RFD: soc.religion.scientology
Mike Chapman
moderated group soc.religion.scientology
Newsgroup: soc.religion.scientology
Status: moderated
Distribution: world
Proponent: Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu>
Moderator: mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman)
soc.religion.scientology Church of Scientology and Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard
This RFD has been cross-posted to:
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.scientology
CHARTER
Soc.religion.scientology is a moderated newsgroup for the topics of the
Church of Scientology, based upon to work of L. Ron Hubbard, a popular
science fiction author.
The newsgroup is moderated to maintain a high signal to noise ratio
and to filter out potentially abusive content. In general, any
politely phrased posts will be allowed.
Specifically forbidden are:
Commercial advertisements for the Church of Scientology
Veiled or overt threats or other harassment
Encrypted material of any sort
RATIONALE
The moderator is not a member of the Church of Scientology, and
is impartial to the religious aspects of the potential discussion.
To allow a Church member to moderate the group would be inappropriate
and would likely lead to censorship. Church members have been
reputed to often initiate unfair attacks on people opposed to
their organization, and to undertake commercial endeavors to support
the growth of their religion. These actions must not be allowed
to take place, which they would likely be able to if the group
were controlled by a Scientologist.
VOTING
After a discussion period of no less than 4 weeks, during which time
this proposal will be refined by public debate, a Call For Votes
will be issued according to Usenet guidelines.
--
Mike Chapman, Esq.
Any correspondence sent to me in response to this material is subject to
editing and redistribution without further notice. Contact me if you
wish to obtain a specific or perpetual exclusion.
Modemac
: I am very much against a moderated alt.religion.scientology.
Second the motion. I strongly oppose a moderated group.
Scientology is doing its best to disrupt communication on
alt.religion.scientology, and this is revealing the TRUTH about the
organization far more than anything its critics can do.
Leave alt.religion.scientology unmoderated, and let the actions there
run their course.
We do not need a moderated Scientology newsgroup.
--
+---------------------------------------+
| Reverend Modemac (mod...@netcom.com) |
+-------------+ "There is no black and white." +------------+
| First Online Church of "Bob," A Subfaction of the Excremeditated |
| Congregation of the Overinflated Head of L. Ron Hubbard |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
FINGER mod...@netcom.com for a FREE SubGenius Pamphlet!
Pete Hartman
lack of ability to comprehend how UseNet works in the last month or
two. While I tentatively support this proposal, I would prefer a
different moderator; one who has not shown himself ready to go off
half-cocked about people being dictators.
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
So the odds against him were higher than a vanload of hippies
on a blotterful of Owlsley's Old Original.
There was still a chance.
scott goehring
In article <3n3dts$n...@rodan.UU.NET>, Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>Newsgroup: soc.religion.scientology
>Status: moderated
>Distribution: world
>Proponent: Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu>
>Moderator: mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman)
scientology is too controversial a topic to be discussed meaningfully
on USENET with a moderator. i have no objection to the creation of a
soc.religion.* group, but moderating it will just result in another
repetition of the s.r.i incident.
if the moderator is a non-scientologist, the scientologists will
harass him/her indefinitely. remember that the church has an offical
policy of flooding the group with posts; if we moderate they will
instead flood the moderator.
if the moderator is a scientologist, the group will become nothing
more than free worldwide advertising from the CoS. i doubt many site
admins have any interest in having their systems used to advertise for
a cult with a long criminal history.
say yes to soc.religion.scientology. say no to moderation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.1
iQCVAwUBL5VVrRbgfSHT/piVAQFdDwP/Rg0dl2y5Fr5ujeA05zToFPTGI5inJoZ6
vtSTz33iIeMvJ2/j97A6frBEGUPy/bVGOij20VjhUzP2CXPy31IlN4MUdLperT1w
a21Mc2j5RmVNIS8FZ/YbFtwEIuyzAzH498o7LfXpGpAzHW+nHVtcg7mQojjaUWb3
/5kuKdPwZWk=
=QYYP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Matt Messina
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
>
>Status: moderated
>Distribution: world
>Proponent: Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu>
>Moderator: mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman)
I have no opinion about the creation or moderation status of this group,
but I wonder, Mike, do you really want to moderate it? How long will it
hold your interest? If you're going to exclude articles based on content,
it could be a large job.
--
Matt Messina
mes...@umich.edu
Ken Arromdee
Pete Hartman <p...@bradley.bradley.edu> wrote:
>It is worth noting that Mike Chapman has demonstrated significant
>lack of ability to comprehend how UseNet works in the last month or
>two. While I tentatively support this proposal, I would prefer a
>different moderator; one who has not shown himself ready to go off
>half-cocked about people being dictators.
If Tale in fact said and did what Mike claims he said and did, then Tale was
being a dictator. People should not be told that attempts to post to
news.announce.newgroups would result in complaints to their system administra-
tor. This action, from a moderator of a newsgroup that is a mandatory part of
the group-creation process, should not be condoned, and it does not in any way
become less improper if Tale changes his mind about it later on.
(Hmm. I wonder if an attempt to post a RFD for news.admin.high-council
would be accepted now. Or perhaps news.high-council.)
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
"Communism is just one step on the long road from capitalism to capitalism."
-- Russian saying
Arthur Bernard Byrne
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
Big seven group, good idea. It should have been done a while
ago IMHO. Moderation, bad idea; as said by others, there's the future risk
of a censor if it's moderated.
AB^2
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Go not unto Usenet for advice, for the denizens will say both yes, and no,
and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck off, and...." --Unknown net.wit
Russ Allbery
>
>Did anybody besides me just have an entirely too funny vision of
>an army of Scieontologists surrounding concrete bunker, with Mike
>Chapman waving an M-16 around and screaming that they'll never take
>hime alive?
Yes. I am definitely voting for this newsgroup. (It will never pass, but
what the hell.) :)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
Peter da Silva
Dan Rothschild <da...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>This is, simply put, a Very Bad Idea. Moderation of this group will
>basically mean one church running a Usenet group.
grep soc\.religion /usr/lib/news/active
Deirdre
soc.*.scientology group, particularly in light of the net.events of the
last six months.
If it were an unmoderated group, I would support it.
_Deirdre
In article <stellaD7...@netcom.com>, ste...@netcom.com (Steven J.
Tella) wrote:
Bruce D. Scott
I oppose a moderated group concerning scientology, for or against, and will
vote against it when and if the time comes.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent
b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson
Robert A. Hayden
Let 'em play in alt with the rest of the goofy things.
--
____ Robert A. Hayden <=> Cthulhu Matata
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> http://att2.cs.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden
-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
P+>++ L++$ 3- E---- N+++ K+++ W M+ V-- -po+(---)>$ Y++ t+ 5+++
j R+++$ G- tv+ b+ D+ B--- e+>++(*) u** h* f r-->+++ !n y++**
Mike Chapman
Arthur Bernard Byrne <ab...@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <3n3dts$n...@rodan.UU.NET>, Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
>
>ago IMHO. Moderation, bad idea; as said by others, there's the future risk
>of a censor if it's moderated.
Unmoderated it will turn into a clone of a.r.s. with the conversation
constantly degrading into accusations and threats. Not acceptable...
Mike Chapman
Deirdre <dei...@deeny.mv.com> wrote:
>For the record, I vehemently oppose the creation of a moderated
>soc.*.scientology group, particularly in light of the net.events of the
>last six months.
In light of the recent events it MUST be moderated, by someone other than
a Scientologist. We need some damage control to keep it from being a
violent battleground.
>If it were an unmoderated group, I would support it.
If it were an unmoderated group, it would be full of threats, counterthreats
and worse, from both sides. It's an explosive issue.
As moderator I would not seek to silence any opinions, only abuse.
Chuck Karish
Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>In light of the recent events it MUST be moderated, by someone other than
>a Scientologist. We need some damage control to keep it from being a
>violent battleground.
Violent? Mike has an interesting understanding of the medium
>If it were an unmoderated group, it would be full of threats, counterthreats
>and worse, from both sides. It's an explosive issue.
>
>As moderator I would not seek to silence any opinions, only abuse.
That would take all the fun out of it!
Seriously, moderation is not appropriate for this subject.
The content is inherently explosive. I doubt that the participants
want to change that.
--
Chuck Karish kar...@mindcraft.com 415 323 9000 x117
Roy Murphy
: In article <D7BIB...@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,: > Big seven group, good idea. It should have been done a while
: >ago IMHO. Moderation, bad idea; as said by others, there's the future risk
: >of a censor if it's moderated.
: Unmoderated it will turn into a clone of a.r.s. with the conversation
: constantly degrading into accusations and threats. Not acceptable...
Mike, that's the best argument I've seen yet for voting no.
Moderated, its dangerous. Unmoderated its dangerous. And what makes
you think that the posters will abandon a.r.s for s.r.s?
--
Roy Murphy \ "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
mur...@panix.com \ over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
\ R.P. Feynman
Patrick Jost
Scientologists would favour a Scientologist moderator. Skeptics
would favour a skeptical (or no) moderator, I favour no
moderator at all, let people say what they will about this
topic.
