Declare it dead and move on?
Yowie
> Robert of St Louis wrote:
>
>> Fuck You David....I am bowing out of this group...you have ruined it
>> and made it the the David Know It All group. I have nothing to learn
>> from your domination of the group. I plan to find some sincere folks
>> interest in Quakers instead of being full of themselves. You can
>> have this group on a silver platter and I will tell any of my
>> friends ,who might show an interested in FRIENDS, not to waste their
>> time here listening to your bullshit.
>
> Alas, I feel the same way. For a while, I had hope that we could
> agree to not respond to him or to the crossposted flamewars he
> invites here, but it seems that is not to be. The sad irony is
> that the same people who stubbornly resist the idea of not replying
> (and I am NOT talking about the one wise soul who tried replying
> only to non-abusive posts; that was a good idea even if it didn't
> work out) -- or who stubbornly resist the idea of not joining in when
> David invites some jews and Atheists to do their fighting here --
> are the first to throw up their hands and quit when they see the
> fruits of their behavior. Eventually, even the ones such as you
> [ Robert of St Louis ] who never add to the abuse get tired of it
> and leave, and who can blame you? Even if you stayed, what are
> the chances of attracting even one new user who wishes to talk
> about quakerism?
So is this group effectively dead (or would The Light best be served if we
declared it dead and let it lie?) Do Whiskers, jeb, Ian & Jenny agree? What
about Faith, haven't seen her for a while but would like to before we part
ways (if we do)? Still, if it *is* Dead, there are other Quaker forums to
fall back on (although I'm not as active there).
Group discernment, please ( if I have the right to ask for it. )
Yowie
--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.
jeb
news:65vh3cF...@mid.individual.net:
>
> So is this group effectively dead (or would The Light best
> be served if we declared it dead and let it lie?) Do
> Whiskers, jeb, Ian & Jenny agree? What about Faith, haven't
> seen her for a while but would like to before we part ways
> (if we do)? Still, if it *is* Dead, there are other Quaker
> forums to fall back on (although I'm not as active there).
>
> Group discernment, please ( if I have the right to ask for
> it. )
>
> Yowie
>
Well, I'm moving on in any event. I wasn't a regular anyhow.
Maybe after a very long break , I'll come by to see if anything
is happening other than "The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T. "
We really ought to have one heck of a jolly internet wake,
and then a funeral -- something formal and elaborate with
hired mourners who could weep profusely. But that's probably
not Quakerly. Maybe silence is .
Engineer
Grasping at straws trying to keep it alive here...
In the past the idea of newsgroup moderation has been soundly
rejected, based on not wanting to prevent anyone from posting
anything. But how about a moderated newsgroup where *everyone*
is given full moderation rights? I am not, BTW, thinking
"everyone but David" or "everyone but Hendry Leon." I am
thinking letting *anyone* approve their own posts. A weekly
posting of a FAQ would make everyone aware of this. And, of
course, all of these moderators would be welcome to approve
anyone else's posts as well -- regulars or new users, weeding
out only obvious spam, child porn, etc.
The big win would be that two types of posters would be unlikely
to take us up on the offer; first, spammers. They hit tens of
thousands of groups and never read the groups they spam. Next,
people in the jewish newsgroups fighting about Palestine, people
in the atheist newsgroup fighting about whether God exists, etc.
Note that both groups *could* self-approve if they wanted to.
The third would be impersonators/forgers pretending to be
regulars. They too could self-aprove the forgeries, but it would
be rather easy to figure out who signed up as a moderator and
then started approving forgeries.
There are some technical issues as well (for one thing, the
old unmoderated soc.religion.quaker would still exist, and
anyone would still be able to post anything they want there)
but first I would like to hear if anyone object to the basic
idea of moderation with everyone who asks being given moderator
privileges.
A John 3:16 Whosoever
If I may be so bold...
It's only a Usenet Newsgroup, people - not a church, not a meeting
house, not even a "fellowship". If you want to have a moderated
Quaker group, go for it. But to honestly believe that a public,
unmoderated internet forum won't ever be populated by those you don't
want to be around, associate with, or read is just plain ridiculous,
and quite unrealistic.
Usenet is like talk-radio: don't take it so doggone seriously because
when you get down to the core it's really just entertainment.
Yowie
No, its not a church, or a meeting house or a fellowship, but Usenet groups
are often communities of people who have
whatever-the-topic-of-the-newsgroup-is in common.
You may think of SRQ as 'just another newsgroup', but it isn't to me, isn't
to Engineer, isn't to Whiskers or Jeb, and even to David or Hendry in their
own ways. Its something we care about and wish to contunue with as we found
some benefit in talking about Quaker issues on a forum that is about the
Quaker religion.
> Usenet is like talk-radio: don't take it so doggone seriously because
> when you get down to the core it's really just entertainment.
Its not *just* entertainment. For some of us - me - it is the closest thing
I've got to a Quaker meeting as I can't practically get to one in real life,
and has been a wonderful and informative forum to explore the faith in Jesus
that I thought I had to give up because I couldn't stand main stream
churches and thought (mistakenly) that Wicca was about as good as
spirituality got. Its a sounding board, a discussion forum, a place to
discuss thoughts, ideas, spiritual events etc etc. Until about a year ago,
the discussions - whilst often passionate - were rarely rude, or derogatory,
they weren't mono-maniacal and even our 'mission posters' debated fairly
well. It was an example of what Quakerism - even on an unmoderated forum -
could acheive.
