On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:45:53 CST, "Nine Land Ham"
wrote:

The burden of excess baggage removed from the anticipated autocratic
reception:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This post is concerned with the general philosophy of moderation in
general, and would be more appropriate for news.groups. Please
restrict your discussion to issues specifically relating to this
proposal.

Your submission has been rejected because it is off-topic in the
newsgroup news.groups.proposals. This newsgroup is for the
announcement, discussion, and development of active proposals for
changes to the Big 8 hierarchies, as documented at
http://www.big-8.org/. Discussion begins in news.groups.proposals
when the Request for Discussion (RFD) is posted in
news.announce.newgroups and continues until a decision is announced.

Common topics that do not belong in news.groups.proposals include:

- Discussion of world events or "the news" - see talk.current-events
- Proposals for alt.* or other non-Big-8 hierarchies - see alt.config
or the appropriate regional config newsgroup
- "How do I do X with my newsreader?" - see news.software.readers
and/or news.newusers.questions

The charter of news.groups.proposals is at
http://www.big-8.org/~ngp.

Please direct your queries to .

Thank you,

- Moderator.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:45:53 CST, "Nine Land Ham"
wrote:

a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.

The simple solution for most of us will be to simply ignore or even delete
the other groups.

Well said, Dee. And what a simple solution it is.

Two vote for the solution that doesn't satisfy the first's objection.
The desire to be cloaked in passive comfort to the neglect of others
is the dawn of the abuse of autocracy. Who will moderate the
moderators when it requires an active role from the majority?

A simpler solution that requires initiative has been offered already
and it satisfies all comments, observations, and complaints. Failure
to take care of yourself will always allow the problem to flourish.

The simple fact of the matter is that gated communities where
originally called ghettos. The negative connotation was from the best
of intentions eventually being led to abandonment and poverty within
the confine.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:45:53 CST, "Nine Land Ham"
wrote:

The burden of excess baggage removed from the anticipated autocratic
reception:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This post is concerned with the general philosophy of moderation in
general, and would be more appropriate for news.groups. Please
restrict your discussion to issues specifically relating to this
proposal.

Your submission has been rejected because it is off-topic in the
newsgroup news.groups.proposals. This newsgroup is for the
announcement, discussion, and development of active proposals for
changes to the Big 8 hierarchies, as documented at
http://www.big-8.org/. Discussion begins in news.groups.proposals
when the Request for Discussion (RFD) is posted in
news.announce.newgroups and continues until a decision is announced.

Common topics that do not belong in news.groups.proposals include:

- Discussion of world events or "the news" - see talk.current-events
- Proposals for alt.* or other non-Big-8 hierarchies - see alt.config
or the appropriate regional config newsgroup
- "How do I do X with my newsreader?" - see news.software.readers
and/or news.newusers.questions

The charter of news.groups.proposals is at
http://www.big-8.org/~ngp.

Please direct your queries to .

Thank you,

- Moderator.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:45:53 CST, "Nine Land Ham"
wrote:

a clean break. If I have to check *two*
newsgroups as a substitute for previously having had to check one, that's
unfortunately not an improvement.
The simple solution for most of us will be to simply ignore or even delete
the other groups.
Well said, Dee. And what a simple solution it is.
Two vote for the solution that doesn't satisfy the first's objection.
The desire to be cloaked in passive comfort to the neglect of others
is the dawn of the abuse of autocracy. Who will moderate the
moderators when it requires an active role from the majority?

A simpler solution that requires initiative has been offered already
and it satisfies all comments, observations, and complaints. Failure
to take care of yourself will always allow the problem to flourish.

The simple fact of the matter is that gated communities where
originally called ghettos. The negative connotation was from the best
of intentions eventually being led to abandonment and poverty within
the confine.


Ahh, you see what we are dealing with, eh Richard?

I also made a reply that hasn't been rejected (yet) but it does deal
directly with the problem. It gives an opinion on the likely success of
the censored newsgroup, gives an opinion regarding what problems are
real problems, then offers a solution that does not required a censored
newsgroup. I received two notices that it was pending.

Most interesting that your censored post, while not addressing the
issue in excruciating detail, is close enough by any reasonable standard
to the subject, simply offering a little comparison at the end.

I enjoy the little side roads we take in our rraa threads, they are
what makes the group enjoyable. Sometimes a few members appear to have
eaten a little too much red meat, but it all settles down in the end.

At the risk of flattering, I think any newsgroup that wouldn't accept
one of your posts is losing more than you are.

Regardless of the excuses given, your post was just lumped in with the
whackos that have been polluting the newsgroups the past year or so.
Unforgivable.

Perhaps we need a "Too Hot for rec.radio.amateur.moderated" list? ;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

You gentlemen do understand that the moderators of news.groups.proposals
are not the same people proposing the creation of
rec.radio.amateur.moderated and moderating it?

The creation of a moderated group does not threaten the existence of the
current rra* hierarchy either. The current groups will continue on just
as they are.

- Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

Nate Bargmann wrote in news:MO-
:

You gentlemen do understand that the moderators of news.groups.proposals
are not the same people proposing the creation of
rec.radio.amateur.moderated and moderating it?

Quite aware. They are examples of moderators however.


The creation of a moderated group does not threaten the existence of the
current rra* hierarchy either. The current groups will continue on just
as they are.

Not in question. Richard might agree with me that his rejected post was
just a sneak preview.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:11:09 -0600, Mike Coslo wrote:

Not in question. Richard might agree with me that his rejected post was
just a sneak preview.

Of what, exactly? So a new group is planned that will be moderated. Big
deal. The other groups are still wide open for anyone to post. I don't
see the reason for alarm.

- Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:38:15 -0600, Nate Bargmann
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:11:09 -0600, Mike Coslo wrote:

Not in question. Richard might agree with me that his rejected post was
just a sneak preview.

Of what, exactly? So a new group is planned that will be moderated. Big
deal. The other groups are still wide open for anyone to post. I don't
see the reason for alarm.

Hi Nate,

You confuse our amusement of impotent autocracy with alarm? Or are
you speaking of the very little effort required to alarm the school
hall monitors?

I visited the group to observe the response to my first reaction.
Basically their position is that taking responsibility for yourself
with your own killfile management is a task too great for the mass of
humanity. In clearer terms, the moderators have a very low opinion of
those they "protect." The veneer of respectability flaked off the
surface quite quickly.

The sand-bagged "proposal" comes with only one acceptable solution,
the justification for their thread of 120-odd follow-on responses
(white noise chatter) doesn't change that one iota. It was obvious my
solution's rejection was waiting in the wings like a coup de gras.

[Actually it is coup de grâce, pronounced grahs. Most americans
pronounce gras as grah. The difference is coup de grâce is the
killing blow for the grace of a quick death. A coup de gras is a blow
of fat - certainly more accurately rendered there (pun intended). If
I am to merit expulsion for rhetorically tweaking a nose, I may as
well murder them with panache.]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Nate Bargmann" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:11:09 -0600, Mike Coslo wrote:

Not in question. Richard might agree with me that his rejected post was
just a sneak preview.

Of what, exactly? So a new group is planned that will be moderated. Big
deal. The other groups are still wide open for anyone to post. I don't
see the reason for alarm.

- Nate

The reason for their alarm is they know people will go to the Moderated
group to get away from their
crap they are posting, thus they then wont have anyone left to hear their
drivel. The self imposed
importance thus will go away and they will be once again left to what they
really are.

Nate Bargmann wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:11:09 -0600, Mike Coslo wrote:

Not in question. Richard might agree with me that his rejected post was
just a sneak preview.

Of what, exactly? So a new group is planned that will be moderated. Big
deal. The other groups are still wide open for anyone to post. I don't
see the reason for alarm.

Lets take your postings here, Nate.

Richard and myself were making comments on his rejected post, and
finding some humor in the whole process. Moderation has a certain
inherent humor.

You apparently believe that our posts are somehow sour grapes, or simple
bitterness. Perhaps if this were a moderated group, and you were the
moderator, you would censor our posts.

No, Nate, what I find incredibly amusing might be displayed for all by
the simple task of googling up rrap for the last couple years. What
prompted the censored newgsroup (no Newspeak here, my good man!) is that
filth. Which eventually spread over all the rra groups.

Fast forward to the present, and we see an example of comparative
posting. Richards erudite, if sometimes acerbic, but always entertaining
posts are apparently held in the same contempt as the filth spewed by a
group of challenged folk.

And that is humor in the vein of "Look out what you ask for - you just
might get it".

I could care less about the moderated group. I suspect that after an
initial flurry of interest, many users will drift away.

I take care of my own self in the newsgroups, thankyouverymuch. I
wonder about people who have to have a censor take care of them. I find
them funny too.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:38:15 -0600, Nate Bargmann
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:11:09 -0600, Mike Coslo wrote:

Not in question. Richard might agree with me that his rejected post was
just a sneak preview.
Of what, exactly? So a new group is planned that will be moderated. Big
deal. The other groups are still wide open for anyone to post. I don't
see the reason for alarm.

Hi Nate,

You confuse our amusement of impotent autocracy with alarm? Or are
you speaking of the very little effort required to alarm the school
hall monitors?

I visited the group to observe the response to my first reaction.
Basically their position is that taking responsibility for yourself
with your own killfile management is a task too great for the mass of
humanity. In clearer terms, the moderators have a very low opinion of
those they "protect." The veneer of respectability flaked off the
surface quite quickly.

It's apparently hard to download a copy of a free newsreader and install
it, RTFM, and set up the newsgroups to be as sanitary as I like. 4
keystrokes, and I never have to see a person's posts again.

The sand-bagged "proposal" comes with only one acceptable solution,
the justification for their thread of 120-odd follow-on responses
(white noise chatter) doesn't change that one iota. It was obvious my
solution's rejection was waiting in the wings like a coup de gras.

I wonder if anyone ever considered that maybe the censored group was
just an extension of the infighting? The ultimate gigging, the neener,
neener, neener to the whackies?


[Actually it is coup de grâce, pronounced grahs. Most americans
pronounce gras as grah. The difference is coup de grâce is the
killing blow for the grace of a quick death. A coup de gras is a blow
of fat - certainly more accurately rendered there (pun intended).

Don't pour water on that bacon fire, kids!


If
I am to merit expulsion for rhetorically tweaking a nose, I may as
well murder them with panache.]

Always good with maple syrup.... psst, Richard, you spelled pancakes
wrong ....

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:47:20 GMT, "R. Scott"
wrote:

The reason for their alarm is they know people will go to the Moderated
group to get away from their
crap they are posting, thus they then wont have anyone left to hear their
drivel. The self imposed
importance thus will go away and they will be once again left to what they
really are.

Two amazing things about this:
1. It's taken 25 years to figure it out;
2. It hasn't happened yet;
3. They have to ask permission to see if it sounds like a good idea?

This is second in competency only to the Department of Homeland
Security: "All Katrina victims, assemble for your safety at the Sport
Coliseum. Busses, food, and water will arrive someday. Excuse the
bathrooms that are out of order and use the hallway."

Actually I encourage the development of a moderated group, they
deserve it. I can imagine some of our erstwhile visitors moving there
to author 1000 one entry threads. It'll be like a virtual hair trap
in the tub.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC