Question
George
wrong.
Chris L Peterson
>I take it no one talks about astronomy here any more. Correct me if I'm
>wrong.
You're wrong.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Sjouke Burry
> I take it no one talks about astronomy here any more. Correct me if I'm
> wrong.
>
>
devoid of kookology.
Greg Crinklaw
In article <yJwFk.44209$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"George" <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>I take it no one talks about astronomy here any more. Correct me if I'm
>wrong.
no you are right
this link shows why saa is fawked its all shitetards fault
--
Greg Twinklaw
Gloryhole Developer
Cloudshite Rubbish, Tardwagon USA (dennis bishop)
ArseTools: http://www.penishound.cam/gay.hotmale
Felching: http://www.penishound.cam/gay/penishound.hotmale
GloryHole: http://buggermyarsehole.penishound.polish.my.knob
To reply take my penis out of your eye
shitetard the spammertard of rosatard make tard come home wagontard
George
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:nj7de4pintqmfl003...@4ax.com...
Just curious, since every time I open this newsgroup, if there is anything
new at all, it's mostly spam.
George
Chris L Peterson
>Just curious, since every time I open this newsgroup, if there is anything
>new at all, it's mostly spam.
Like most newsgroups, there tends to be a lot of noise. But to suggest
that there are no astronomical discussions is clearly not the case.
Chris L Peterson
In article <uLIFk.44085$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"George" <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>"Chris L Peterson" <poo...@alumni.gaytech.sod> feltched shitetards arsehole in gay massage
>news:nj7de4pintqmfl003...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:10:21 -0400, "George" <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I take it no one talks about astronomy here any more. Correct me if I'm
>>>wrong.
>>
>> i nursed shitetards nancy ninnies come home tard come back to saa
>>
>> this link works good
>>http://tinyurl.com/ypt5fn
>> _________________________________________________
>>
>> Greg Twinklaw
>> Gloryhole Developer
>> Cloudshite Rubbish, Tardwagon USA (dennis bishop)
>
>Just curious, since every time I open this newsgroup, if there is anything
>new at all, it's mostly spam.
>
>George
make shitetard come home and suckle the festering pustule off of my bell end
ouch it hurts
i am pining for dennis bishop barmytard wagontard starlord shitetard
the spammertard of rosatard
feltch my pongy arsehole come home dennis
come back to saa
please donate to the wagontard memorial fund twonk twonk
this site takes paypal
http://tinyurl.com/ypt5fn squeak clomp hobble
_________________________________________________
GregChris L Peter Twinklaw Puffer in front of children
Gloryhole Developer
Cloudshite Rubbish, Tardwagon USA (dennis bishop)
jerry warner
George wrote:
> I take it no one talks about astronomy here any more. Correct me if I'm
> wrong.
You just did.
George
I didn't mean to suggest that there were no discussions at all. I was just
reflecting on how quiet it's been in the NG.
George
Ron Hammon
>
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 07:55:03 -0400, "George" <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
> >Just curious, since every time I open this newsgroup, if there is anything
> >new at all, it's mostly spam.
>
> Like most newsgroups, there tends to be a lot of noise. But to suggest
> that there are no astronomical discussions is clearly not the case.
A very simple solution to cleanse most of the chaff is to refuse all
cross-posted messages. I have no idea why this isn't done here already.
Ron Hammon
Chris Jewell
> A very simple solution to cleanse most of the chaff is to refuse all
> cross-posted messages. I have no idea why this isn't done here already.
That does seem like a good idea, but first you need to define "here".
There is no one place where that could be done for all of usenet,
because each news server operates by the policies that its owner
thinks best.
On the other hand, each of us can probably instruct our newsreader to
never show us a crossposted article in s.a.a. How to do that depends
on which newsreader you use.
--
Chris Jewell chr...@puffin.com PO Box 1396 Gualala CA USA 95445-1396
Ron Hammon
>
> Ron Hammon <rgha...@bellsouth.nyet> writes:
>
> > A very simple solution to cleanse most of the chaff is to refuse all
> > cross-posted messages. I have no idea why this isn't done here already.
>
> That does seem like a good idea, but first you need to define "here".