Then the crossposting from other forums started. The crossposters weren't
the least bit itnerested in Quakerism or what it said (at least the previous
mission posters wished to address Quakerism and the faults they perceivd in
it). They were asked to stop crossposting, and the folks who cared about and
respected newsgroups and what they can actually acheive - stopped. But there
are some who, like hte folks who piss on church doors, didn't give a rat's
arse about social norms, about communities, about accepted behaviour and
respecting other's wishes, who didn't care about any of the other usenet
users who have been using Usenet to form communities and have meaningful,
useful discussions & interactions, who had no respect for folks who simply
wanted their own small corner of usenet to discuss the topic of the group,
who just kept crossposting their excretions as if the whole of Usenet was
their own personal urinal. Bigger groups can survive this flood of excretia,
as they can keep the signal to noise ratio reasonably high, bt a small group
like SRQ just can't keep it up - and thus anyone 'dropping by' sees the
majority of crossposting excretia and are turned off, and even regulars get
sick of wading though the sewage and leave for more fruitful discussions.
Maybe those of us who have had a long and successful 'career' on Usenet are
anachronisms. Those of who value the communities that form in each Usenet
group, the different cultures that appear in each newsgroup, built by each
poster contributing into something that is bigger than the sum of the
postings. Those of us who are excited by the free exchange of ideas on
particular subjects through the written forum, who enjoy the ebb and flow of
a passionate, heated and yet respectful discussion. Those of us who don't
type in txt and still understand (and attempt to keep) netiquette, us old
folks.
Perhaps Usenet, because of the lack of respect and udnerstand of what this
old backwater part of the internet is, will eventually die as us old fogies
become more and more disgusted by "the endless september". But until it
does, there are at least two people in this here little old backwater forum
on the outer edge of the usenet forums who still give a shit about Usenet in
general and SRQ in particular, who know that Usenet can work perfectly well
without any moderation, and who are somewhat dissapointed that SRQ couldn't
work in that way too.
So yes, I take it seriously. I know Engineer does too. I'd suggest that the
other few regular posters here also found more meaning here than "just
entertainment". There are much more amusing, entertaining groups on Usenet
that SRQ, if you really see it as 'just entertainement' and not something
that has at least the potential to be alot more, I wonder why you are
posting to a Quaker forum at all. Do you have any interest in Quakerism at
all or did you just come here because playing with David (and Rod before
him) amused you?
Yowie
<<<~A John 3:16 Whosoever~>>>
Yowie - I think you really don't get Usenet; at least what it has
become.
Usenet in its present, and likely forever manifestation, is
entertainment. Anything that allows anyone to take part will never be
controllable. Unless, of course, you create a moderated forum where
there are rules and someone to actively enforce those rules. And if
that is something that defies Quaker sensibilities, then Usenet is
not, I repeat NOT, for Quakers. Period.
Unmoderated Usenet is entertainment. To think it will ever be
otherwise is insanity. The definition of insanity is "doing the same
thing over and over again expecting a different result each time".
Take care.
<<<~A John 3:16 Whosoever~>>>
> I wonder why you are
> posting to a Quaker forum at all. Do you have any interest in Quakerism at
> all or did you just come here because playing with David (and Rod before
> him) amused you?
Oh, and BTW - I don't see communication with David amusing (nor
really anyone else in here, for that matter) and if you think that
"playing" with him was a motivation, you completely misunderstand. As
far as my interest in Quakerism, I am actually quite versed in a
number of religions and know enough to understand that your
confrontation here is pretty much non-Quaker-like in nature.
As far as Rodney Eastman is concerned, he has been internet stalking
and harassing me for quite some time. Following him here was another
way of staying in his face and calling him on his behavior.
Whiskers
> On Apr 8, 4:18 am, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
[...]
> Yowie - I think you really don't get Usenet; at least what it has
> become.
I think she does 'get it', very well indeed.
> Usenet in its present, and likely forever manifestation, is
> entertainment.
That's your opinion, but I disagree most profoundly, I think usenet in
general, and any newsgroup in particular, is the aggregate of what those
posting to it make it. If you are looking for entertainment then you'll
probably find it - and there's nothing wrong with entertainment. But
there's a lot more than that here too, if you look.
> Anything that allows anyone to take part will never be
> controllable. Unless, of course, you create a moderated forum where
> there are rules and someone to actively enforce those rules. And if
> that is something that defies Quaker sensibilities, then Usenet is
> not, I repeat NOT, for Quakers. Period.
>
> Unmoderated Usenet is entertainment. To think it will ever be
> otherwise is insanity. The definition of insanity is "doing the same
> thing over and over again expecting a different result each time".
>
> Take care.
A unique feature of usenet, not even closely imitated by any other
communal forum that I know of, is that each participant is free to choose
for themselves which other participants they engage with and which
subjects they discuss. There is no need to state openly which people you
are deliberately ignoring, nor to declare anything else about your
personal preferences or current feelings about other posters or subjects.
Often it's better not to, in my opinion. Good software makes it easy to
ignore particular people or subjects or 'threads', so one doesn't even have
to rely completely on ones own self-control.
The only person whose conduct I can control, is me. I might drop hints or
even offer advice or make suggestions to other people - but what they do
about that is up to them. So I try to 'let it pass', and 'not add fuel to
the flames' (at least, if I think they are getting too hot).
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Ian
<kaseybec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 4:18 am, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I wonder why you are
> > posting to a Quaker forum at all. Do you have any interest in Quakerism at
> > all or did you just come here because playing with David (and Rod before
> > him) amused you?