Susan Garvin
Chuck Karish <kar...@mindcraft.com> wrote:
>In article <3n62m4$i...@hecate.umd.edu>,
>Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>>In light of the recent events it MUST be moderated, by someone other than
>>a Scientologist. We need some damage control to keep it from being a
>>violent battleground.
>
>Violent? Mike has an interesting understanding of the medium
He's also given to exagerration.
>>If it were an unmoderated group, it would be full of threats, counterthreats
>>and worse, from both sides. It's an explosive issue.
>>
>>As moderator I would not seek to silence any opinions, only abuse.
>
>That would take all the fun out of it!
>
>Seriously, moderation is not appropriate for this subject.
>The content is inherently explosive. I doubt that the participants
>want to change that.
There doesn't seem to be any indication that Chapman particularly
cares what the participants of the newsgroup might want. I've
yet to see any post in support of his proposal, and I've seen
many which "vehemently" oppose it.
Further, Chapman hasn't addressed how he plans to moderate a group
with a large volume all by himself. Perhaps more importantly, he
hasn't addressed the very real concern that he would be replaced
as moderator after the group's creation. Chapman has commented
elsewhere that his continued net access is questionable. (Chapman's
access problems point out another problem - should someone who
endangered his own access by posting inappropriately be empowered
to decide what constitutes abuse?)
I suspect that Chapman isn't all that interested in scientology.
In my opinion, he gets a kick out of proposing newsgroups. That's
not necessarily a criticism, by the way.
Susan
Modemac
: Unmoderated it will turn into a clone of a.r.s. with the conversation
: constantly degrading into accusations and threats. Not acceptable...
Which, therefore, is an excelent argument for leaving
alt.religion.scientology alone and not creating any more Scientology
newsgroups, moderated or no.
Mike, if you plan to moderate a Scientology newsgroup, could you give
some specific examples of messages that would not be allowed on the
group? Not something vague, like "abuse;" list a few SPECIFIC examples.
Use some of the messages currently on a.r.s. to support your argument, if
you wish.
scott goehring
In article <3n62m4$i...@hecate.umd.edu>,
Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>In light of the recent events it MUST be moderated, by someone other
>than a Scientologist. We need some damage control to keep it from
>being a violent battleground.
why? alt.religion.scientology doesn't need a moderator; it does just
fine wihtout one. sure, we have the woodmeister and the clambake, but
they're not really much of a problem.
all moderating will do is make your mailbox, not the newsgroup, the
dumping grounds for their diatribes (that is, until they
figure out how to forge approvals) and make you subject to ongoing and
continued harassment by the Church. i suspect that you and helena
would become well known to each other if you became the moderator of a
scientology group. have you retained legal counsel?
>If it were an unmoderated group, it would be full of threats,
>counterthreats and worse, from both sides. It's an explosive issue.
all the more reason not to moderate it.
>As moderator I would not seek to silence any opinions, only abuse.
get a clue. it won't work.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.1
iQCVAwUBL5aoDBbgfSHT/piVAQG0bwQAjaXBrn2mDn2wGquHWBZjkC8V5JBwQ1G+
OvKMfp16SZ4MbXowRqVCNDvbfFA70R/DDV19bbPjjeT3ehZrvUb4U+AmoWASjmel
mHz6vNcGMus47sNSqJnrU728d/agyzFtwdqtnwoWu2H0OViBJDZuLO735J0TRB/y
16LmF0zJnKc=
=t12V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Specter
>
>I oppose a moderated group concerning scientology, for or against, and will
>vote against it when and if the time comes.
Ditto
Specter
---
"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Russ Allbery
>
>There doesn't seem to be any indication that Chapman particularly
>cares what the participants of the newsgroup might want. I've
>yet to see any post in support of his proposal, and I've seen
>many which "vehemently" oppose it.
I wholeheartedly support this newsgroup since, after following news.groups
through recent events, it's probably the funniest thing I've seen in weeks.
:)
(Looks like a safe one to support too, since there's no way it's going to
pass.)
Ken Arromdee
Peter da Silva <pe...@bonkers.taronga.com> wrote:
>>(Hmm. I wonder if an attempt to post a RFD for news.admin.high-council
>>would be accepted now. Or perhaps news.high-council.)
>the group creation process as he feared. I wish him the best of luck in
>this endeavour.
Tale explained to me in email that he didn't mean to prohibit posts by Mike,
and that it is "overly anal" to interpret a ban on mail as a ban on posts
that are made by mail.
Unlike Tale, though, I don't think people are being overly anal when they
assume that someone says what they mean. I am far from the only person to
read tale's ban on mail as implying a ban on posts.
And of course, Mike could not write to Tale to ask for clarification.
Tilman Hausherr
: Scientologists would favour a Scientologist moderator. Skeptics
: would favour a skeptical (or no) moderator, I favour no
: moderator at all, let people say what they will about this
: topic.
...and neutral people are sometimes clueless about scientology: they
think it is a religion. One of those clueless people is the one who
made the proposal.
My opinion about s.r.s: it sux !
Tilman
--
--- Tilman Hausherr [KoX, 1.9, DB]
biz: til...@sietec.de http://www.sietec.de (company page)
home: til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman
Praise Xenu! Praise Mozilla! Praise "Bob"!
Mike Chapman
>Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>>In light of the recent events it MUST be moderated, by someone other than
>>a Scientologist. We need some damage control to keep it from being a
>>violent battleground.
>
Mine may be interesting, but yours is obviously limited.
>>If it were an unmoderated group, it would be full of threats, counterthreats
>>and worse, from both sides. It's an explosive issue.
>>
>>As moderator I would not seek to silence any opinions, only abuse.
>
>That would take all the fun out of it!
>
>Seriously, moderation is not appropriate for this subject.
>The content is inherently explosive. I doubt that the participants
>want to change that.
Usenet is not here to serve flame warriors, it is for people to find
useful information and debate. An unmoderated scientology group would
be of little use to anyone except the posters. I want to keep the
discussion civil, and keep people from spamming and worse. It needs
to be done. The participants would otherwise literally run wild,
and we don't need that on Usenet.
Steve
> tpr...@vp2241.pms.ford.com (Timothy R Prodin) wrote:
> >
> > I think, in the end, that this might be a thing better left in
> > alt.
> You might get some support from Scientologists who post on this news-
> group if someone moderated it who had some background and qualifica-
> tions in non-traditional or non Judao-Christian based religions. This
> might lead to some rational discussion and such a person, if unbiased,
> might be useful in bringing about some understanding rather than all
> the flaming that is going on now.
Oh, here we bloody go. They've started dictating terms already, and
we're hardly into the RFD stage.
> Chris Miller
> cmi...@covina.lightside.com
Steve
--
NO to moderated soc.religion.$cientology - keep speech free on the Internet!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stevea@ca | Nut culties! Spam! Spacemen! Marcabs!! | "Is that a clam in your
stlsys.de | With A 1,000 Elephants Called Vera!! | pocket or are you just
mon.co.uk | All in alt.religion.scientology NOW!!! | pleased to see me?"
Michael Shields
Michael Bauser <MBA...@kentvm.kent.edu> wrote:
> You missed something. Mike Chapman isn't a Scientologist. In fact,
> he seems to have a fairly low tolerance for any religion with strict
> rules. Ask him about alt.singles.jewish if you don't believe me.
So why does he want to moderate s.r.s?
--
Shields.
Steven J. Tella
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
I don't post to or read moderated groups, because if someone else
decides whether I can be read, I wish to be paid, so I personally
dislike the idea of a moderated group. However, in this case, there
are many reasons beyond my own for opposing the creation of a
moderated group for discussion of scientology.
If the moderator is a scientologist, the group becomes an advertising
medium for the church, and charter-be-damned, those who have problems
with the Co$ will not be heard from. Squirrels, wogs, and suppressive
persons need not apply. (If you don't know what these are, you're
most likely, in the charming jargon of the church, a wog.)
However, if the moderator is not a scientologist, it's even worse, in
that the church can launch a PR campaign, claiming that the net is
discriminating against scientologists, and attempting to silence them.
In the view of the church, it seems, anything short of abject
submission is opposition.
If you doubt this, read alt.religion.scientology for a few days before
making a decision.
>The moderator is not a member of the Church of Scientology, and
>is impartial to the religious aspects of the potential discussion.
>To allow a Church member to moderate the group would be inappropriate
>and would likely lead to censorship. Church members have been
>reputed to often initiate unfair attacks on people opposed to
>their organization, and to undertake commercial endeavors to support
>the growth of their religion. These actions must not be allowed
>to take place, which they would likely be able to if the group
>were controlled by a Scientologist.
I agree with you on this. Can you not see the PR disaster inherent in
the churchies claiming, in print, on TV, in their house organs, that
the "neutral" moderator is taking sides against them.
It'll happen you know.... their presence on the net is proof that
anything short of respectful adulation of the co$ is an "attack".
I, myself, would be concerned, were I moderator, about attempts to
unseat me, and replace me with a far less even-handed person. I shall
refrain from listing all the ways of unseating a moderator that my
paranoid mind can devise, but a reader of alt.religion.scientology can
likely catch my drift.