> There is no one place where that could be done for all of usenet,
> because each news server operates by the policies that its owner
> thinks best.
>
> On the other hand, each of us can probably instruct our newsreader to
> never show us a crossposted article in s.a.a. How to do that depends
> on which newsreader you use.
>
No, no. I mean that, somewhere, there is a live person responsible for
the settings of, specifically, sci.astro.amateur. Since I don't stop by
very often (at all), I'm not sure if the regular posters know who the
"buck stops here" person is. Several other groups I frequent block any
post which is crossposted. There could probably be a "white list" added
for related groups.
There could probably be a rule to reject any post containing the words,
"allah", "islam", "god", "evolution", etc.
As someone else suggested, the group could reject any post without
"ASTRO" leading the subject line. However, that wouldn't be a long term
solution.
You were thinking of the download side and I was speaking of the upload
side.
Ron Hammon
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>No, no. I mean that, somewhere, there is a live person responsible for
>the settings of, specifically, sci.astro.amateur.
There is no such person, and there are no such settings. This is an
unmoderated group, and any such setting would be server dependent. There
is no central authority.
Golden California Girls
Funny, your headers don't indicate you are posting from Google Groups. Okay, I
suppose everyone is a noob to usenet once.
Usenet was designed to defy central authority so that after a nuclear attack
computer messages could still be passed around. It operates on a peering
system. Each server talks to several other servers.[1] Each broadcasts what
articles it has available and each grabs the articles it hasn't gotten from
another and makes them available. In that way even if you cut out a hunk of the
system all articles eventually get to all reachable places.
As you can see if someone can inject a message then the message goes everywhere.
As there are many places to inject a message *ALL* of them would have to agree
to prevent a specific message being injected. If there is even one place where
a spammer, nutter, kookologist or pedophile can post that doesn't enforce the
rule ...
Many NSP's today run a progam called cleanfeed to try and cut back on spam. It
gets a lot but like any robot it allows a lot through.
[1] used to until the NY AG got on his high horse.
oriel36
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:57:04 -0500, Ron Hammon <rgham...@bellsouth.nyet>
> wrote:
>
> >No, no. I mean that, somewhere, there is a live person responsible for
> >the settings of, specifically, sci.astro.amateur.
>
> There is no such person, and there are no such settings. This is an
> unmoderated group, and any such setting would be server dependent. There
> is no central authority.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
You just invoked a legal authority in the matter of usenet postings
thereby introducing a hideous element that is repugnant to all and
just about finishes you off as a contributor whether you know it or
not,if you think I haven't seen the reaction to the word 'libel' in
the usenet before then you are mistaken or naive .Who the hell is
going to argue with an stupidly incompetent individual who want to
have a legal blanket to wrap himself in and contrary to the spirit of
forums !.
All this is a long way from astronomy and the sheer joy and
satisfaction in working through the jewels that can be drawn like
water from a well with the slightest effort and still can despite the
assault of empicism with its definitions, axioms and ways to play with
words.
The wider community needs astronomy more than ever now that the love
affair with consumerism has ended or at least the excesses,the heroes
are not the cunning maneuvering of empirical ideologies built around
'laws' but around the magnificent opportunity that modern imaging
provides in lighting up older discoveries such as those of Copernicus
and Kepler.I leave you behind in that loathsome world of civil law.
Ron Hammon
>
snip
>
> Funny, your headers don't indicate you are posting from Google Groups. Okay, I
> suppose everyone is a noob to usenet once.
snip
Lol! Do you actually try to follow threads with Google Groups?
(Why do so many here not sign their posts?)
Ron Hammon
Ron Hammon
The group did not spring from a random string of characters. Someone
set it up.
Ron Hammon
Davoud
> There is no such person, and there are no such settings. This is an
> unmoderated group, and any such setting would be server dependent. There
> is no central authority.
I have always thought of the level of organization and civility of
Usenet as pointing to what the U.S. would be like under a
Libertarian-Republican coalition.
Davoud
--
If Barack Hussein Obama = terrorist does that mean that George Bush composed
The Messiah?
