JMS and moderation
Mark Sulkowski
people want the moderated conference.
I can speak only for myself, but I want JMS to return to
USENET, hopefully in a low-flame environment. It's that simple.
I was in the original Babylon 5 USENET newsgroup *before* JMS
joined it. I joined sometime after the pilot aired, I believe. You
could say that I'm an "old-timer". Sometime after JMS joined, we all
moved to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, and then the golden age ended and
trouble began.
I watched the flaming that occurred there quite closely. I am
no sycophant. While I respect JMS and his work, I am quite willing and
able to be objective about evaluating his behavior. What I saw lead
me to the inevitable conclusion that JMS was the victim of disturbed,
dysfunctional net.stalkers. Yes, they do exist, and they are a pain
in the ass.
Some people have pointed out that flaming occurs in other
service providers. Perhaps, but on CompuServe, which I recently
left, there was absolutely NOTHING that I saw to compare to the
kind of abuse that JMS suffered on USENET.
I have already voted YES for the moderated newsgroup. I hope
it will bring moderation to USENET.
Mark S.
FordaT
>Someone recently speculated on what the "real" reason is that
>people want the moderated conference.
The reason is called "Control".
>I can speak only for myself, but I want JMS to return to
>USENET, hopefully in a low-flame environment. It's that simple.
Then all you have to do is submit to his will and give up the right of
free speech in that newsgroup and say nothing that offends him.
>I was in the original Babylon 5 USENET newsgroup *before* JMS
>joined it. I joined sometime after the pilot aired, I believe. You
>could say that I'm an "old-timer". Sometime after JMS joined, we all
>moved to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, and then the golden age ended and
>trouble began.
Other opinions started to be voiced in other words...
>I watched the flaming that occurred there quite closely. I am
>no sycophant.
Could have fooled me..
> While I respect JMS and his work, I am quite willing and
>able to be objective about evaluating his behavior. What I saw lead
>me to the inevitable conclusion that JMS was the victim of disturbed,
>dysfunctional net.stalkers. Yes, they do exist, and they are a pain
>in the ass.
For the record the "Net Stalkers" is a code name (And a fantasy) by JMS
and his "Worshippers" for those who disagree with him and call his
statements into questions when the facts don't support them.
>Some people have pointed out that flaming occurs in other
>service providers. Perhaps, but on CompuServe, which I recently
>left, there was absolutely NOTHING that I saw to compare to the
>kind of abuse that JMS suffered on USENET.
You seem to forget the kind of abuse he can dish out as well.
> I have already voted YES for the moderated newsgroup. I hope
>it will bring moderation to USENET.
>Mark S.
I assume that your willing to give up the rigth to speak your mind in
order to have contact with a TV producer. that's sad.
Ford A. Thaxton (For...@aol.com)
Morden
>I assume that your willing to give up the rigth to speak your mind in
>order to have contact with a TV producer. that's sad.
What's sad is that you are still here.
--
.sig96____
soon!/ / / --- Jason Murray -------- http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~jasmur -
____/ / / "Go and |"If I live through this job without going completely
\ \/ / / poke the | insane, it will be a miracle of *biblical* proportions."
\/_/_/ plant." |'Well, there goes *my* faith in the almighty...'
<*> <*> - Zack |-- Ivanova / Corwin, A Day in the Strife ---- G66Z9 ----
FordaT
FordaT said:
>I assume that your willing to give up the rigth to speak your mind in
>order to have contact with a TV producer. that's sad.
:What's sad is that you are still here.
What saddens me even more is that you missed my point and are willing to
worship a TV producer and give up free speech.
Ford A. Thaxton (For...@aol.com)
Christian Wagner
You are, of course, completely wrong.
While rastb5.mod will (ovbiously) be moderated, and have restrictions on
what sort of things can be posted, this old, battle-worn, flame-scarred
rastb5 will -still- be here, still unmoderated as ever.
If one of us discovers that Jay, or any of the other moderators are being
unfair in their moderation, there is nothing that they can do to keep us
from posting to the original rastb5, or to the rest of Usenet, for that
matter, to let our opinions be known and/or complain.
A rastb5.mod group will not get rid of free speech any more than any
other moderated newsgroup, becuase there are always alternate outlets.
In any case, I fail to see what the problem is. Criticism of the -show-
B5 will always be allowed (as long as it's not random flaming and/or
trolls). For example, rastb5's "Queen of the Dammed" is often quite
critical of elements of B5, but those criticisms are backed by opinions
that she is willing to discuss rationally. She's not critical of JMS
himself, just of the show. Her posts certainly wouldn't be refused by a
moderator, because they're not flames or trolls, no matter how much they
might "sting" JMS.