>
> Oh, and BTW - I don't see communication with David amusing (nor
> really anyone else in here, for that matter) and if you think that
> "playing" with him was a motivation, you completely misunderstand. As
> far as my interest in Quakerism, I am actually quite versed in a
> number of religions and know enough to understand that your
> confrontation here is pretty much non-Quaker-like in nature.
Quakers have a long tradition of plain speech. It is entirely within
the Quaker tradition to say, bluntly, when behaviour is unacceptable
and theories are unsustainable. There is an unfortunate myth about
Quakers which says that we all accept quietly (or should accept
quietly) any abuse that anyone throws at us.
I also think you are being unfair to Yowie if you are accusing her of
having a confrontation with David. More than any of the rest of us she
engaged with him, obtained an article he recommended, read it and, at
his express invitation, asked some pertinent questions arising from
that article. Which he then flatly refused to answer.
Ian
Rod
Don't let it go Yowie..you have a sweet little gem here, a very nice
place to share and learn, though quakerism seems to be absent.
Rod
<<<~A John 3:16 Whosoever~>>>
> Quakers have a long tradition of plain speech. It is entirely within
> the Quaker tradition to say, bluntly, when behaviour is unacceptable
> and theories are unsustainable.
I see. So when I, a non-Quaker, speak plainly to David Christainsen
it's considered "playing with him", when a Quaker speaks "plainly" to
me it's acceptable Quaker speech.
Got it.
> There is an unfortunate myth about
> Quakers which says that we all accept quietly (or should accept
> quietly) any abuse that anyone throws at us.
I wasn't referring to abuse being thrown at the Quakers in this group,
I was referring to the abuse being thrown at the non-Quakers.
> I also think you are being unfair to Yowie if you are accusing her of
> having a confrontation with David.
I wasn't accusing her of having a confrontation with David. Re-read
what I wrote for clarification.
> More than any of the rest of us she
> engaged with him, obtained an article he recommended, read it and, at
> his express invitation, asked some pertinent questions arising from
> that article. Which he then flatly refused to answer.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
Yowie
<snip>
> Don't let it go Yowie..you have a sweet little gem here, a very nice
> place to share and learn, though quakerism seems to be absent.
Actually, I don't think Quakerism is totally absent, so much as not as
strongly represented as it could be - probably due to to the lack of people
who are actualy members and/or attenders of RSoF meetings.
Still, I see some Quakerly principles at work here that I don't tend to see
in other NGs. SRQ still has the capacity to challenge both my thinking and
my spirit, so I don't really want to give it up.
However, if 'we' (the last people posting to SRQ) decide that its over, I'll
move on. I would like a wake before we all go, though.
Yowie
Yowie
Engineer,
Thanks for taking the time to consider this, its reassuring to see that at
least one other person actually gives (&*&%^ about Usenet in general and SRQ
in particular. The above sounds complicated and open to abuse. Who manages
the moderators? Do other moderators have the right to remove a moderator if
they are abusing their priveledges etc etc? What if a known spammer wishes
to join?
The main trouble I see is not spammers, News.Individual.Net (NIN) does a
great job in filtering out 99.9% of them, and even when they don't, its just
one usually quite obvious spam message that doesn't generate a slew of
replies. Even 'mission posters' dont annoy me that much, thats what
killfiles are for (even if its the OE killfile). Its the crossposting that
is doing us in, IMHO.
Would just preventing crossposting to/from SRQ (or SRQ.M) be easier to do?
Could you crosspost to say - SRQ and SRQ.M but not any other groups such
that SRQM gets all the mesages that are posted in SRQ that aren't
crossposted, but misses out on any messages that have been posted to SRQ
that have been crossposted? is there any way to tell where a message
originates? For example, is it possible to keep all the posts that come from
folks reading SRQ but remove any crosspost that originates from another NG?
I know you have extensive knowledge of How Usenet Works, is any of this
feasible?
Thanks,
Yowie
PS, if you want to discuss this via e-mail, just remove the spam trap and
put [SRQ] in the subject line
Yowie
news:11873324-62ab-4409...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Yowie wrote
>
> > I wonder why you are
> > posting to a Quaker forum at all. Do you have any interest in Quakerism
> > at
> > all or did you just come here because playing with David (and Rod before
> > him) amused you?
>
> Oh, and BTW - I don't see communication with David amusing (nor
> really anyone else in here, for that matter) and if you think that
> "playing" with him was a motivation, you completely misunderstand. As
> far as my interest in Quakerism, I am actually quite versed in a
> number of religions and know enough to understand that your
> confrontation here is pretty much non-Quaker-like in nature.
I didn't ask you what your *knowledge* of Quakerism was. I asked what your
*interest* in Quakerism was such that you are posting here in an NG about
Quakerism.
Hmmm... you consider my 'confrontation' Unquakerly? Interesting. That means
you must expect that this forum is mainly for discussing Quakerly subjects
and that its denizens should at least attempt to behave in a Quakerly like
way. Since you have also been posting here, would you consider your own
confrontations in any way more or less Quakerly than my own? Or.... perhaps
you'd like to go by your earlier posting in that anyone can post whatever
they like on an unmoderated forum no matter what the actual *topic* of the
NG is - in that case why would the 'Quakerlyness' (or lack thereof) of my
'confrontation' be of any relevance?