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
Chris L Peterson
>I have always thought of the level of organization and civility of
>Usenet as pointing to what the U.S. would be like under a
>Libertarian-Republican coalition.
With the organization being the major contribution of the Libertarians
and the, uh, civility, being from the Republicans? <g>
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>The group did not spring from a random string of characters. Someone
>set it up.
Like most newsgroups, it was set up by consensus, not by an individual.
Whatever individuals actually initiated the process have no control over
the group, and do not have the ability to regulate it. It is really
nothing more than a big email list, that uses a variant protocol. An
individual can exert control in two ways: by posting, or by refusing to
participate. That's it.
Golden California Girls
<plonk>
William Hamblen
<rgha...@bellsouth.nyet> wrote:
You can find the charter somewhere. The way USENET works is that ISPs
pass articles from news server to news server. There is noone in
charge of USENET.
If you want to know how newsgroups work, read here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup>
Bud
Ron Hammon
I have witnessed a group transitioning to hand moderation. (In fact, I'm
a listed moderator of that group.) Obviously, things CAN change and
there IS an "ability to regulate".
Ron Hammon
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>I have witnessed a group transitioning to hand moderation. (In fact, I'm
>a listed moderator of that group.) Obviously, things CAN change and
>there IS an "ability to regulate".
Yes, you can have moderated groups. This isn't one of them, and I don't
think anybody here is interested in a moderated group. Without rapid
exchanges, the flavor of things is lost. Sure, there's a lot of screwy
stuff here. So what? It's not like this is the only place for
astronomical communication anymore.
Guy Macon
Chris L Peterson wrote:
>Yes, you can have moderated groups. This isn't one of them, and I don't
>think anybody here is interested in a moderated group. Without rapid
>exchanges, the flavor of things is lost.
Why do you think that a moderated newsgroup cannot have rapid
exchanges? Simply whitelist everyone who has a history of not
being disruptive.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Chris.B
> Yes, you can have moderated groups. This isn't one of them, and I don't
> think anybody here is interested in a moderated group. Without rapid
> exchanges, the flavor of things is lost. Sure, there's a lot of screwy
> stuff here. So what? It's not like this is the only place for
> astronomical communication anymore.
There has been a rapid change in public accessibility to information
over the past few years thanks to the internet. The massive increase
in browser searchable information of so many facets on so many
subjects has resulted in a considerable loss of purpose for groups/
forums/noticeboards such as these. I sense a massive drop in the
discussion of practical observation and equipment choice on this
board. The loss of status as sole carriers of information, often
gleaned from decades of hands-on amateur and even professional
astronomy, is inevitable in these changing times of active competition
to share information. Where doubt exists as to a purchase choice an
online review can be found somewhere. Even if the review is by one
gushing neophyte we have learned from birth that if something appears
in print it must have some validity. Countless websites, blogs and
forums can provide much of the basic information where previously one
had no choice but to ask a direct question of the forum"experts". Who
seemed to just hang about here waiting to unload their acquired
knowledge or exchange social pleasantries and inside-jokes.
Light pollution and an inability to compete with NASA has contributed
to a loss of interest in sharing hard-won images. We inevitably set
standards by the professional's gaudy best. It wasn't like this not so
very long ago when an amateur's reflector could outdo the 200" on
Jupiter or the Moon. The space age has put an end to any hope of the
amateur competing again. Ironic indeed that the internet should now
offer complete freedom of the sharing of astronomical images with the
world.
The most serious problem with private browsing for information online
is judging the quality of the information available. Only a couple of
years ago one could rely on conflicts of fact being quickly resolved
by the assorted "heavyweights" on a forum.The more experts hold the
same opinion the greater the chance of reliability. Proof may however
still be very elusive. Even when the public can correct errors of
fact, or at best comment on what is offered online, one still cannot
rule out fools trying to undermine the facts. Here lies one of the
great weaknesses of sci.astro.amateur today. Who do you actually
believe when many of the real "heavyweights" seem to have largely
abandoned their former task of repeatedly answering the same basic
questions? Only to be replaced by those with very suspect motives
indeed.