I consider this proposal to be unwise, dangerous to the moderator and
to the net, and unnecessary. My KILLfile neatly filters the clamspam,
my ability to discern which of the posters on ars are talking sense,
which are blowing chunks of propaganda, which are half-suited for a
battle of wits. I see no need for moderation, and fear its propaganda
effects.
ste...@netcom.com aka Steven James Tella
Dennis Erlich Defense Fund, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
1667 K Street, NW, Suite 801, Washington, DC 20006
LABEL CHECKS "DENNIS ERLICH DEFENSE FUND"
Peter da Silva
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
>
>Status: moderated
>Distribution: world
>Proponent: Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu>
>Moderator: mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman)
And Mike once again shows the world how much of an asshole he is.
Mike, what was that about "LICK MY BIG HAIRY BALLS"?
--
Official spokesperson for Judges-L.
Of course I am. Yea, really, I am. Didn't you know that?
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Matt Messina <mes...@umich.edu> wrote:
>Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
>>
>>Newsgroup: soc.religion.scientology
>>Status: moderated
>>Distribution: world
>>Proponent: Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu>
>>Moderator: mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman)
>
>but I wonder, Mike, do you really want to moderate it? How long will it
>hold your interest? If you're going to exclude articles based on content,
>it could be a large job.
Oh, I don't know. I mean there's only 400 or 500 new posts to
alt.religion.scientology every 24 hours...
Dan Rothschild
>Status: moderated
This is, simply put, a Very Bad Idea. Moderation of this group will
basically mean one church running a Usenet group. If the Scientologist
loonies want to run their own corner of a net, then they should start
their own, OR leave this group unmoderated.
Rev. Dan Rothschild
--
<a href="http://turnpike.net/metro/dan/index.html> My home page </a>
Chuck Karish
>If Tale in fact said and did what Mike claims he said and did, then Tale was
>being a dictator.
Dave is SUPPOSED to be a dictator. That's his job on usenet: to
make the final decisions, and to use his judgement as to when it's
time to stop listening to the whining and the bombast and the
self-righteous orations.
His power lasts as long as system administrators trust his control
messages.
If it takes drastic measures to get some relief from the most
persistent whiners, so be it. Anybody else who sticks his or her
neck out and agrees to be the designated target for this sort of
abuse will eventually wind up doing something comparable.
Michael Bauser
gr...@netcom.com (Grady Ward) writes:
>While the proposed moderator may in fact be neutral, I
>think there is good reason to believe that the criminal cult
>of scientology will seek to replace him through force or
>attrition and replace the moderator with one of their own.
Did anybody besides me just have an entirely too funny vision of
an army of Scieontologists surrounding concrete bunker, with Mike
Chapman waving an M-16 around and screaming that they'll never take
hime alive?
--
Michael Bauser <mba...@kentvm.kent.edu>
"It's participant observation. Honest!"
Michael Bauser
da...@ix.netcom.com (Dan Rothschild) writes:
>>Newsgroup: soc.religion.scientology
>>Status: moderated
>
>This is, simply put, a Very Bad Idea. Moderation of this group will
>basically mean one church running a Usenet group. If the Scientologist
>loonies want to run their own corner of a net, then they should start
>their own, OR leave this group unmoderated.
he seems to have a fairly low tolerance for any religion with strict
rules. Ask him about alt.singles.jewish if you don't believe me.
David M. Cook
>The newsgroup is moderated to maintain a high signal to noise ratio
>and to filter out potentially abusive content. In general, any
>politely phrased posts will be allowed.
This would not keep out spam. It would keep out posts such as Vera's,
which show the true face of Scientology.
I will vote no if it comes to a vote. a.r.s. is doing just fine.
Dave Cook
S.O.Wendel
:> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
:> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
:>Newsgroup: soc.religion.scientology
:>Status: moderated
:>Distribution: world
:>Proponent: Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu>
:>Moderator: mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman)
I am very much AGAINST a moderated newsgroup since this means that a
single individual has the power to discard all posts that do not agree
with views held by that moderator. It doesn't matter if the moderator
is a $cieno or not, because if said moderator is a $cieno then the
whole group will contain nothing but propaganda, and if the moderator
is NOT a $cieno then Co$ will claim that all pro-Scientology posts
have been sorted out, and that views expressed on the moderated group
are not representative and thus of no value.
In other words, the "Church" of Scientology will always gain by having
a moderated group, no matter who the moderator is.
So, keep your fingers off alt.religion.scientology! All changes to
this group will be a win for $cientology! The people on
alt.religion.scientology have managed to expose Co$, and show a large
number of educated and influential people what Co$ really is. Don't
just throw that away!
Don't let yourselves be manipulated! Say NO to a moderated newsgroup!
Cheers,
SW
**********************************************************************
* S.O.Wendel * *
* e-mail addresses: * PRAEPARATUS SUPERVIVET *
* non...@ibm.net imx...@ibm.net * THOSE WHO ARE PREPARED SURVIVE *
* wen...@wendel.se * *
**********************************************************************
* You orchestra a spotty percussion and destroy religious freedom on *
* the Net...... "Woody" aka Rick Sherwood, alt.religion.scientology *
**********************************************************************
scott goehring
In article <3n6bq9$k...@hecate.umd.edu>,
Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>Usenet is not here to serve flame warriors, it is for people to find
>useful information and debate. An unmoderated scientology group would
>be of little use to anyone except the posters. I want to keep the
>discussion civil, and keep people from spamming and worse. It needs
>to be done. The participants would otherwise literally run wild,
>and we don't need that on Usenet.
1) the existing unmoderated scientology group is not "of little use to
anyone except the posters."
2) moderation doesn't prevent spamming.
3) i see nothing wrong with untrammeled open debate in certain corners
of usenet. do you want to moderate talk.abortion, too?
4) you're even more of an idiot than you appear to be if you want to
moderate soc.religion.scientology. that's _asking_ to get
mailbombed, sued, and harrassed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.1
iQCVAwUBL5bP4hbgfSHT/piVAQFexAP8DbYfklyKGoD6MFKAkjhhq8LNNhFSKhBh
0zP6WKfs58lPWlCyWTmQSLm3TKzwz08SI2vfqzHz4z4/WPByMyuzzyZ6OSepQMur
dLOaXNHqUfcTQD7S5hS2FOegUuevidDWT/W7e8qvcPAr7lpTXwGRv1eU9Xo9A63t
BQ6WKopxwXQ=
=cJ/p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Chuck Karish
>Chuck Karish <kar...@mindcraft.com> wrote:
>>
>>Violent? Mike has an interesting understanding of the medium
>
>Mine may be interesting, but yours is obviously limited.
Bullshit.
Please explain how the act of posting a usenet article can
ever be violent. I don't mean symbolic violence, I mean
real violence.
>Usenet is not here to serve flame warriors, it is for people to find
>useful information and debate. An unmoderated scientology group would
>be of little use to anyone except the posters. I want to keep the
>discussion civil, and keep people from spamming and worse. It needs
>to be done. The participants would otherwise literally run wild,
>and we don't need that on Usenet.
Mike, speak for yourself. Lots of usenet participants seem to desire it.
Is there no limit to your pomposity?
Timothy R Prodin
Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>In light of the recent events it MUST be moderated, by someone other than
>a Scientologist. We need some damage control to keep it from being a
>violent battleground.
Sure....maybe.... Depends on how you want to define opinion and
how you want to define abuse.
>>If it were an unmoderated group, I would support it.
>
>If it were an unmoderated group, it would be full of threats, counterthreats
>and worse, from both sides. It's an explosive issue.
>
>As moderator I would not seek to silence any opinions, only abuse.
Please, demonstrate how you would moderate. There are a LOT of
articles in alt.religion.scientology. There should be plenty of
examples to show what would be rejected and what would be approved.
Chris Miller
You might get some support from Scientologists who post on this news-
group if someone moderated it who had some background and qualifica-
tions in non-traditional or non Judao-Christian based religions. This
might lead to some rational discussion and such a person, if unbiased,
might be useful in bringing about some understanding rather than all
the flaming that is going on now.
I don't mean to imply that you are not qualified, I would just feel
more comfortable knowing that someone was moderating it who had
exposure and knowledge of other religious groups. People tend to view
things from their own social background rather and fear that which does
not fit that particular mold.
--
Chris Miller
cmi...@covina.lightside.com
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>An unmoderated scientology group would
>be of little use to anyone except the posters.
Um, what?
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>Arthur Bernard Byrne <ab...@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
>>
>>ago IMHO. Moderation, bad idea; as said by others, there's the future risk
>>of a censor if it's moderated.
>
>Unmoderated it will turn into a clone of a.r.s. with the conversation
>constantly degrading into accusations and threats.
And here Mike shows us that he doesn't read alt.religion.scientology.
>Not acceptable...
Speak for yourself, white man.
Robert Craig Harman
dei...@deeny.mv.com (Deirdre) writes:
>For the record, I vehemently oppose the creation of a moderated
>soc.*.scientology group, particularly in light of the net.events of the
>last six months.
>
>If it were an unmoderated group, I would support it.
>
I'd like to second Deirdre's opposition, for the same reasons, but would suggest
that moderated or not, the group has little likelihood of passing with the
current readers of the soc.religion. hierarchy being unwilling to accord
the "religion" title to anything they oppose. (By similar reasoning, soc.
religion.mormon, for example, would probably never pass either, regardless of
its dissimilar subject.)
Robert Craig Harman ("Craig")
Master's Candidate
Dept. of Chemical Engineering, BYU
>In article <stellaD7...@netcom.com>, ste...@netcom.com (Steven J.
>Tella) wrote:
Daniel Davidson
The Church of Scientology is an organization convicted who's
leadership has been convicted of infiltration of the Federal
Government. The Church maintains semi-concentration camp facilities
for the punishment of members. Serious aligations in sworn
testimony have pointed to the Church's involvement with abuse and
false imprisonment of critics. Numerous suspicious deaths have
occured in and around the Church, including suicides.
The Church of Scientology has shown a deep-seated contempt for
Internet guidlines. The Church has blatantly sought to overwhelm
alt.religion.scientology with thousands of contentless posts, as
well as attempting to illicitly rmgroup the newsgroup.
Individual critics have been publicly identified -- home address,
husband's name, phone number -- and visited without invitation
or agreement.
Sysadmin's have been harrased by spurious, unfounded charges of
copyright violations.
To grant moderator status to The Church of Scientology, who has a
40 year record of violent, abusive policy aimed at "utterly destroying
critics", and who has shown nothing but contempt for the Internet
and all it stands for, is a travesty of the highest order.
Allowing a Church of Scientology moderated group to form would send
a clear message, and establish a dangerous precident: to wit, that
bullying, threats leagal abuse and intimidation are viable means to
manipulate the Internet.
This cannot, this *must not* be encouraged.
Thank you for your attention. Supporting documents available upon request.
--
= Daniel Davidson =
davi...@sfsu.edu
NO!! on soc.religion.scientology (moderated) Delurk NOW!
(Don't hit. Clean your mess.)
Steven J. Tella
Russ Allbery <r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Yes. I am definitely voting for this newsgroup. (It will never pass, but
>what the hell.) :)
Please do not assume that until we see how many users pop up for the
vote. The co$$$$$ has deep pockets, and one can buy an account for
the purpose of voting for under $20.00.
Dead-agent the original moderator, run a dark horse, and *poof* the
cult has a moderated propaganda vector.
Tom Collins
>In article <3n6bq9$k...@hecate.umd.edu>,
>Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>>Usenet is not here to serve flame warriors, it is for people to find
>>useful information and debate. An unmoderated scientology group would
>>be of little use to anyone except the posters. I want to keep the
Who does a newsgroup need to serve other than its participants?
>>discussion civil, and keep people from spamming and worse. It needs
Moderators are not the only or necessarily the best alternative to spam.
The majority of posters on a.r.s. are not calling for an alternative
group or a means of splitting the discussion. Like any group, it is
dealing with self-regulation issues. Flames are a powerful means of
effecting net regulation and educating the clueless. If flame warriors
are having a good time, it is not for YOU to say them nay. One man's
debate, incidentally, is another man's flame. And now that you mention
it, who cares what YOU want?
>>to be done. The participants would otherwise literally run wild,
>>and we don't need that on Usenet.
Literally run wild? People can't even dance on Usenet, much less run wild
on it. I agree that without moderation, free speech will be rampant and
people will be in great danger of open discussion and exposure to
unwelcome ideas expressed discourteously. Everyone in a.r.s. is exposed
to that risk daily and seems to be surviving so far.
>Mike, speak for yourself. Lots of usenet participants seem to desire it.
>Is there no limit to your pomposity?
Apparently no one, but I am fascinated that he has decided he can speak
for what "we" need on Usenet. Who died and appointed him to be the god?
--
tom...@kaiwan.com Tom Collins
"Inside every old person is a young person wondering what happened."
--Terry Pratchett. "Babbitt was vaguely frightened." --Sinclair Lewis.
Tom Collins
>Grady Ward (gr...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: I am very much against a moderated alt.religion.scientology.
>Second the motion. I strongly oppose a moderated group.
>Scientology is doing its best to disrupt communication on
>alt.religion.scientology, and this is revealing the TRUTH about the
>organization far more than anything its critics can do.
This proposal merely adds to the noise level and detracts from serious
discussion about the criminal cult-- as if there were not already enough
time spent on self-moderation chores in a.r.s. Further, it assumes that
Scientology is a religion, which is not the way it is viewed under the
law in many nations of the earth.
>Leave alt.religion.scientology unmoderated, and let the actions there
>run their course.
This, of course, is what the Crock of $cn is afraid will happen.
>We do not need a moderated Scientology newsgroup.
And there's no particular evidence that anyone wants it either. The only
beneficiaries will be the clamheads and their minions-- including the
infamous David Miscavige, vertically-impaired dodger of process servers
(on whose head there is a $3,000 bounty to anyone who can slap papers on
his head).
Vote no on this useless and unnecessary proposal.
Tom Collins
>Mike, that's the best argument I've seen yet for voting no.
>Moderated, its dangerous. Unmoderated its dangerous. And what makes
>you think that the posters will abandon a.r.s for s.r.s?
Everything will have to be posted twice-- once to a.r.s., where the real
discussion will continue, and once to s.r.s. to await the moderator's
fiat. Of course, I thought what would really happen is that everyone
would simply cross-post, but with a moderated newsgroup in the subject
line, the article gets help up from everybody until the moderator
decides. Right? Divide and conquer is an old principle, but it works
well. The Crock of $cn wants a moderated group in a desperate effort to
draw attention from their actual (spectacularly evil) behavior, available
on view daily in a.r.s., and to keep the discussion from effectively
exposing their activities.
Thomas Koenig
would doubt tale's sense of humour.
--
Thomas Koenig, Thomas...@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig...@dkauni2.bitnet.
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.
David M. Cook
Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>I want to keep the
What are you going to do? Make Woody stick to a quota? (One much lower
than his present one that is.)
Dave Cook
Russ Allbery
>
>I believe it may pass. Here's why: the cult may well become aware of
>the CFV, and come out in numbers to support it, on the basis that they
>will take control of the group themselves, and use it to foist their
>own special brand of clamaganda onto the net.
Geez, I stepped on a few hot buttons. :)
Look, I've read ars from time to time, I have a fairly good idea of what the
situation is, and I agree that it needs to have an unmoderated group for
discussion. I can see why this would look very threatening to people from
ars.
But believe me, you're taking this *way* too seriously. :) That mental
picture of Mike Chapman screaming defiance at the ravening hoards of Scienos
is just too funny to pass up.
The honest truth is that I would *not* be worried about the group passing.
There's no chance that Scientologists would take a group over from Mike, and
they're going to be opposing it (apparently along with everyone else).
>They've done this sort of thing before. Also, it is entirely possible
>that they are behind a push to create a moderated group themselves;
>certainly, I've never heard of the proponent,
*snort*. I have...I wouldn't worry on that score. :)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
Alan Barclay
>useful information and debate. An unmoderated scientology group would
Who else should a newgroup be of use to? I cannot imagine that a
group which is aimed towards the people who aren't interested in
the subject could be useful.
Martin G. V. Hunt
> In article <D7BIB...@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
>>
>>ago IMHO. Moderation, bad idea; as said by others, there's the future risk
>>of a censor if it's moderated.
>
> Unmoderated it will turn into a clone of a.r.s. with the conversation
Moderated, it will turn into a group of culties posting their "wins"
and "big wins" and "success stories." Not acceptable.
ttyl,
--
"Guess what, Mr. Milne...you pricks don't scare me. I'm clean as a
whistle, and I fight back. You picked the wrong readhead to fuck with,
buddy." -- Tarla
Cogito, ergo sum. Martin Hunt, av...@freenet.carleton.ca
Martin G. V. Hunt
> Deirdre <dei...@deeny.mv.com> wrote:
>>For the record, I vehemently oppose the creation of a moderated
>>soc.*.scientology group, particularly in light of the net.events of the
>>last six months.
>
> a Scientologist. We need some damage control to keep it from being a
> violent battleground.
Bullshit. Moderation of such a hot topic is doomed to failure; the time
load would be incredible, the attacks from the cult horrible. In any case,
it would take someone with an understanding of the cult. It would have to
be a veteran of ars. No way we would trust some newbie who pops his head
in and says "can I moderate a big seven group for you?" <blink, blink>
> If it were an unmoderated group, it would be full of threats, counterthreats
> and worse, from both sides. It's an explosive issue.
Just the way we like it; the cult deals in explosive issues, it uses
threats to silence critics, it does "worse."
Tell me, how long would you last after they hauled your ass into court
for libel? How would you like the cops knocking on *your* door?
Are you ready for a big lawsuit from Scientology's army of lawyers?
Are you willing to be tailed and harassed at home by the cult's PI's?
Methinks you'll wither like a may blossom in the hot sun...
> As moderator I would not seek to silence any opinions, only abuse.
What about abusive opinions?