> As far as Rodney Eastman is concerned, he has been internet stalking
> and harassing me for quite some time. Following him here was another
> way of staying in his face and calling him on his behavior.
So, you didn't come here to discuss anything to do with Quakerism, or even
just give us a well-meaning 'heads up' that a person you've have had
difficulties with in the past was posting to our group (as if you cared
about SRQ as a newsgroup) but simply to 'get in his face'? How is that
fundamentally different from coming in here just because playing with Rod
amused you?
Still, since you are here, you aren't playing with David any more, and Rod
doesn't seem to want to play with you here, is there any chance that you
would like to talk about Quakerism?
Yowie
<<<~A John 3:16 Whosoever~>>>
> I didn't ask you what your *knowledge* of Quakerism was. I asked what your
> *interest* in Quakerism was such that you are posting here in an NG about
> Quakerism.
Hmmm...I'm sensing an attitude of rudeness. Nonetheless, sorry I
didn't answer your question exactly as you would have liked - I'll
keep a mind to be more precise and succinct with you in the future
since you obviously have no patience with mistakes and errors.
As far as any personal interest in Quakerism, I have none. IMO,
Quakerism is too far removed from Biblical Christianity to fit my
theological stances. As far as an intellectual interest, I have
somewhat of an curiosity (why do I feel like I'm repeating myself
here? Oh, I know why...I've already answered this question from you
several months ago - good thing I'm not impatient with the poor
memories of other posters).
> Hmmm... you consider my 'confrontation' Unquakerly? Interesting. That means
> you must expect that this forum is mainly for discussing Quakerly subjects
> and that its denizens should at least attempt to behave in a Quakerly like
> way. Since you have also been posting here, would you consider your own
> confrontations in any way more or less Quakerly than my own? Or.... perhaps
> you'd like to go by your earlier posting in that anyone can post whatever
> they like on an unmoderated forum no matter what the actual *topic* of the
> NG is - in that case why would the 'Quakerlyness' (or lack thereof) of my
> 'confrontation' be of any relevance?
Interesting tangent.
Regardless, even though this group is supposed to be for Quakerly
discussion, be honest and tell me how often that happens, would you?
From what I can tell...it hardly ever happens. Seems to me that if
the Quakers in this group were seriously interested in Quakerly
discussion here, then the David's and Hendry Leons could be easily
ignored by numerous Quaker-focused posts, don't you? The truth is,
Yowie, the bulk of the posts in this group (since I've been here) are
from David Christainsen. See, I think your anger is truly misplaced -
you and Engineer want to blame me for crossposting, yet it's David
who's the real offender. You seem to want to be angry with me because
I'm not promoting more Quakerly conversation and discussion, yet you
seem to have forgotten a very important thing...
...I'm not a Quaker, ergo, your point about "[my] own
confrontations [being] in any way more or less Quakerly than my
[yours]" is more than moot.
> > As far as Rodney Eastman is concerned, he has been internet stalking
> > and harassing me for quite some time. Following him here was another
> > way of staying in his face and calling him on his behavior.
> So, you didn't come here to discuss anything to do with Quakerism, or even
> just give us a well-meaning 'heads up' that a person you've have had
> difficulties with in the past was posting to our group (as if you cared
> about SRQ as a newsgroup) but simply to 'get in his face'? How is that
> fundamentally different from coming in here just because playing with Rod
> amused you?
Yeah...uh - I did give you all a "well-meaning heads up", Yowie. I
was basically told to mind my business and go away.
And you all wonder why this group is dying?
> Still, since you are here, you aren't playing with David any more,
Still insist on believing I was "playing" with David, eh? Even though
I told you that wasn't the deal. Hmmm. And you all wonder why this
group is dying?
> and Rod
> doesn't seem to want to play with you here,
Rod Eastman is now playing you (and David), actually. Don't believe
me? Look at some of his posts in say...the last week. There you will
get a picture of the real Rodney Eastman, not the one he wants you to
believe he is. Believe me, Yowie, Rodney is not in the least
interested in Quakerism. Rodney is interested in game playing,
deception, and manipulation.
As for Rod "playing with [me]" - I'm not interested in "playing" with
Rod. As I stated, he has been stalking and harassing me in Usenet and
on the internet for some time now. In fact, because he started (once
again) to post my personal information and make violent threats, I was
forced to call his local police department. What I found out about
his history with that police department didn't surprise me in the
least - and showed that he has a bit of a history of internet games
with others as well.
No, Rodney is not one to "play" with at all - you would be wise to be
very careful with him.
> is there any chance that you
> would like to talk about Quakerism?
Yeah. And you know what? Everytime I have tried to do so here, I
have been rebuffed, mocked, questioned with suspicion, or ignored.
Do you still wonder why this group is dying?
<<<~A John 3:16 Whosoever~>>>
> you must expect that this forum is mainly for discussing Quakerly subjects
> and that its denizens should at least attempt to behave in a Quakerly like
> way. Since you have also been posting here, would you consider your own
> confrontations in any way more or less Quakerly than my own?
As an addendum to my previous post, here is a short list of the all-
time high number of posts per poster :
(Still posting)
David Christainsen - 4425
Engineer - 2612
(No longer posting)
ijda...@softbase.math.uwaterloo.ca - 4107 (last post 2007)
guyma...@deltanet.com - 4019 (last post 2002)
pqr...@aol.com - 3376 (last post 2005)
mmas...@earthwitness.org - 3327 (last post 2005)
nel...@crynwr.com - 2690 (last post 2004)
And the list goes on. Indeed, Yowie, your anger toward me is very
misplaced. Seems as if this group has been dying for much longer than
I have even been in Usenet.