Democracy of information access has introduced the full variety of
personality types. No matter how damaged, ignorant, twisted or biased
they all have an equal right to contribute to the noise. Usenet today
could be compared with satellite TV. We can receive many thousands of
channels free of charge but remarkably few have anything of immediate
interest to offer. They are just more noise with no easy way of
finding what interests us as individuals at any particular moment. An
endless, unintelligible babble has become our everyday experience.
Much like this post. ;-)
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Why do you think that a moderated newsgroup cannot have rapid
>exchanges? Simply whitelist everyone who has a history of not
>being disruptive.
I've never seen a moderated list that is as dynamic as this. In fact,
once you've appointed somebody to determine what "disruptive" is, you've
lost something important, IMO. Very good discussions have happened on
SAA that would never have occurred had their original posters been
blocked.
If you want that kind of control, go to Cloudy Nights, or the like.
There's room for all sorts of groups out there.
Davoud
> Light pollution and an inability to compete with NASA has contributed
> to a loss of interest in sharing hard-won images. We inevitably set
> standards by the professional's gaudy best. It wasn't like this not so
> very long ago when an amateur's reflector could outdo the 200" on
> Jupiter or the Moon. The space age has put an end to any hope of the
> amateur competing again. Ironic indeed that the internet should now
> offer complete freedom of the sharing of astronomical images with the
> world.
I agree with much of what you wrote (not often that I agree with you),
but I disagree with the above. What you are saying is analogous to
saying that there is a loss of interest in writing because Shakespeare,
Tolstoy, Hugo, et al, have done it all.
In my attempts to make astrophotos from the light-polluted Mid-Atlantic
United States I am in competition with myself. I don't try to outdo the
Hubble or the Keck telescopes, or amateurs like Rob Gendler who have
earned a measure of fame for themselves in the hobby with great work.
Rob Gendler (Dr. Rob Gendler, radiologist) had a huge head start on me
in image processing experience and has financial resources well beyond
mine to purchase equipment that cost more than I can afford. It is
clear (no pun intended) that he is as meticulous in his astro-imaging
as he is in his professional life. He made wonderful photos from his
light-polluted driveway in Connecticut before moving his equipment to a
remotely controlled observatory in the Southwest. I don't fret about
that; I fret that the M-whatever I have just shot, which I was sure
would be my best yet, has turned out to be worse than mediocre.
I display my deep-sky photos at <http://www/primordial-light.com>. This
web site, along with my personal site, is intended largely for my own
enjoyment and that of my close friends (however far away they may live)
and family--though it draws a few visitors from the world at large. I
show what I have and, since looking at it is both optional and free, I
make no apologies for my work.
As far as an amateur's reflector outdoing the 200" in the Solar System
is concerned, I would point you to the work of my friend Alan Friedman,
who makes his photos from his home in downtown Buffalo, NY
<http://www.avertedimagination.com>. His lunar photography compares
well with that taken from the Apollo modules in lunar orbit, likely
because the atmosphere is not necessarily worse than a tiny, smeared,
scratched, fogged, plastic window. Alan's photo of Jupiter with surface
detail on Ganymede is not entirely shabby, either. Alan works to better
himself -- though he doesn't have quite as much room for improvement as
I do :-) -- and he doesn't worry about the Hubble, either.
Dr J R Stockton
>, Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:08:19, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
posted:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:37:12 -0500, Ron Hammon <rgha...@bellsouth.nyet>
>wrote:
>
>>I have witnessed a group transitioning to hand moderation. (In fact, I'm
>>a listed moderator of that group.) Obviously, things CAN change and
>>there IS an "ability to regulate".
>
>Yes, you can have moderated groups. This isn't one of them, and I don't
>think anybody here is interested in a moderated group. Without rapid
>exchanges, the flavor of things is lost.
I wonder how things would go with rigorous, but technically simple,
robo-moderation? Consider the effect, say, of limiting each article to
a single group (or two, but not alt.*), disallowing HTML and binary,
allowing only a total of 200 lines including header, body to be at least
50% new material, barring the names of well-known politicians and
deities from the Subject, and so on.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.
Chris L Peterson
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I wonder how things would go with rigorous, but technically simple,
>robo-moderation?