Criticism of the character of JMS, on the other hand, is flaming.
Criticism of the character of Theron, on the other hand, is flaming.
Criticism of the character of Jay, on the other hand, is flaming.
It's these kinds of personality conflicts that make rastb5 less than
interesting to read, sometimes, and it's these kinds of pesonality
conflicts which won't be allowed on rastb5. Because they're irrelevant to
the show itself.
Whether or not JMS/Theron/Jay/Ford is a liar is NOT RELEVANT to those of
us who want to talk about the TV show. As long as Jay keeps -all- flaming
off of rastb5.mod, I don't care about any pissing contest he may be
involved in with you and Theron. If he (or any other moderator) doesn't
do his -job-, then we can either tell him to shape up or boot him out.
Until then, Ford, you're just whining.
--
And in the dawn, there came a song, | Christian Wagner
Of some sweet lady, singing in his ear, |
Your God has gone, and from now on, |
You'll have to learn to hate the things you fear. | cwa...@io.com
Eric Brad
>What saddens me even more is that you missed my point and are willing to
>worship a TV producer and give up free speech.
You seem to believe that the right of free speech guarantees you the
right to say what you want where ever you want. Not so, oh narrow
minded one. There are words you cannot say on TV, there are phrases
that will get you kicked out of church, and even speech that will get
you thrown out of a court of law.
A moderated newsgroup provides an *alternative* to existing forums.
No one is denying you the right to a public forum. You have that
here. You simply will not be able to shout "Fire!" in one particular
crowded theater. Get over it.
E.
Travers Naran
>FordaT said:
>>I assume that your willing to give up the rigth to speak your mind in
>>order to have contact with a TV producer. that's sad.
>What's sad is that you are still here.
What is sadder is that Ford in AOL where they do give up freedom of speech to
have an account...
Sheesh, some people don't realise rastb5 will still exist and all your anger
and vitriol can still be spewed out here for everyone to see and for you to
make a COMPLETE and total ass of yourself.
Of course I won't be reading rastb5 if the moderated group comes through, but
then again, I don't read r.a.st.current because there is a r.a.st.info...
--
Travers Naran -- na...@sfu.ca, na...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca
Computing Science Student, SF/Fantasy fan, Amiga-holic and Anglican
GCS d-()>+ s++:++ a-- C++(++++)>$ UBHIC+(++)>++++$ P+>+++ L E-(---) !W+(++) N+ o++ K w(---) O M+ V- PS+ PE Y+ !PGP t(+) 5+++>++++ X+ R tv+ b++>$
DI D++ G e>++ h !r !y
P.C. Kilinskas
word about Babylon 5 in the last year? Or does he just enjoy being a
laughingstock?
In article <4ico4p$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, FordaT <for...@aol.com> wrote:
:Mark Sulkowski <ma...@apollo3.com>
:
:>Someone recently speculated on what the "real" reason is that
:>people want the moderated conference.
:
:The reason is called "Control".
Very good. Though anyone familiar with the definition of "moderate" already
knew this.
: >I can speak only for myself, but I want JMS to return to
:>USENET, hopefully in a low-flame environment. It's that simple.
:
:Then all you have to do is submit to his will and give up the right of
:free speech in that newsgroup and say nothing that offends him.
Aww... you won't be able to post such gems like "JMS IS FULL OF SHIT" in
the moderated newsgroup. Your ignorance of the meaning of free speech
is apalling. Guess what? You give up your right to "free speech" in
every moderated newsgroup. Are you against all of them as well?
: >I was in the original Babylon 5 USENET newsgroup *before* JMS
:>joined it. I joined sometime after the pilot aired, I believe. You
:>could say that I'm an "old-timer". Sometime after JMS joined, we all
:>moved to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, and then the golden age ended and
:>trouble began.
:
:Other opinions started to be voiced in other words...
Other opinions? Certainly not from you; you haven't made a B5 related
post in quite a while.
: >I watched the flaming that occurred there quite closely. I am
:>no sycophant.
:
:Could have fooled me..
:
:
:> While I respect JMS and his work, I am quite willing and
:>able to be objective about evaluating his behavior. What I saw lead
:>me to the inevitable conclusion that JMS was the victim of disturbed,
:>dysfunctional net.stalkers. Yes, they do exist, and they are a pain
:>in the ass.
:
:
:For the record the "Net Stalkers" is a code name (And a fantasy) by JMS
:and his "Worshippers" for those who disagree with him and call his
:statements into questions when the facts don't support them.
Wait a minute... you say first that it's a fantasy, then you go on to say
what it is. You can't have it both ways.