I strongly suggest that you get a moderated newsgroup started if a
Quaker forum is so important to you - then it can be cared for
properly and more efficiently.
Yowie
> Indeed, Yowie, your anger toward me is very misplaced.
I'm not angry with you. I'm sorry if it came across as such.
Can we start afresh - is there anything about Quakerism you wish to discuss?
Yowie
Yowie
On Apr 8, 6:55 pm, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
<note, I am snipping alot because for some reason I can't get the '>' to
mark your posts, so have to put them in manually. they work fine on my other
machine>
> ...I'm not a Quaker, ergo, your point about "[my] own
> confrontations [being] in any way more or less Quakerly than my
> [yours]" is more than moot.
I am not a memberof RSoF either, so yes, it is rather moot.
>> > As far as Rodney Eastman is concerned, he has been internet stalking
>> > and harassing me for quite some time. Following him here was another
>> > way of staying in his face and calling him on his behavior.
>
>> So, you didn't come here to discuss anything to do with Quakerism, or
>> even
>> just give us a well-meaning 'heads up' that a person you've have had
>> difficulties with in the past was posting to our group (as if you cared
>> about SRQ as a newsgroup) but simply to 'get in his face'? How is that
>> fundamentally different from coming in here just because playing with Rod
>> amused you?
>
> Yeah...uh - I did give you all a "well-meaning heads up", Yowie. I
> was basically told to mind my business and go away.
But you yourself just said that you came here to "stay in his face"?
>> Still, since you are here, you aren't playing with David any more,
>
> Still insist on believing I was "playing" with David, eh? Even though
> I told you that wasn't the deal.
I trust my post explaining what I meant by 'playing' has cleared this up.
>> and Rod
>> doesn't seem to want to play with you here,
>
> Rod Eastman is now playing you (and David), actually. Don't believe
> me? Look at some of his posts in say...the last week. There you will
> get a picture of the real Rodney Eastman, not the one he wants you to
> believe he is. Believe me, Yowie, Rodney is not in the least
> interested in Quakerism. Rodney is interested in game playing,
> deception, and manipulation.
I have yet to see anything in SRQ posted by Rod that would suggest that he
is doing those things you have mentioned, however I will keep your warning
in mind.
>> is there any chance that you
>> would like to talk about Quakerism?
>
> Yeah. And you know what? Everytime I have tried to do so here, I
> have been rebuffed, mocked, questioned with suspicion, or ignored.
I apologise if I missed those posts about Quakerism, but these days I don't
read everythign that is posted here.
The bottom line is: are you interested in trying to keep alive / revive SRQ?
If so, even though we've had our differences, those of us who wish SRQ to be
a newsgroup that is a place to talk about Quaker things need to work
together to get that done. I have no big arguement with you - can we work
together here?
Yowie
Whiskers
> Engineer wrote:
>> Yowie wrote:
[...]
> Its the crossposting that
> is doing us in, IMHO.
>
> Would just preventing crossposting to/from SRQ (or SRQ.M) be easier to do?
Good newsreader programs can easily filter out excessive cross-posting (eg
to more than 3 groups) or cross-posts to particular groups - or anything
crossposted at all. I suspect that Outlook Express can't manage that on
its own, but adding Nfilter to your system should improve your overall
filtering abilities considerably even if you don't want to start using a
better newreader - but 'Dialog' or 'Xnews' are good stand-alone newsreaders
for Windows OSs and well worth a try.
<http://www.nfilter.org/> <http://xnews.newsguy.com/>
<http://www.40tude.com/dialog/>
> Could you crosspost to say - SRQ and SRQ.M but not any other groups such
> that SRQM gets all the mesages that are posted in SRQ that aren't
> crossposted, but misses out on any messages that have been posted to SRQ
> that have been crossposted?
It's entirely up to whoever posts a message, which groups are posted to.
In an unmoderated group (which the vast majority are), it's up to each
person reading to decide whether to ignore or block crossposted articles,
and if replying, to decide for themselves whether to post the reply to
only one of the crossposted groups. I'm pretty sure that even Outlook
Express lets you see and edit the Newsgroups header each time you post.
If a newsgroup is moderated, then the moderator (or automatic software)
can block all crossposted articles before they appear in the moderated
group, or can permit crossposts to particular groups. But that only
affects what appears in the moderated group - and even that isn't utterly
reliable for all the people who might be reading that group, as some
news-servers are misconfigured and don't block articles that haven't been
'approved' by the moderator.
A moderated newsgroup is entirely at the mercy of the moderator. Although
a small team can jointly act as moderators, which means that the group
shouldn't go silent if one moderator drops out, introducing a team can
mean that the moderatos start arguing among themselves and then the group
can become unusable.
Setting up a new moderated newsgroup is a far from trivial matter.
> is there any way to tell where a message
> originates? For example, is it possible to keep all the posts that come from
> folks reading SRQ but remove any crosspost that originates from another NG?
No. Posts don't come 'from' a newsgroup at all. There is no way for
anyone to know which newsgroup, if any, a poster can see when that poster
posts. It is perfectly possible to post to a newsgroup (or crosspost to
any number of newsgroups) without ever seeing or 'subscribing to' any
newsgroup - all you need is posting access to a news-server, you don't
even need a newsreader program if you know the commands to use over a
telnet session.