Maybe fine, but as far as Usenet is concerned, I don't think there's any
support for that. It would be necessary to convert to a moderated group,
and then the moderator would have to keep a central distribution server
operating. That still becomes a weak link in the chain.
Personally, I just take SAA for what it is. Sure, it's crazy and off
topic sometimes. It isn't the first place I usually go for astronomical
information. It's very different than it was a few years ago.
Realistically, it's going to go away, along with Usenet as a whole,
which is a dinosaur in the modern Internet age. I'll miss it, but that's
just the way it goes. Technology marches on- sometimes for better,
sometimes for worse.
Davoud
> I wonder how things would go with rigorous, but technically simple,
> robo-moderation? Consider the effect, say, of limiting each article to
> a single group (or two, but not alt.*), disallowing HTML and binary,
> allowing only a total of 200 lines including header, body to be at least
> 50% new material, barring the names of well-known politicians and
> deities from the Subject, and so on.
I'm sure that you know the fable of Ladle Rat Rotten Hut.
Under those rules one could write 200 lines about lesser-known
politicians and/or one's favorite lesser deities. I don't remember--is
Zarquon a major or minor deity? Would you ban curse words? It would be
a shame to lose an excellent 200-line post on the state of the art in
eyepieces because the author said "...but the damned Nagler fogged up
and I didn't have a heater.*" What about obscenity? I'm afraid that
Usenet is not subject to censorship, and It's probably just as well.
Many people cannot avoid answering every post, whether legitimate or
troll or spam, any more than a moth can avoid a flame. It's a bit like
rubbernecking at an accident scene. I don't have a good understanding
of the psychology behind this because I don't answer every post and I
don't look at road accidents and I don't know why anyone would do so
who did not have to. We could all stand to polish our self-discipline a
bit.
I prefer the author kill-file and other filters. My kill-file/filter
list is huge and comprehensive; I don't see very many articles on SAA,
but the ones I see are overwhelmingly legitimate, whether or not they
are of interest to me. From the SAA subject list this session I added
the strings "zoo," "bestia," and "free video" to my filter list for all
groups. ("zootube bestiality - free video," was the subject. I don't
know (and don't care) if the psychopath who calls himself "Min" is
still around or not; I haven't seen anything of his in over a year.
*As a struggling astrophotographer, I don't use eyepieces, and I am
unlikely to every buy another one. I've considered adding "eyepiece" to
my filter list. In fact, I think I will do that now, along with "best
scope" and "for beginner" (because I don't know what the best scope is
and I don't know what the best scope is for a beginner).
Chris.B
(amateur) astronomers prone to entering college bars and cafés and
beating the wotsits out of each other in real life? The slightest
resistance to a point made here and it's down to expletives and
derogatory personal adjectives. Some of you are worse than (real)
football supporters! Anybody coming here for the first time must think
they've entered the roughest pub in the most downtrodden, working
class areas of a major city. You were given the ability to use your
language skills for communication and persuasion. Not to beat each
other about the head! Stop behaving like rutting males! You can't all
be educationally-challenged teenagers. ;-)
Dr J R Stockton
Oct 2008 05:39:18, Davoud <st...@sky.net> posted:
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>
>> I wonder how things would go with rigorous, but technically simple,
>> robo-moderation? Consider the effect, say, of limiting each article to
>> a single group (or two, but not alt.*), disallowing HTML and binary,
>> allowing only a total of 200 lines including header, body to be at least
>> 50% new material, barring the names of well-known politicians and
>> deities from the Subject, and so on.
As you have failed to perceive, those were only for consideration. One
does not want to read about Brown, but Brown Dwarfs are a legitimate
topic; selection by subject without human intelligence is not easy. One
might, in a group whose topic was essentially non-visual, wish to block
"video" in the Subject - but would we want an article about a video by
the AR to be blocked?
>Under those rules one could write 200 lines about lesser-known
>politicians and/or one's favorite lesser deities.
One can do that at present - no change.
> I don't remember--is
>Zarquon a major or minor deity? Would you ban curse words?
Impractical, as (IIRC) Rolls-Royce discovered when trying to sell the
Silver Mist abroad. And, from what I've heard, some vignerons night
have reason to object to such a rule.
