On Jan 28, 11:08 am, (Michael Black) wrote:
Cecil Moore ) writes:
John Smith I wrote:
--strange they ALL seem to have extra licenses, isn't it?

Isn't it slightly analogous to universities preferring
teachers with PhD degrees?In this case, no.

I don't see a bias in the proposed moderators in the proposed moderated
newsgroup.

fuuny I guess you have not been reading the posts of some of them to
this NG

One of felt it was On Topic to enage in MAKING statement that a poster
was was insane due to his sexual orientation dispite knowing and
posting about how the APA disagrees

another clearly felt it a shock to suggest that the Techs in general
might be developing a different and valid view of the ARS

But, moderators are generally there to keep the junk out of the newsgroup,
not to edit content. They aren't there to evaluate what is being said,
they are there to determine whether the post is off-topic and/or will
cause problems in the newsgroup.

based the samples I have subitmeted (at their request and been banned
from further exploration of that system for my trouble BTW

it spears they intend SERIOUS editiorail control

I would argue that there is a bias in even making an analogy to higher
learning. Because there is something about the tone of all this proposed
newsgroup that sure seems to place it in academia, and I'm not convinced
that is a good thing.

it is a GOOD if you want to propate the Status quo

that the pronetns seem to think the NEW NG is a Good thing it leads a
thinking man to question if it is not designed conously or not to
acheive that end

Michael VE2BVW