> I know you have extensive knowledge of How Usenet Works, is any of this
> feasible?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yowie
> PS, if you want to discuss this via e-mail, just remove the spam trap and
> put [SRQ] in the subject line
I know that I'm intruding into a discussion between Yowie and Engineer on
this point, but I think the technicalities need to be made clear to
everyone even if Engineer has chosen to 'unsubscribe' from this group.
Emma Pease
>> Engineer wrote:
>>> Yowie wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Its the crossposting that
>> is doing us in, IMHO.
>>
>> Would just preventing crossposting to/from SRQ (or SRQ.M) be easier to do?
I suspect two things are causing problems in this group.
1. A decrease in self-discipline in that some of us are following
threads into directions that are detrimental to the overall ethos of
the group. Sometimes silent consideration might be the best
response.
2. A lack of good posts to keep the group's core strong
One suggestion might be is to tag posts to allow readers even new
readers a ready means of distinguishing posts from people familiar
with this group from those who aren't. For instance starting each
post subject line with SRQ: as I've done with this post.
Another is for some regulars, if the spirit moves them, to post on a
regular basis in hopes of starting conversations or some thinking. We
aren't a meeting here (and for that matter I'm not a Quaker though I
am a long term lurker and sometime poster on this group) but the
following might be something to consider from the BYM Quaker Faith and
Practices.
***
Testimony concerning Annie Morris (1900-1980):
Annie and Edward Morris shared the common lot of many Lancashire
people - hardship and poverty. [After Edward died in about 1950 Annie]
went back to the mill to work once again at the job she knew so well -
weaving...
About this time Westhoughton Meeting sharply declined in numbers. As
her contemporaries died one by one, eventually Annie Morris remained
as the only active member of Westhoughton Meeting, and for thirty
years she served as an overseer. Although suffering from rheumatoid
arthritis, Annie Morris took upon her frail shoulders the
responsibility of maintaining the life of the meeting. It was a great
sadness to her, not only to see the decline of the meeting but the
decay of the meeting house. As months and years passed, the meeting
house became unsafe, but Annie, although in poor health, continued to
hold meeting for worship alone. This was a time of great sadness but
she remained invincibly faithful to her belief in the goodness of
God.
Eventually, first one and then another joined Annie in meeting for
worship in the cold damp meeting house. Soon there were about ten
people attending...
She died on the 14th September 1980. She had been attending
Westhoughton Meeting for more than seventy years - a faithful Friend.
We thank God for the lovely, faithful, tender spirit that was Annie
Morris.
Hardshaw East Monthly Meeting, 1980
http://quakersfp.live.poptech.coop/qfp/chap18/index.html
***
This group has been a beacon let us strive to keep it lit.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Whiskers
>> On 2008-04-08, Yowie <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>> Engineer wrote:
>>>> Yowie wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Its the crossposting that
>>> is doing us in, IMHO.
>>>
>>> Would just preventing crossposting to/from SRQ (or SRQ.M) be easier to do?
>
> I suspect two things are causing problems in this group.
>
> 1. A decrease in self-discipline in that some of us are following
> threads into directions that are detrimental to the overall ethos of
> the group. Sometimes silent consideration might be the best
> response.
>
> 2. A lack of good posts to keep the group's core strong
Yes, people can be so ... human ... ;))
> One suggestion might be is to tag posts to allow readers even new
> readers a ready means of distinguishing posts from people familiar
> with this group from those who aren't. For instance starting each
> post subject line with SRQ: as I've done with this post.
Might help; no harm in trying. Beware that the Google Groups web forum
interface used by some people to access newsgroups, deletes header 'tags'
enclosed in square brackets [] - or at least it did last time I looked -
so although that is a long-standing usenet practice it could confuse
Googlers. Leaving out the [] as you have done should be OK though.
> Another is for some regulars, if the spirit moves them, to post on a
> regular basis in hopes of starting conversations or some thinking.
Again, worth trying, but inclination and so on are not always amenable.
> We
> aren't a meeting here (and for that matter I'm not a Quaker though I
> am a long term lurker and sometime poster on this group) but the
> following might be something to consider from the BYM Quaker Faith and
> Practices.
I'm not a Quaker either.
> ***
> Testimony concerning Annie Morris (1900-1980):
[...]
> Hardshaw East Monthly Meeting, 1980
> http://quakersfp.live.poptech.coop/qfp/chap18/index.html
> ***
I've heard similar stories - including one where the last attender is a
dog, after its human dies, but the dog's habits bring new attenders to the
meeting.
> This group has been a beacon let us strive to keep it lit.
Indeed yes.
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
In <OvSdnW-4eqn...@giganews.com> Engineer <inv...@example.com> writes:
[...]
I'm not a regular reader or poster on your newsgroup. I came across
this thread searching in Google Groups for discussions of moderation
issues. It appears that this thread has covered all of the bases
regarding staying with a Usenet newsgroup versus moving off to a Yahoo
Group or other forum. These issues are also nicely summarized in an
excellent article entitled "Tragedy of the Usenet Commons":
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/01.14.99/cover/usenet1-9902.html
I'm a member of the moderation teams for rec.radio.amateur.moderated and
rec.radio.info:
It would be my recommendation to seek to create
soc.religion.quaker.moderated, though that's ultimately a decision that
members of your newsgroup will have to make. I am intrigued by
proposals recently discussed to keep moderation consistent with Quaker
values. One option discussed is to make everyone (or everyone who
volunteers and is accepted) a moderator, subjecting articles to wide
peer review. Another would be to make the newsgroup self-moderating by
allowing the second and subsequent articles to be automatically approved
(the first article would get an autoreply with the newsgroup's charter
and FAQ's; in fact, this is how comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi
works, in order to deflect SPAM and slow down first-time posters by
encouraging them to read documentation before posting questions). Any
one (or a hybrid) of these options could be easily supported via
existing moderation "bot" software, see below.