Martin G. V. Hunt
> Susan Garvin <gar...@pitt.edu> writes:
>>
>>There doesn't seem to be any indication that Chapman particularly
>>cares what the participants of the newsgroup might want. I've
>>yet to see any post in support of his proposal, and I've seen
>>many which "vehemently" oppose it.
>
> I wholeheartedly support this newsgroup since, after following news.groups
> through recent events, it's probably the funniest thing I've seen in weeks.
> :)
>
> (Looks like a safe one to support too, since there's no way it's going to
> pass.)
I believe it may pass. Here's why: the cult may well become aware of
the CFV, and come out in numbers to support it, on the basis that they
will take control of the group themselves, and use it to foist their
own special brand of clamaganda onto the net.
They've done this sort of thing before. Also, it is entirely possible
that they are behind a push to create a moderated group themselves;
certainly, I've never heard of the proponent, and on ars, I've learned
not to trust people I don't know. It's not paranoia if they really *are*
out to get you! ;)
Martin G. V. Hunt
> Usenet is not here to serve flame warriors, it is for people to find
> useful information and debate. An unmoderated scientology group would
> be of little use to anyone except the posters. I want to keep the
> discussion civil, and keep people from spamming and worse. It needs
> to be done. The participants would otherwise literally run wild,
> and we don't need that on Usenet.
^^
You obviously don't know this, but no one other than us is allowed
the privilege of using the collective royal "we." ;)
Becoming quite the little net.cop, aren't we? ;)
Who died and made you the god of the internet, pal? I would have
thought that any mention of new group creation should have come
from alt.religion.scientology. Perhaps a veteran poster such as
Chris Schafmeister, Rod Keller, Jeff Jacobsen, Ron Newman, or myself,
perhaps.
I've never heard of you before; I've never even seen your posts on
ars.
Karl Meyer
real BIG 7 group to rant in. I might vote for an unmoderated group but will
definately vote no on this no matter WHO the moderator might be.
Dan Mckinnon
> a Scientologist. We need some damage control to keep it from being a
> violent battleground.
>
>
> If it were an unmoderated group, it would be full of threats, counterthreats
> and worse, from both sides. It's an explosive issue.
_What's_ an explosive issue?
>
> As moderator I would not seek to silence any opinions, only abuse.
> --
> Mike Chapman, Esq.
Mike, I have to wonder at your naivite.
CO$ claims copyright on almost all its writing. Its robot
representatives post "answers" that have nothing to do with the quoted
post. They have "outed" people from their pseudonyms. They have made
anonymous phone calls, unwanted personal visits, and obtained private
phone and other information about ars participants who are critical of
CO$.
What they most certainly will _not_ do is ever reveal, of their own
free will, any information about higher level beliefs and practices.
They will not even reveal any information about themselves as human
beings (and I use the phrase loosely). THey use names as fronts for
multile persons to use.
So there can be no discussion. Not, at least, without anonymous
release of inside information by people who have access.
I'm _very_ unclear on what you think such a proposed newsgroup would
accomplish. You said what it _wouldn't_ be, under your control, but not
what it _would_ be. Certainly you never explained what could be
accomplished there that can't be accomplished in ars, if the CO$ was
willing. The anti forces _want_ to discuss the tenets of CO$. Sure, a
lot of us think they are garbage, but the CO$ could, at least, try to
rationalize them and give us any "proof" they think they have. They
always have claimed scientific basis of their views, but any peer
review is out.
The CO$ will _never_ discuss their higher teachings. That would reveal
their farce of a "religion". Nobody would ever come to them, and that
would mean no $$$. THey would continue their harassment tactics, and
you would end up censoring the out-raged posts of the victims.
I say NO to soc.rel.scientology.
Sometimes a free-for-all is necessary. A.r.s fills the bill.
> RATIONALE
> The moderator is not a member of the Church of Scientology, and is
> impartial to the religious aspects of the potential discussion. To
> allow a Church member to moderate the group would be inappropriate and
> would likely lead to censorship. Church members have been reputed to
> often initiate unfair attacks on people opposed to their organization,
> and to undertake commercial endeavors to support the growth of their
> religion. These actions must not be allowed to take place, which they
> would likely be able to if the group were controlled by a
> Scientologist.
Explain to me how having a moderator will stop:
1) The Church initiating unfair attacks
You say it is _reputed_ to do so, so I assume you are referring
to the outings, personal visits, etc. What you see with your own
eyes in ars is surely not "reputed"?
So how will having a moderator stop their actions outside the
newsgroup(s)?
2) THe Church "undertaking commercial endeavours to support their
religion's growth":
I haven't seen signs of this in my few months _on_ ars. Again, if
you are referring to their actions_outside_ of the newsgroup,
what has that to do with a moderated newsgroup, whether pro.
neutral, or anti-CO$?
Quoting from a post of yours:
*******
From: mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman)
>>and while I still have an account on chimera,
>>I am banned from the UVa nntp server.
>
>I see. Yes, that is sort of like losing access. I can certainly
>see their point (about not allowing antisocial behavior from their
>machines), so it's hard to tell what to make of that.
Yeah, I'm not saying they're wrong for denying me access.
>>There's actually a lot
>>more behind the conflict at UVa, which I won't bore everyone
>>with. I have been threatened with complaints and have received
>>comlaints over MANY trivial issues.
>
>They probably aren't trivial to the complainers, though. I've
>seen you post threats of violence, for instance, which seem to
>me to be quite valid grounds for complaint.
You're a liar.
***********
You say that you may have denied access to an account with good
reason? There is a possibility you threatened violence? Instead of
saying somebody is wrong - they misunderstood, for instance, when they
claim you threatened violence, you call them a "liar", you don't even
ask them to point out where you threatened violence? Without copies of
the posts involved, and the decision to deny access, I must say you do
not sound stable enough, or mature enough, to undertake such a serious
undertaking as moderating a newsgroup with CO$ involved.
I realize there is another side to the above, but by itself, it makes
me cautious, at the very least.
What do you see this newsgroup discussing? Please be specific.
Why do you want to form a group moderated under _you_ - what special and
relevant abilities do you have? Do you honestly think that there would
be an increased two-way flow between pro and anti forces?
Thank you.
Dan
---
* NFX v1.3 [000] Going out of my mind, back in 5 minutes.
bart
> It needs
> to be done. The participants would otherwise literally run wild,
> and we don't need that on Usenet.
I'd vote for this just to be able to read the first "Chapman the Dictator
Speaks Again - HELP ME!!!" thread.
bart
StarOwl
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
>
>Newsgroup: soc.religion.scientology
>Status: moderated
>Distribution: world
>Proponent: Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu>
>Moderator: mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman)
>
>soc.religion.scientology Church of Scientology and Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard
Naaah. I'd sugest:
Newsgroup: talk.cult.$cientology
Status: unmoderated
talk.cult.$cientology He's dead Jim
I will vote NO on any moderated group for the discussion of the Cult of
$cientology. I will encourage all of my friends to do so. I don't trust
the Cult enough to stand by and permit a moderated group to exist, out
of fear that the clamheads will somehow gain moderator status, thereby
gaining a means to disseminate their propoganda and half-truths.
Timothy R Prodin
Michael Bauser <MBA...@kentvm.kent.edu> wrote:
>You missed something. Mike Chapman isn't a Scientologist. In fact,
>he seems to have a fairly low tolerance for any religion with strict
>rules. Ask him about alt.singles.jewish if you don't believe me.
Actually, this brings up a more important point. How much does
Mike Chapman know about Scientology? I think that a lot of high
level flaming can be avoided if the moderator knows all of the
issues involved in the scientology newsgroup.
I don't think Mike knows that much about Scientology, and I also
question if he is willing to learn enough to really distinguish the soc
group moderated from the alt group unmoderated.
Furthermore, I don't think we want to set up somebody who so
obviously enjoys flamewars, and has such a short fuse as the
moderator of anything contraversial. We are just asking for
trouble if we do.
Michael Bauser
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) writes:
>They've done this sort of thing before. Also, it is entirely possible
>that they are behind a push to create a moderated group themselves;
>certainly, I've never heard of the proponent, and on ars, I've learned
>not to trust people I don't know. It's not paranoia if they really *are*
>out to get you! ;)
Everyone here on news.groups is reasonably familiar with Mike Chapman,
and I think we're all reasonably sure he's not a Scientologist.
I don't know exactly what he's up to (although I have theories), but
I'm pretty sure he isn't out to get you.
You *are* being paranoid. Next time you don't recognize a name, maybe
you should ask around before accusing them of being a cult member.
Michael "No Senator, I am not and never have
been a member of the Communist Party" Bauser
--
Michael Bauser <mba...@kentvm.kent.edu>
"It's participant observation. Honest!"
Susan Garvin
Michael Bauser <MBA...@kentvm.kent.edu> wrote:
#In article <D7D12...@freenet.carleton.ca>
#av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) writes:
#
##They've done this sort of thing before. Also, it is entirely possible
##that they are behind a push to create a moderated group themselves;
##certainly, I've never heard of the proponent, and on ars, I've learned
##not to trust people I don't know. It's not paranoia if they really *are*
##out to get you! ;)
#
#Here's a hint:
#
#Everyone here on news.groups is reasonably familiar with Mike Chapman,
#and I think we're all reasonably sure he's not a Scientologist.