> It would be
>a shame to lose an excellent 200-line post on the state of the art in
>eyepieces because the author said "...but the damned Nagler fogged up
>and I didn't have a heater.*"
If the author possesses a modicum of intelligence, then he can check the
rules. If he does not, his articles are not needed.
>I prefer the author kill-file and other filters.
Which you can keep. But perhaps you are house-bound? If you are ever
elsewhere and therefore need to use Google for Usenet you will do so
without your kill-file. And your kill-file does nothing to help
incomers see that value still remains here; and they may have something
to say that would be of interest to you.
> My kill-file/filter
>list is huge and comprehensive; I don't see very many articles on SAA,
>but the ones I see are overwhelmingly legitimate, whether or not they
>are of interest to me. From the SAA subject list this session I added
>the strings "zoo," "bestia," and "free video" to my filter list for all
>groups.
Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Ron Hammon
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:13:34 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I wonder how things would go with rigorous, but technically simple,
> >robo-moderation?
snip
> Personally, I just take SAA for what it is.
snip
> It's very different than it was a few years ago.
> Realistically, it's going to go away
snip
If this is your conviction, then why object to an attempted fix?
Ron Hammon
Ron Hammon
>
> >, Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:08:19, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
> posted:
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:37:12 -0500, Ron Hammon <rgha...@bellsouth.nyet>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I have witnessed a group transitioning to hand moderation. (In fact, I'm
> >>a listed moderator of that group.) Obviously, things CAN change and
> >>there IS an "ability to regulate".
> >
> >Yes, you can have moderated groups. This isn't one of them, and I don't
> >think anybody here is interested in a moderated group. Without rapid
> >exchanges, the flavor of things is lost.
>
> a single group (or two, but not alt.*), disallowing HTML and binary,
> allowing only a total of 200 lines including header, body to be at least
> 50% new material, barring the names of well-known politicians and
> deities from the Subject, and so on.
>
I'm proud to see some actual discussion of and consideration of fixes
instead of just throwing in the towel.
I find it strange that the same people who brave long, cold hours of
concerted effort to capture a weak image with a homemade 'scope balk at
the idea of trying to stem the tide of force-fed crap.
Ron Hammon
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>If this is your conviction, then why object to an attempted fix?
I think you misunderstood me. I don't think it needs to be fixed. I like
it the way it is. If it were moderated, I wouldn't bother.
Davoud
> > >>I have witnessed a group transitioning to hand moderation. (In fact, I'm
> > >>a listed moderator of that group.) Obviously, things CAN change and
> > >>there IS an "ability to regulate".
Chris L Peterson:
> > >Yes, you can have moderated groups. This isn't one of them, and I don't
> > >think anybody here is interested in a moderated group. Without rapid
> > >exchanges, the flavor of things is lost.
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> > I wonder how things would go with rigorous, but technically simple,
> > robo-moderation? Consider the effect, say, of limiting each article to
> > a single group (or two, but not alt.*), disallowing HTML and binary,
> > allowing only a total of 200 lines including header, body to be at least
> > 50% new material, barring the names of well-known politicians and
> > deities from the Subject, and so on.
Ron Hammon:
> I'm proud to see some actual discussion of and consideration of fixes
> instead of just throwing in the towel.
> I find it strange that the same people who brave long, cold hours of
> concerted effort to capture a weak image with a homemade 'scope balk at
> the idea of trying to stem the tide of force-fed crap.
Et quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Davoud...
...who still wants to know who is force-feeding anyone on SAA. I'm
selective about what I read, ignoring all that does not interest me.
It's kind of like going to the supermarket. I see all kinds of foods
there that I would never voluntarily eat, yet no one forces me to buy
them, and I'm not annoyed that they exist for those who want them.
Here is another supermarket analogy: If no-one buys a food, it will
disappear from the shelf, guaranteed. If no one feeds a troll, the
troll will disappear from the newsgroup. I have seen this happen in the
case of some trolls who became so annoying that there was a general
agreement to shun them, and they moved on to newsgroups (like SAA)
where they would find a friendlier reception.
Stil, I ask, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?