: >Some people have pointed out that flaming occurs in other
:>service providers. Perhaps, but on CompuServe, which I recently
:>left, there was absolutely NOTHING that I saw to compare to the
:>kind of abuse that JMS suffered on USENET.
:
:You seem to forget the kind of abuse he can dish out as well.
Then a moderated newsgroup would benefit you as well, since you'd be safe
from his abuse.
:> I have already voted YES for the moderated newsgroup. I hope
:>it will bring moderation to USENET.
:
:>Mark S.
:
:I assume that your willing to give up the rigth to speak your mind in
:order to have contact with a TV producer. that's sad.
Any time you repeatedly insult someone you are risking giving up contact
with that person. Is this so new to you? As humans we deal with it every
day. Think before you post such self-defensive drivel; your words sound
like childish rantings any rational adult would be ashamed of.
Phil
--
p...@cs.buffalo.edu
E.M.P. Pringle
>s950...@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Morden)
>
>FordaT said:
>>order to have contact with a TV producer. that's sad.
>
>
>What saddens me even more is that you missed my point and are willing to
>worship a TV producer and give up free speech.
I have to agree with Ford on this one. I find this very disturbing indeed..
that is why I voted against the newsgroup. I find the idea of a forum where
certain of ones views are censored a very,very worrting one indeed. Sort of
reminds me of the Nightwatch.. not long after everyone else started calling
the newsfeed filterers the Rangers, I started calling them the Nightwatch.
I see why this solution has been adopted, because of some very regrettable and
childish comments by some people resident here; if only they hadn't gone out of
their way to be obnoxious, this whole situation wouldn't have started. However,
now the new group regrettably exists (probably to the detriment of this one) I
will probably use it occasionally. I hope that you will do the same.. if only
to annoy the Nighw^H^Hmoderators by only offering impeccably correct articles
that they will have to let through :-)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Miss Elizabeth Pringle |
Univ. Museum of Zoology | I knew a phoenix in my youth so let
Cambridge University, England | them have their day.
John J. Park
>In article <4iopv6$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, FordaT <for...@aol.com> wrote:
>>s950...@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Morden)
>>
>>FordaT said:
>>>I assume that your willing to give up the rigth to speak your mind in
>>>order to have contact with a TV producer. that's sad.
>>
>>:What's sad is that you are still here.
>>
>>What saddens me even more is that you missed my point and are willing to
>>worship a TV producer and give up free speech.
>I have to agree with Ford on this one. I find this very disturbing indeed..
>that is why I voted against the newsgroup. I find the idea of a forum where
>certain of ones views are censored a very,very worrting one indeed. Sort of
>reminds me of the Nightwatch.. not long after everyone else started calling
>the newsfeed filterers the Rangers, I started calling them the Nightwatch.
My only question is, is rastb5 going to be destroyed? If not, then I can
not see why there can be any objection to a moderated group. As long as
there *is* an open forum for discussion, then no one is giving up anything.
John J Park
--
Mankind has become so much one family that we cannot insure our own prosperity
except by insuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself,
you must also resign yourself to seeing others also happy.
-Bertrand Russell
Jay Denebeim
E.M.P. Pringle <em...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> I find the idea of a forum where certain of ones views are censored
> a very,very worrting one indeed. Sort of reminds me of the
> Nightwatch.. not long after everyone else started calling the
> newsfeed filterers the Rangers, I started calling them the
> Nightwatch.
Okay, so, basically, what you're saying here is that if people of a
Nightwatch bent were to go off and start a colony of their own where
they could live the way that wanted to, you'd be against this. And
you say it's the pro-moderation camp that is trampling people's
rights? What is wrong with this picture?
> I see why this solution has been adopted, because of some very
> regrettable and childish comments by some people resident here; if
> only they hadn't gone out of their way to be obnoxious, this whole
> situation wouldn't have started.
For two years, don't forget, it's not like this is an aboration, this
is NOP for these people.
Jay
--
Jay Denebeim dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us
duke.edu!wolves!deepthot!denebeim
Fuck censorship! Oh *shit* there goes another 100, er $200,000
Thomas J. Lee
>My only question is, is rastb5 going to be destroyed? If not, then I can
>not see why there can be any objection to a moderated group. As long as
>there *is* an open forum for discussion, then no one is giving up anything.
I haven't seen or heard anything suggesting that this group be
deleted. I agree with you; it should not be deleted, and as long as it still
exists it cannot be said that anyone's freedom of speech is being infringed
upon. Just their freedom to post flames, personal attacks, story ideas, and
off-topic material. And if you don't like the way it's decided whether posts
fit into those categories, you can talk about it all you want here.
Take care,
Tom Lee