#
#I don't know exactly what he's up to (although I have theories), but
#I'm pretty sure he isn't out to get you.
#
#You *are* being paranoid. Next time you don't recognize a name, maybe
#you should ask around before accusing them of being a cult member.
I can understand the reaction on a.r.s., though, can't you?
Someone who has never posted to the group suddenly appears,
proposes exactly the kind of group that the COS wants, proposes
that he moderate moderate said newsgroup, and dismisses all
criticisms of his proposal. If one weren't already acquainted
with Chapman's unique way of interacting with others, and one
was acquainted with the tactics of the COS, I can see how all
sorts of bells might go off.
It's unfortunate that there are serious issues involved here.
I enjoyed the mental image of Chapman facing off with the COS,
and I laughed out loud at the idea of a "Chapman the Dictator"
subject line.
Susan
Mike Chapman
Chris Miller <cmi...@covina.lightside.com> wrote:
>tpr...@vp2241.pms.ford.com (Timothy R Prodin) wrote:
(The man can't take a hint).
>You might get some support from Scientologists who post on this news-
>group if someone moderated it who had some background and qualifica-
>tions in non-traditional or non Judao-Christian based religions. This
>might lead to some rational discussion and such a person, if unbiased,
>might be useful in bringing about some understanding rather than all
>the flaming that is going on now.
Yes.
>I don't mean to imply that you are not qualified, I would just feel
>more comfortable knowing that someone was moderating it who had
>exposure and knowledge of other religious groups. People tend to view
>things from their own social background rather and fear that which does
>not fit that particular mold.
Sounds great to me - any volunteers or nominations?
--
Mike Chapman, Esq.
Any correspondence sent to me in response to this material is subject to
editing and redistribution without further notice. Contact me if you
wish to obtain a specific or perpetual exclusion.
Mike Chapman
Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran <ja...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3n3dts$n...@rodan.uu.net>, Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
>>
>>Newsgroup: soc.religion.scientology
>>Status: moderated
>>Distribution: world
>>Proponent: Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu>
>>Moderator: mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman)
>
>
>Mike, what was that about "LICK MY BIG HAIRY BALLS"?
Yeah, you and Congress.
Mike Chapman
Matt Messina <mes...@umich.edu> wrote:
>Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
>>
>>Newsgroup: soc.religion.scientology
>>Status: moderated
>>Distribution: world
>>Proponent: Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu>
>>Moderator: mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman)
>
>but I wonder, Mike, do you really want to moderate it? How long will it
>hold your interest? If you're going to exclude articles based on content,
>it could be a large job.
Perhaps too large of a job, and too dangerous of one. I'm personally
willing to give it a try. I believe that the moderation for this
group could be mostly handled with an expert system - one that would
allow seemingly legitimate posts to go through yet hold suspicious
ones for the moderator's manual approval. There *are* some simple
patterns to abusive posts, and to advertisements. People circumventing
the system could just be banned, as with hosts that originate
newsgroup floods (and the floods would never make it through the
software anyway).
If it is really possible to do this with an expert system, the
moderation could turn into a group effort, and possibly a new UVV-line
organization - reponsible for keeping hight contraversial groups
outside of talk something close to civil and useful.
The problem is that this group belongs no where other than talk if it's
not moderatored, if on Usenet at all.
What are some other alternatives?
Mike Chapman
Russ Allbery <r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>But believe me, you're taking this *way* too seriously. :) That mental
>picture of Mike Chapman screaming defiance at the ravening hoards of Scienos
>is just too funny to pass up.
Heheheheh, yeah.
>The honest truth is that I would *not* be worried about the group passing.
>There's no chance that Scientologists would take a group over from Mike, and
>they're going to be opposing it (apparently along with everyone else).
I would however, like to turn this proposal with obviously humorous
intentions into something useful, if at all possible.
I really think you could effectively use an expert system to filter out
the worst of the posts, and do to some thread control. The question
is whether it would be worthwile, or if there's even anything wrong with
a totally uncontrolled scientology newsgroup.
IMHO, it would *have* to go in talk as an unmoderated group.
Mike Chapman
David M. Cook <dc...@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <3n6bq9$k...@hecate.umd.edu>,
>Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>>I want to keep the
>>discussion civil, and keep people from spamming and worse.
>
>than his present one that is.)
Well, percentage-based quotas would be an interesting thing to try too.
Mike Chapman
Thomas Koenig <Thomas...@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>Well... seeing this got approved by tale, I don't think that anybody
>would doubt tale's sense of humour.
And FAST too - I sent it in around 0300 and it was out by the time I woke
up.
!
>Martin G. V. Hunt <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>>
>There's no chance that Scientologists would take a group over from Mike, and
>they're going to be opposing it (apparently along with everyone else).
>
Consider:
1. Woody posted in favor of the proposal.
2. As an active moderator, Mike would have potential liability if he
allows libel or copyright infringement to be posted.
3. If he doesn't allow posts which could be construed this way by CoS,
the group would end up emasculated, at best.
4. If he *does* allow strong posts, it would be in character for CoS to
bury Mike with law suits.
5. If overwhelmed by law suits, Mike might well have to capitulate on
CoS's terms--which could easily include being replaced by a
Scientologist.
Actually, I'd be in favor of a moderated s.r.s. *if* there could be
assurances against the above scenario--as an *addition* to the
unmoderated a.r.s. Unfortunately, the only moderator capable of
withstanding dedicated legal assault would be an agency of the US
government. Any chance of getting the Dept. of Justice to moderate a
USENET newsgroup?
!
Charles Oriez
of $cientology on the current a.r.s. are an annoyance. However, any
good kill-file routine solves that problem very easily. The question
then becomes "What ill are we trying to cure?" I have seen no clearly
explained problem, with examples, which warrants the change. And I
have been monitoring a.r.s. now for about a month.
On a side issue, I'm relatively new to this process. If this comes to
a vote, what is the procedure for nominating a candidate for moderator?
Is the proponent automatically the moderator, or do the skeptics get to
put up Tarla (or Stella or Dennis or ...) while the CO$ puts up a
robo-poster? And would the vote on moderator be at the same time as
the original vote, or subsequent to passage?
--
**************************************************************
** charles oriez cor...@ix.netcom.com **
** **
** all opinions checked at the door **
** **
** "Clams annoy me", Scott Adams in the preface of his **
** new book: "Bring me the Head of Willy the Mail Boy" **
** Defend Free Speech - Vote NO on moderated **
** soc.religion.scientology **
**************************************************************
UNIXer
No way, the scienos wil abuse the hell out of it. A Free market place for
ideas is the proper place for this discussion, not a moderated anything.
-+= |UNIXer| *+* "That guy who's return address doesn't work" (TM)
-+= | KoX | *+* 8 million STILL?! Couldn't it at least be 8,000,001?
-+= |Slack!| *+* "Anonymity is a shield from tyranny"
-+= | BOFH | *+* Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
noo...@netcom.com (Rick Sherwood) writes: "Attackers of the Church have been
using the tactic of accusing the Church of what they have been doing."
Freudian slip perhaps?
Special Notice to the Cof$
+++ Welcome to the CyberCorporation +++
+++ "The Whole World is Watching" +++
Warning: Not for Amateurs
Roy Murphy
wrote:
: So why does he want to moderate s.r.s?
Because he wants to be important.
--
Roy Murphy \ "We dine well here in Camelot.
mur...@panix.com \ We eat ham and jam and spam alot."
\ Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Bruce Baugh
In article <3n7lgl$c...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>,
bart <popa...@PO-Box.McGill.CA> wrote:
:> mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman) writes:
:> It needs
:> to be done. The participants would otherwise literally run wild,
:> and we don't need that on Usenet.
:
:I'd vote for this just to be able to read the first "Chapman the Dictator
It DOES have a certain charm, doesn't it? Maybe he can get Stephen
Boursy to co-moderate, just to maximize our reading pleasure.
Where is James Parry when we really need him?!?
bruceab@teleport.com___________http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab/
List Manager, Christlib, for Christian and libertarian concerns
Preview S.M. Stirling's forthcoming novel DRAKON at
http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab/drakon.html
Finger me for PGP 2.6.2 key. "Proclaim liberty throughout the land."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBL5f6H1CkApivd8BhAQH22gf+Lcjp0V3xNjWkOPHTalMjSyJwb2PU9Ohj
IzCNtYomUqA6yRYp2tLJSJ0Xfi1kd8JTn3iT+8B5ONbGo/1cHUJyJBwQHG6ku/Bz
ZvcA3IKnS9kv+fpJhqhiasCr3AssOmuGVXL8dMXXDJXZeurFjfvXlGCsYF5aaTNG
xeeUwdI9hM7LIMym1q8uAE2Pwe9uG/ubVJ2WLQlBoxTlUbv3D0SQaJbL++JXext+
W52kVahEK+Xi8qCawapBGsCyJcrVIyO1IULGvGMo4HtIVib2P9OuJ6vhFg6c1aXT
LIwv5N6i53qPpUbN7AX1KTCGGPWJ6TzM0R9D0o6QI2SAITgGuCL4BA==
=V1u8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tom Collins
>Alt.religion.scientology is USEFUL? I've seen the damn thing, it's a
>nightmare. It's useful to the gobs of self-righteous assholes who
>post there, on both sides.