The technical obstacles are not that hard to overcome, and assistance
would be available. At least two versions of newsgroup moderation
"bot"'s exist, Igor Chudov's Secure Team-Based Usenet Moderation Program
(STUMP):
http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/
and Tim Skirvin's "ViceBot" (no public link yet, though it is actively
used on several newsgroups he moderates, including
news.admin.moderation). STUMP supports "white-listing", where trusted
submitters (based on a demonstrated track-record of approved postings to
the new newsgroup) can have their articles automatically approved,
saving the moderation team from ongoing close involvement in the
reviewing and approving of articles.
You can follow our path, and set up STUMP/WebSTUMP on a Unix shell
account at Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC (aka "Panix"). Annual
fees for that would be $100/year, but that could be split among members
of a moderation team, or via additional donations. Panix has been very
supportive of us, as well as other Usenet moderation teams, and could
provide you with everything that you would need. STUMP can be set up
do-it-yourself as we do, or Igor can provide site-hosting, also for a
manageable fee. Multiple moderation teams have gone to Panix, and were
easily set up, at no additional cost, with a copy of an existing,
configured, installation of STUMP and WebSTUMP. The latter is a web
interface to STUMP, that could be accessed by a team of arbitrary size,
perhaps even the entire readership, to approve or disapprove articles.
I guess the first step would be to see if a suitable team could be
formed. One made up of individuals who had a history of good conduct,
and a good sense of what constitutes good conduct. Individuals who
would be fair, unbiased, friendly, helpful, professional, reliable, with
a good work-ethic, trusted and respected by the newsgroup's readership,
and would have a sincere interest in the newsgroups and their topics
without getting dragged into personal sniping or run-on arguments. The
technical demands on individual moderators (versus an administrator, or
"technical" moderator) would be minimal, consisting mostly of reading
articles and pushing buttons on a Web interface.
If you are able to put such a team put together, please do not hesitate
to contact me. I can provide you some assistance with the use of
STUMP/WebSTUMP, point you to some useful public documents, and get you
in touch with the Usenet Groups Mentors to start this idea on a formal
approval track to create a new Big-8 newsgroup.
- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFH/ucZ6Pj0az779o4RAhXCAJ9OI8tFOlMWa/ULb7U0mhTc8MJA1QCbBpet
rHpdU13dE3hYN8Zb5HBlQA0=
=tSuK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Whiskers
> Engineer wrote:
>> Robert of St Louis wrote:
[...]
> So is this group effectively dead (or would The Light best be served if we
> declared it dead and let it lie?) Do Whiskers, jeb, Ian & Jenny agree? What
> about Faith, haven't seen her for a while but would like to before we part
> ways (if we do)? Still, if it *is* Dead, there are other Quaker forums to
> fall back on (although I'm not as active there).
>
> Group discernment, please ( if I have the right to ask for it. )
>
> Yowie
I don't see this group as being anywhere near 'dead'.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Whiskers" <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrng0236k.e...@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
I've been lurking, posting and visiting in here for years, and sadly when
compared with true Christianity and God's Word of Truth, it is spiritually
DEAD.....roots and all.
Jeff...
"15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy
profiting may appear to all. 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the
doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself,
and them that hear thee." 1 Tim 4:15-16 (KJV)
Whiskers
You'll never find complete support for anything 'doctrinal' in a
Quaker-related newsgroup. That has nothing to do with the Spirit - some
would argue that doctrine drives out spirituality,
I think the Holy Spirit *does* move through this newsgroup.
"..."
> You'll never find complete support for anything 'doctrinal' in a
> Quaker-related newsgroup. That has nothing to do with the Spirit - some
> would argue that doctrine drives out spirituality,
Absolutely. Doctrine is man-made, spirituality God-made.
David
OK, but that does not mean to downplay Scripture into
non-existence.
"..."
> OK, but that does not mean to downplay Scripture into
> non-existence.
Scripture isn't doctrine. Churches and denominations write doctrine.
David
> > On 2008-04-08, Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> Engineer wrote:
> >>> Yowie wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> Its the crossposting that
> >> is doing us in, IMHO.
>
> >> Would just preventing crossposting to/from SRQ (or SRQ.M) be easier to do?
>
> I suspect two things are causing problems in this group.
>
> 1. A decrease in self-discipline in that some of us are following
> threads into directions that are detrimental to the overall ethos of
> the group. Sometimes silent consideration might be the best
> response.
>
> 2. A lack of good posts to keep the group's core strong
>
> One suggestion might be is to tag posts to allow readers even new
> readers a ready means of distinguishing posts from people familiar
> with this group from those who aren't. For instance starting each
> post subject line with SRQ: as I've done with this post.
>
> Another is for some regulars, if the spirit moves them, to post on a
> regular basis in hopes of starting conversations or some thinking. We
> aren't a meeting here (and for that matter I'm not a Quaker though I
> am a long term lurker and sometime poster on this group) but the
> following might be something to consider from the BYM Quaker Faith and
> Practices.
Nothing has stopped SRQers since Easter from posting on
peace and sustainable energy, for example. You can surely
think of other Quaker-friendly issues as well.
