes me? Are you a physic too?
Cite the messages where anyone other than a board member or supporter
has contradicted themselves regarding newsreader functionality.
I await your response.
Aratzio
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
because:
>In article <mmu7s2tc7dc47lqu7...@4ax.com>, Aratzio
><a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:03:05 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
>> because:
>>
>> >In article <12s7juf...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremy Nixon
>> ><jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dave Williams <da...@clues.com> wrote:
>> >> > Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Of course you're not. Your newsreader can tell you whether a group is
>> >> >> moderated. If it doesn't, it's broken; get a new one.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm sorry. I thought I was reading John Stanley for a minute. :)
>> >>
>> >> So you remember, a week or two ago, when we weren't supposed to be catering
>> >> to every broken newsreader someone might be using? What happened to that?
>> >> I guess we're only supposed to do it when it fits the agenda of the
>> >> anti-Board.
>> >
>> >What the fuck are you talking about? It was board members and
>> >supporters that were whining about how usenet has to cater to OE and
>> >Google, not the other way 'round.
>>
>> SHHH, he is on a role.
>
>With cheese and mayo, apparently.
Velveeta & Miracle Whip
Aratzio
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
because:
>In article <jsu7s2t0o20o793fu...@4ax.com>, Nigel Sixsmith
The Mighty Mag will now amaze with his prodigious hand waving and
stupendous what ifs. You may want to step back as the backwash from
the hand waving may cause hair mussing and smell of flatulence.
Jeremy Nixon
> Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>> wouldn't be very useful, but I never said *that*.
>
> What the fuck are you talking about?
>
> I reviewed the thread. I know damned well you didn't participate.
See <12q8okf...@corp.supernews.com>, liar.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Jeremy Nixon
> When I said "A" the 'Anti-Board' says "B"
>
> When I said "B" the 'Anti-Board' says "A"
>
> Plainly the truth is that no matter what I might say, the "Anti-Board'
> is going to say the opposite simply because they feel I am a supporter
> of the "Board"
Yes, now you're starting to get it. This isn't the first time, nor will
it be the last.
We have a massive outcry telling us we must do "A". It goes on and on,
with people saying what evil Nazi scum we are if we don't do "A". The
outcry is unanimous from the opposition. Now, there are two things we
can do: we can do "A", or we can not do "A".
If we do "A", then all of those people completely disappear, and are
replaced by another vicious, massive attack telling us how completely
and utterly wrong we were for doing "A", and how could we ever have
considered such a thing, as only evil Nazi scum would ever do it.
The outcry is unanimous from the opposition; not a single one of those
"you *must* do 'A'" people will say even a single word about how, mere
weeks ago, they were demanding that we do "A".
If we don't do "A", then the attack about "you must do 'A'" continues,
until someone comes along and demands that we do "B", which happens to
be directly opposite "A". At that point, the "A" people disappear, and
not one of them ever says a word about how they were demanding the exact
opposite of "B" mere weeks ago and that they had just declared anyone
who would ever think of "B" to be evil Nazi scum.
This back-and-forth, damned-if-we-do-or-don't nonsense goes on in
perpetuity. That's what this newsgroup is *for*, now, it seems.
It makes it somewhat difficult to listen to people who demand that we
must do "C", then, because we know that, a bit later, we will be told
that "C" is evil and we must do "D".
Then they complain that we're not listening to them, and the cycle
begins anew.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Dave Balderstone
<jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
I was mistaken. I'll rephrase to "I know damned well you didn't argue
for catering to OE and Google."
Dave Balderstone
Dave Williams
> So you remember, a week or two ago, when we weren't supposed to be catering
> to every broken newsreader someone might be using? What happened to that?
> I guess we're only supposed to do it when it fits the agenda of the
> anti-Board.
Strangely I largely remember John arguing for filtering on the
approved header, Thomas and others largely arguing that OE couldn't
do that and thus it was a bad idea because it'd hurt half of usenet,
and a huge amount of wasted typing involving one side saying "but
it can't do that" and the other saying "but it helps some people
and doesn't actually harm anyone else" - it was probably enough to
make anyone thinking about going into manufacturing earplugs slit their
wrists.
You're doing the "the anti-board" thing. Stop being so bloody silly -
the entire world isn't PJR and Wayne^Whis wife. Nor are you the
only person (or people if you prefer the collective "you") who
actually gives a flying fuck about usenet and it's not compulsory
for those who do to agree with you or "the board."
Go chill for the weekend and stop getting shouty at people who
don't deserve it. They'll perhaps shout back - but it won't help
anybody.
>> (As a matter of minor interest does OE tell you if a group is
>> moderated or not?)
>
> I have no idea, or any way to look.
Me neither - it's why I asked. It was intended as a fair question
though.
Dave
Aratzio
got double secret probation because:
>Nigel Sixsmith <n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When I said "A" the 'Anti-Board' says "B"
>>
>> When I said "B" the 'Anti-Board' says "A"
>>
>> Plainly the truth is that no matter what I might say, the "Anti-Board'
>> is going to say the opposite simply because they feel I am a supporter
>> of the "Board"
>
>Yes, now you're starting to get it.
Just make up any old lie and spew it and if it favors the board a
board member will be along shortly to suck your dick in thanks.
Now wipe your chin Jeremy.
Dave Balderstone
<n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:09:03 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Cite the messages where anyone other than a board member or supporter
> >has contradicted themselves regarding newsreader functionality.
>
> <snip>
>
> You would appear to be correct and I was mistaken.
>
> Sorry Dave.
>
> I do feel though that 'I am damned if I do and damned if I don't" at
> times however, based upon the conflicting arguments given here by people
> who oppose the "board"!
Stop lumping people who oppose the board into some sort of organized
movement, and recognize that the board has pissed a lot of people off
who actually give a damn about usenet and the Big 8.
There's no "movement" here. The board has fucked up big time, and
refuses to admit it. There are a lot of people of varying dispositions
and demeanors who feel strongly about that.
Dave Balderstone
<n6s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I do know is that there are some people here that I would hope,
> would become participants in the group I am trying to create because
> they have good ideas and suggestions to make, (even if they have very
> different or opposing opinions to myself)because they have a degree of
> experience that could be useful to those other participants who are
> lacking in those areas, and they know enough about Usenet in general, to
> provide support and help to those new to Usenet and help, in a sense, to
> keep the NSP's honest!
You're in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Discussing group creation proposals in news.groups where you are asking
the "board" to request the newgroup message to be sent with the PGP key
that Russ still controls is a waste of your time. There's a serious
sour taste in people's mouths (except Jeremy, perhaps) and you will NOT
get advice from the people best qualified to give it. (Oh, Ru, where
art thou?)
I seem to recall that you said a "board" member suggested you post here.
If that's true (IOW, if my memory is correct, it's late here and I'm
not inclined to search for message IDs) then you've been fuckin' pwned
by the "board", sonny-me-lad.