Newsgroups are useful to their participants or not at all. You are not a
participant in a.r.s., so whether you think it is useful is irrelevant.
Whether you think those who participate are in your league or not is also
irrelevant. You yourself concede in the above sentence that the group is
useful to its present constituents. Since they are not demanding outside
assistance in dealing with the issues of that group, your proposal should
be withdrawn.
--
tom...@kaiwan.com Tom Collins
"Inside every old person is a young person wondering what happened."
--Terry Pratchett. "Babbitt was vaguely frightened." --Sinclair Lewis.
henry
>You might get some support from Scientologists who post on this news-
>group if someone moderated it who had some background and qualifica-
>tions in non-traditional or non Judao-Christian based religions. This
>might lead to some rational discussion and such a person, if unbiased,
>might be useful in bringing about some understanding rather than all
>the flaming that is going on now.
yes, we could discuss the 'clam engram' and 'marcabs' and other
such wonderful scientology scriptures.
we could also discuss l. ron hubbard's glorious war record!
not to mention his drug habits!
>I don't mean to imply that you are not qualified, I would just feel
>more comfortable knowing that someone was moderating it who had
>exposure and knowledge of other religious groups. People tend to view
>things from their own social background rather and fear that which does
>not fit that particular mold.
true. what do you expect me to use as a social background?
all of western civilization, and the evidence of my senses,
or a pack of 'scriptures' that are such blatant, flagrant
lies that scientologists hire thugs to suppress them rather
than admit they actually BELIEVE such silly crap.
>Chris Miller
>cmi...@covina.lightside.com
you will notice that this is one of the scientology
front organization nodes. those who claim that scientology
is 'controversial' are full of shit.
everyone knows they're a bunch of idiots. the only pro-scientology
posts are from these wigged-out wacky cultist zombies who repeat
the same lies week in and week out.
h
Michael Shields
In article <3n947h$g...@hecate.umd.edu>,
Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
> IMHO, it would *have* to go in talk as an unmoderated group.
This raises an interesting question. How exactly does soc.religion
differ from talk.religion?
For reference, here's a list.
soc.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. (Moderated)
soc.religion.christian Christianity and related topics. (Moderated)
soc.religion.christian.bible-study Examining the Holy Bible. (Moderated)
soc.religion.christian.youth-work Christians working with young people. (Moderated)
soc.religion.eastern Discussions of Eastern religions. (Moderated)
soc.religion.gnosis Gnosis, marifat, jnana & direct sacred experience. (Moderated)
soc.religion.islam Discussions of the Islamic faith. (Moderated)
soc.religion.quaker The Religious Society of Friends.
soc.religion.shamanism Discussion of the full range of shamanic experience. (Moderated)
soc.religion.unitarian-univ Unitarian-Universalism & non-creedal religions. (Moderated)
talk.religion.buddhism All aspects of Buddhism as religion and philosophy.
talk.religion.newage Esoteric and minority religions & philosophies.
talk.religion.misc Religious, ethical, & moral implications.
Interestingly, there is no soc.religion.misc.
--
Shields.
Michael Shields
Bruce Baugh <bru...@teleport.com> wrote:
> It DOES have a certain charm, doesn't it? Maybe he can get Stephen
> Boursy to co-moderate, just to maximize our reading pleasure.
Wonder when we'll see an RFD for misc.consumers.protection.
--
Shields.
Sergio Gelato
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.scientology
>Proponent: Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu>
>Moderator: mi...@w3eax.umd.edu (Mike Chapman)
>RATIONALE
>
>The moderator is not a member of the Church of Scientology, and
Prove it.
>is impartial to the religious aspects of the potential discussion.
But clearly not to some of the other aspects (see below).
Given that the distinction between religious and non-religious is a matter
of opinion (to some, everything is religion), I don't know what this claim
of impartiality is supposed to mean.
>To allow a Church member to moderate the group would be inappropriate
>and would likely lead to censorship. Church members have been
>reputed to often initiate unfair attacks on people opposed to
>their organization, and to undertake commercial endeavors to support
>the growth of their religion. These actions must not be allowed
>to take place, which they would likely be able to if the group
>were controlled by a Scientologist.
Fine, but you are definitely taking sides here. So much for impartiality.
I personally think that the safest way to prevent any party from taking
control of the proposed newsgroup is to make it unmoderated. The current
proponent implies that he would be a good moderator (or at least a better
moderator than any of a certain category of people), but there are no
guarantees (a) that he is truthful in stating his views, and (b) that
his views won't change over time.
Consequently, I would feel compelled to vote against any proposal for
a moderated newsgroup on this topic. The problem is in the moderation
itself, not in the identity of the moderator.
Since there already is an alt.religion.scientology (must be unmoderated),
I don't see much of a reason to vote in favour of this proposal even if
the moderation is removed.
>Any correspondence sent to me in response to this material is subject to
>editing and redistribution without further notice. Contact me if you
>wish to obtain a specific or perpetual exclusion.
Hmmm. Great way of cutting down on the size of your mailbox.
I must remember never to send you private email. (Perpetual
exclusion hereby requested; contact me if you decide to grant it.)
And speaking of editing, what rules did you have in mind for
the moderator to follow?
Also, does the prohibition against encrypted messages extend to PGP
signatures?
Michael Shields
Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
> What does everyone think of an unmoderated talk.religion.scientology?
Why?
--
Shields.
Sister Clara
shi...@tembel.org (Michael Shields) wrote:
You are still going to run into trouble. Part (and a major part) of the
dispute going on in a.r.s. is over the validity or otherwise of recognising
Scientology as being a religion. Many people who would like to see this
debate represented in a Big 7 (8?) newsgroup would still vote NO because of
the use of the word "religion". Using a word like "cult" to replace the word
"religion" would produce a reaction from the "other side".
A solution, I suspect, would be to replace the word "religion" with "belief"
or "beliefs". "Religion" has legal connotations, "beliefs" does not. I
believe this would be acceptable to Scientologists, though, of course, I do
not presume to speak for them. They must make up their own minds.
It has been suggested that an unmoderated group would be a no no for the soc
hierarchy. I'm not sure how I feel about existence in the talk hierarchy.
But to follow your logic as advanced above, you should be proposing:
talk.beliefs.scientology (unmoderated)
Of course, the CoS might very well object to any newsgroup name that has
"Scientology" in it as they regard the word as a trademark and do not accept
its use in this context. It is for them to come up with a solution to that
one <grin>
Well done, Mike. Your reputation for provoking controversy has not been
harmed at all by your proposals. But you expected that..........
--
Sister Clara
*** Vote NO to the proposal for soc.religion.scientology (moderated) ***
*** Its creation would threaten free speech and fair criticism ***
Tony Sidaway
[stuff that doesn't really belong in news.groups]
>
> >Chris Miller
> >cmi...@covina.lightside.com
>
> you will notice that this is one of the scientology
> front organization nodes. those who claim that scientology
> is 'controversial' are full of shit.
I think this is untrue. lightside.com is the ISP of two scientologists
who post to a.r.s. AFAIK that is the only connection. Even if it is
related to CoS, so what?
--
Tony Sidaway SAY NO TO MODERATED SOC.RELIGION.SCIENTOLOGY.
"Your comm is not even particularly sequitur. Just learn to speak first,
then come manners." scientologist Rem Walker on effective communication.
Modemac
: >Mike, if you plan to moderate a Scientology newsgroup, could you give
: >some specific examples of messages that would not be allowed on the
: >group? Not something vague, like "abuse;" list a few SPECIFIC examples.
: >Use some of the messages currently on a.r.s. to support your argument, if
: >you wish.
: I don't *really* want to moderate the damned thing, but I'm willing
: to take this present proposal to a vote if necessary.
If you insist on being a moderator, give us some examples of how you
would moderate the group. As I said above: SPECIFIC examples.
If you don't want to, then you shouldn't do it. Leave well enough alone.
: What does everyone think of an unmoderated talk.religion.scientology?
I like the idea of an unmoderated talk.* group, but here I fail to see the
point. alt.religion.scientology is already a very widely propogated
Usenet newsgroup, and it's in the Usenet top 40 in terms of message
traffic (and, presumably, readership). What advantage would an
unmoderated talk.religion.scientology group have over
alt.religion.scientology?
--
+---------------------------------------+
| Reverend Modemac (mod...@netcom.com) |
+-------------+ "There is no black and white." +------------+
| First Online Church of "Bob," A Subfaction of the Excremeditated |
| Congregation of the Overinflated Head of L. Ron Hubbard |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
FINGER mod...@netcom.com for a FREE SubGenius Pamphlet!
Modemac
: [stuff that doesn't really belong in news.groups]
: > >Chris Miller
: > >cmi...@covina.lightside.com
: I think this is untrue. lightside.com is the ISP of two scientologists
: who post to a.r.s. AFAIK that is the only connection. Even if it is
: related to CoS, so what?