Grabbing the bit by the hand, I recently decided to offer posts on
these 2 topics in quakerism. So far, nobody replied. I
am sure some SRQers saw them but deliberately ignored
them because I posted them.
In this way when one becomes a social target for abuse
and misrepresentation, it encourages others to ignore the
victim.
I've decided to keep on posting topics on quakerism in
hopes that the good drives out the bad.
It is an open question how much to stake on education,
but if some allies join me, as has already happened slightly,
SRQ can turn into a happy place again.
BTW, I contend that there is absolutely nothing wrong
in cross-posts that are discerning.
-----
David Christainsen
David
<nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> "Whiskers" <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote in message
This will not do. There is that of God in each man and woman.
A gentle correction and encouragement, offered by me recently,
can work wonders to revive SRQ, with God's help.
-----
David Christainsen
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
It doesn't go were people have not been baptised after belief in Christ, and
refuse to break-bread and drink wine in his remembrance.
Jeff...
"..."
<nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> "Whiskers" <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> > I think the Holy Spirit *does* move through this newsgroup.
> It doesn't go were people have not been baptised after belief in Christ, and
> refuse to break-bread and drink wine in his remembrance.
Really? Then, how do you explain King David writing: "Take not Thy
Holy Spirit from me" in Psalm 51:11?
David
Who says Scripture does not contain doctrine? Face up to it.
In some cases Scripture must even be over-ridden to fit modern
conditions. For example, Friends have had women in the
ministry since their inception despite what the Apostle Paul
says in 1 Cor. I believe that Paul still harbored conversative
Pharisee beliefs while a Christian.
The point is we don't have to follow Paul on cultural matters
of the 1st century. Instead, God wants us to update our thinking
for reform of the entire modern world thru the mighty force that
Jesus's name still carries.
-----
David Christainsen
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
""..."" <316...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:16957946-3bb1-4392...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
King David was dead centuries before Christ became the only pathway to
Almighty God and His Holy Spirit.
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
On Apr 13, 9:28 am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK, but that does not mean to downplay Scripture into
> non-existence.
~Scripture isn't doctrine.
The Apostle Paul profoundly disagrees.
"16 Take heed unto thyself, and the doctrines; continue in them: for in
doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
1 Tim 4:16 (KJV)
>Churches and denominations write doctrine.
Naw! they only write and practise "Damnable heresies".....{;o;}
Jeff...
David
Your difference of opinion with Whiskers goes beyond
discerning what Scripture means or how it happens to
be translated.
After all, who was King David really? What is his importance
to us except to reveal his bad character for us to avoid in
ourselves? It means nothing to me, personally, that Jesus
was related by blood to him thru a junior line and therefore
the legitimate King of Israel. It almost goes without saying
that Jesus could not come to power because of the Romans.
The Holy Spirit - some of us were once stuck in a wilderness
experience to take away the joy of life that the Holy Spirit
can give.
-----
David Christainsen
"..."
<nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> ""..."" <316k...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Since you obviously didn't follow the first time, let me ask you
again: how do you explain King David writing: "Take not Thy Holy
Spirit from me" in Psalm 51:11? David dying before Jesus was born has
nothing to do with what he wrote in Psalm 51:11.
Wanna try again?
David
King David did not write 51:11 IMHO. In any case, some Psalms
were definitely not written by David but instead were written for
state occasions/ceremonies or instruction for the King.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
On Apr 13, 11:32 am, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
<nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> ""..."" <316k...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:16957946-3bb1-4392...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 10:42 am, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>
> <nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> > "Whiskers" <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> > > I think the Holy Spirit *does* move through this newsgroup.
> > It doesn't go were people have not been baptised after belief in Christ,
> > and
> > refuse to break-bread and drink wine in his remembrance.
>
> Really? Then, how do you explain King David writing: "Take not Thy
> Holy Spirit from me" in Psalm 51:11?
>
> King David was dead centuries before Christ became the only pathway to
> Almighty God and His Holy Spirit.
~Since you obviously didn't follow the first time, let me ask you
~again: how do you explain King David writing: "Take not Thy Holy
~Spirit from me" in Psalm 51:11?
I cannot see there is anything to expain.
Jeff...
Rod
Yea, just as shown in the catholic church, pope pius X
and the catholic churches damnation of Galileo and Newtons
science.
Rod
Engineer
Rod wrote:
[snip]
Please consider this to be a polite request to stick to Quakerly
discussions in soc.religion.quaker. There are plenty of other
newsgroups to discuss the catholic church in, but if we flood
this one with off-topic posts there will be NO place left to
talk about Quakerism in.
"..."
<nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> I cannot see there is anything to expain.
You can't, huh?
Well, let's see - you proclaimed that the Holy Spirit would not "go
were people have not been baptised after belief in Christ, and refuse
to break-bread and drink wine in his remembrance". That's a pretty
bold statement - especially considering that after reading Psalm
51:11, it's obvious that the Holy Spirit is not unique to the New
Testament and those "baptised after belief in Christ", who would
"break-bread and drink wine in his remembrance".
So, are you going to back up what you said with some kind of
reference, or Scripture, or anything at all? Or just let what you
said lay there without any defense of it? If you have something
profound about the Holy Spirit to share with us, why not take this
opportunity and let us in on it?
David
You sound like a Friend or at least someone who knows that ritual
might serve a purpose but should never be used to exclude religiously.
Rod
True. Sorry !