Discriminating against someone just because they're Scientologists isn't a
good idea; however, I should also mention that Chris Miller is the person
who casually stated that my "dealings in child pornography" would be
exposed, a couple of weeks ago on alt.religion.scientology. Nice guy, no?
Modemac
: This raises an interesting question. How exactly does soc.religion
: differ from talk.religion?
You can compare alt.religion.scientology to alt.religion.wicca,
alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.subgenius, and the other unmoderated
alt.religion.* groups out there.
I reiterate: alt.religion.scientology is fine where it is. There's no
need to create any more Scientolopgy newsgroups.
Michael Shields
Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3namvj$4...@yage.tembel.org>,
> shi...@tembel.org (Michael Shields) wrote:
>
> > In article <3na6ck$r...@hecate.umd.edu>,
> > Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > --
> > Shields.
...and then apparently proceeded to respond to Chapman's article. Why did
you do that?
> Well done, Mike. Your reputation for provoking controversy has not been
> harmed at all by your proposals. But you expected that..........
And we're both named `Mike', making this sentence ambiguous, though
methinks you meant him.
--
Shields.
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Mike Chapman <mi...@w3eax.umd.edu> wrote:
>Martin G. V. Hunt <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>We don't want to be "something close to useful"; we're already *very* useful.
>>Thanks, but no thanks.
>
>Alt.religion.scientology is USEFUL?
Yep. Haven't you been reading all those posts from people who write
things like "I started lurking here after hearing about the attempted
rmgroup for ars; these Scientology people are freaks."
--
If you're still in the closet, I'm suprised. How do you get a net.feed
in there?
Charles Lane
> Russ Allbery <r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>Martin G. V. Hunt <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>>>
>>The honest truth is that I would *not* be worried about the group passing.
>>There's no chance that Scientologists would take a group over from Mike, and
>>they're going to be opposing it (apparently along with everyone else).
>>
>
> Consider:
> 2. As an active moderator, Mike would have potential liability if he
> allows libel or copyright infringement to be posted.
> 4. If he *does* allow strong posts, it would be in character for CoS to
> bury Mike with law suits.
the above is all too true...if you moderate you are in the much the same
legal position as a "publisher". Considering what Mike has posted about
his internet supplier, I'd imagine that 10**4 e-mail complaints to his
sysadmin would probably put a quick end to his moderating career.
> Actually, I'd be in favor of a moderated s.r.s. *if* there could be
> assurances against the above scenario--as an *addition* to the
> unmoderated a.r.s. Unfortunately, the only moderator capable of
> withstanding dedicated legal assault would be an agency of the US
> government.
I don't know about that. How about a moderator operating out of Germany?
Wasn't there a mention that CoS is considered a "criminal organization"
in Germany?...which ought to provide a certain amount of insulation from
legal threats.
--
Chuck Lane "I wish to God these calculations
Drexel Univ. Particle Physics had been accomplished by steam."
la...@duphy4.physics.drexel.edu --C. Babbage
Michael Shields
> Michael Shields (shi...@tembel.org) wrote:
> : This raises an interesting question. How exactly does soc.religion
> : differ from talk.religion?
>
> You can compare alt.religion.scientology to alt.religion.wicca,
> alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.subgenius, and the other unmoderated
> alt.religion.* groups out there.
Yeah, I could, but what does that tell me about the two Big 8 hierarchies
I asked about?
--
Shields.
Michael Shields
> Usenet newsgroup, and it's in the Usenet top 40 in terms of message
> traffic (and, presumably, readership).
March arbitron lists it at #1218. For reference, alt.slack is #390.
--
Shields.
Martin G. V. Hunt
> In article <D7Eyv...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
> Martin G. V. Hunt <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>In a previous posting, Mike Chapman (mi...@w3eax.umd.edu) writes:
>>
>>> Perhaps too large of a job, and too dangerous of one.
>>
>
> Is that a threat?
Heh, heh; *who's* getting paranoid? ;) Actually, no, it's not a threat;
it's more like a promise. The cult has engaged in literally thousands of
frivolous lawsuits over issues like this. You start a moderated group.
You will be sued. Period.
>>> I'm personally willing to give it a try.
>
>>But we're not willing to let you.
>
> We who?
We us. ;)
>>Talk to OSA; they have a filtering system they wanted to use to silence
>>my good friend Dennis Erlich that works much the same. They could probably
>>give you a few tips.
>
> Maybe they could.
Heh, heh.
>>> If it is really possible to do this with an expert system, the
>>> moderation could turn into a group effort, and possibly a new UVV-line
>>> organization - reponsible for keeping hight contraversial groups
>>> outside of talk something close to civil and useful.
>>
>>We don't want to be "something close to useful"; we're already *very* useful.
>>Thanks, but no thanks.
>
> Alt.religion.scientology is USEFUL? I've seen the damn thing, it's a
> nightmare. It's useful to the gobs of self-righteous assholes who
> post there, on both sides.
>
> [a.r.s.-style abused deleted]
Uh, no, actually; you left it in. [see paragragh that contains flame on
ars, and the phrase "gobs of self-righteous assholes" ;) ]
Mike's an idiot. QED.
ttyl,
--
"Guess what, Mr. Milne...you pricks don't scare me. I'm clean as a
whistle, and I fight back. You picked the wrong readhead to fuck with,
buddy." -- Tarla
Cogito, ergo sum. Martin Hunt, av...@freenet.carleton.ca
Martin G. V. Hunt
Best thing you've said all week, but I don't believe you; after all,
you called it "useless" and full of "gobs of self-righteous assholes,"
remember?
My impression is that you would like to see the group removed. My
question is, why?
> I don't *really* want to moderate the damned thing, but I'm willing
> to take this present proposal to a vote if necessary.
Time to call in Jon Noring; we'll need to come out in *force* against this
crap.
> What does everyone think of an unmoderated talk.religion.scientology?
Totally useless duplication comes to mind.
Charles Oriez
postings appears to be innundating the news.groups area. I suspect
that the folks who monitor news.groups but have never been on a.r.s.
(lucky you) have now had the opportunity to develop their own opinions
on this idea. Just think, once the proposal is dropped all the folks
who are on news.groups only because they saw the discussion on a.r.s.
first will go away and stop posting here.
--
**************************************************************
** charles oriez cor...@ix.netcom.com **
** **
** all opinions checked at the door **
** **
** "Clams annoy me", Scott Adams in the preface of his **
** new book: "Bring me the Head of Willy the Mail Boy" **
** Defend Free Speech - Vote NO on moderated **
**************************************************************
David Grabiner
> In article <3n6n21$l...@covina.lightside.com>,
> Chris Miller <cmi...@covina.lightside.com> wrote:
>> I don't mean to imply that you are not qualified, I would just feel
>> more comfortable knowing that someone was moderating it who had
>> exposure and knowledge of other religious groups. People tend to view
>> things from their own social background rather and fear that which does
>> not fit that particular mold.
> Sounds great to me - any volunteers or nominations?
If the group is going to work at all, without cries of censorship from
one side or the other, it will probably need *two* moderators, one from
within the Church of Scientology and one who is a critic of the Church.
This will have to be written in the charter.
That way, the Church cannot silence its critics by censoring postings,
nor can the Church itself be censored out of the group.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Susan Garvin
[all other text deleted]
## I don't *really* want to moderate the damned thing, but I'm willing
## to take this present proposal to a vote if necessary.
#
#Time to call in Jon Noring; we'll need to come out in *force* against this
#crap.
I'd say that it would be best to stop this before Chapman
issues a CFV. (Given that he's apparently willing to
ignore the guidelines and issue a CFV when there is essentially
no support for the proposal, that is.) I would predict
that the group would pass - with a large number of "yes" votes
from aol and other sites that issue preview accounts for the
asking.
Susan
Sister Clara
grab...@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner) wrote:
> If the group is going to work at all, without cries of censorship from
> one side or the other, it will probably need *two* moderators, one from
> within the Church of Scientology and one who is a critic of the Church.
> This will have to be written in the charter.
>
> That way, the Church cannot silence its critics by censoring postings,
> nor can the Church itself be censored out of the group.
Fine - that way we will have NO postings to the proposed group. Do you have
any idea of the state of the conflict in a.r.s?
Great idea!
Ron Newman
can't support one that would be moderated by Mike Chapman, whose
most recent achievement was to give the `Michigan Militia' and its
friends a home on Usenet.
--
Ron Newman Email: <rne...@mit.edu>
Web: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/rnewman/home.html
(I speak only for myself, not for any part of MIT.)
N.A.F. McNelly
In article <D7Eyv...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
Martin G. V. Hunt <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>In a previous posting, Mike Chapman (mi...@w3eax.umd.edu) writes:
>
>> Perhaps too large of a job, and too dangerous of one.
>
>You got that right.
Is that a threat?
>> I'm personally willing to give it a try.
Mike, if you really are willing and have the time and capability to moderate
a newsgroup, why aren't you taking on the job for misc.activism.militia?
You've announced that the group has already lost its moderater and asked
for volunteers. As the original proponet of the group, you're the logical
choice.
Nancy McNelly