Somewhere there's a Usenet rule that any message mentioning the spelling of another poster, must contain at least one spelling error. I figure since it's got to be there anyway, I'd put it where I knew where it was.
Dave Hinz
Love it!
It's strange, 'though....I never knew before that I'm Jewish.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
LOL! Good luck talking to yourselves. Usenet has enough power tripping netkops without another group run by them. Go to yahoo and stop wasting our time.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This group is sort of like a bunch of people with a common interest sitting around the stove in the feed store. It's not a technical meeting called to address the problem of an unexpected failure in the static test article.
Sure, the conversation may be weighted toward the common interest, but it will deviate in all kinds of directions as a normal part of the ebb and flow of a conversation among friends and the individual thought processes. (That's assuming, of course, that there are "thought" processes. Some of the stuff I've seen makes me less than certain about that.)
That's completely normal, natural, and, IMO, to be desired. There is no need for, nor should there be, an overseer to crack the whip and keep the conversation limited to the "common interest". If that were the case, I think you'd find a lot of empty chairs around the stove. I find myself dropping by the feed store quite frequently. Not necessarily because I need to buy some feed, but just to see what the guys are up to now.
If there happens to be a group of guys over in the corner arguing about politics, religion, what's the best computer OS, or showing off the latest French postcards, it's easy enough to ignore them. And, if there is nobody talking about anything that interests me, I can run on over the bank, take care of business, and drop by again later.
If you want to wall off a separate room and put a guard on the door, go ahead, but I suspect that it's going to be awfully dry, cold, and very boring inside.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Ultimately, that is what this proposal would determine if it is followed through. If there are enough people that vote for it's creation, then that would indicate that enough people think the existing group is not usable and that the proposed group should be created. Basically, that's what matters most, barring moderation issues. So in some sense, whether the existing group is considered usable or not by a majority is irrelevant.
It doesn't hurt to have an idea of what the consensus is beforehand, but generally that's to gauge what to write in the proposal rather than if the proposal should go forward. In the face of great opposition, yes, a proponent may consider withdrawing. But I don't consider lack of interest or lack of need to be adequate reasons to oppose a proposal... lack of YES votes should take care of that. When I say opposition, I mean views along the lines of the proposed group adversely affecting the readership of the proposed group because of the way the proposal is composed, or will adversely affect existing groups. Generally, if there is a segment of usenet readers that want a group to read about a topic with more focus or specialization, then opposers should seriously consider if they are trying to prevent others from creating a group of their own, and why. The converse is also true, though; supporters should also seriously consider if they are trying to help others get their group or help themselves get their group (the former isn't really appropriate, while the latter is), and why.
Having said all that, I'm waiting to hear from the proponents about the moderation issues, because I think that will be their stumbling block.
ru
snipped-for-privacy@usask.ca wrote in news:chqcs7$7nt$ snipped-for-privacy@tribune.usask.ca:
I only see one proponent for this proposal. Was there an error? Perhaps the second moderator should be added to the lists of proponents too? It looks unusual that there is only one proponent..but two moderators.
I subscribed to rec.woodworking briefly before I retired, looking for a post-retirement hobby, and I found the group to be an extremely pleasant place, with a charming personality. Very little acrimony, too. And helpful to the ignorant (moi). Unless it has changed dramatically, I'd think that this request is doomed to failure.
Mary
... snip
Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time. Since it is
*rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we are all doing for fun.Guy Macon wrote in :
OTOH, most of the woodworkers are unlikely to be interested in the exact workings of newsgroup creation. In this case, it is likely to confuse matters by adding a irrelevant point (ie that the proponant's character is unimportant), when the proponant's character does matter because he is a proposed moderator.
Don't forget, Guy, that people who hang round news.groups are much more interested in the process of creating groups then the people who don't. Those other people aren't going to be tested on their knowledge of the exact format of newsgroup creation.
PS I'm posting from news.groups.
Not a chance. The same reasons would apply.
A good point , but the wrong emphasis. Try rec.*woodworking*. Also "all doing for fun" [which is just fine] should include "fun for all". The objection, mine at least, to OT threads is not so much that they are there, but that they are at a point of taking over completely. That beer-soaked group in the corner gets louder and louder until nobody can hear themselves speak; a subtle, but important difference. Trying to find useful information about actual woodworking becomes a chore, not a pleasant evening's occupation. Nobody complains when sent to a site that holds useful information, and nothing but useful information. They point other people there as well, as a good place to visit. The reason people complain is because there is something to complain about. This becomes not such a good place to visit, so a whole lot of potentially good contributors, who simply don't want to wade through the crap, are lost in the shuffle.
Bill.
I have to agree here. Not only is there a fairly good history of "on topic" postings, but, very few flame wars (and I have been a part of BOTH). It is generally a good resource for WW discussion and information. As for moderation...I think the REAL problem is that moderating a news group is a big job under the best circumstances and, for a high volume group such as this could well be a FULL TIME job. Anybody want to take that on? Regards Dave Mundt
... snip
This issue has been discussed numerous times and I know that neither of us is going to convince the other, however, since I like the analogy, there are a few points worth commenting on: It is very easy to shut the door on that boistrous group in the corner (wouldn't necessarily equate them to a beer-soaked group so much as an intensely serious groups of partisans trading barbs, but that's a different analogy). A threaded newsreader (I believe outlook and know that Agent and Gravity are threaded) doesn't really make closing the door that hard, and frankly doesn't make that group in that room all that boistrous. A simple glance at a topic line such as "Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense" does not require a large amount of grey matter rubbing against itself to recognize as off-topic, a single keystroke ("x" in Agent) closes that door and 100 milliseconds later the topic of "Question about a Disston Saw" is seen being discussed in an adjacent area.
As I said, a threaded newsreader takes 1/10 of a second to mark an entire OT thread as read with no more than a glance at the thread's subject line. A brief look at the subject lines in my newsreader this evening reveals On-topic threads: 37 Off-topic threads: 4 This hardly seems a difficult chore. More of a chore is separating through the on-topic posts to detemine which are of interest. Again, same criteria applies, not interested in "cordless drill/driver"? A simple "x" and it doesn't matter if 1 or 100 postings have occured to that thread, I only see one line and move on to the next topic.
I agree that the OTs can be tiresome at times (they are frequently entertaining too!). On the other hand, moderated groups tend to be stale and die an early death. I kinda like the picture of a bunch of old codgers (and Mary Schafer, Juanita too) sitting around the stove at the old hardware store. Things aren't always on topic or interesting for everyone, but if you listen, you will get something out of it.
Grant
Bill Rogers wrote:
FWIW, there's a rash of "RFD yada.yada moderated" this week. I've seen nearly identcial threads with similar headers in a bunch of different newsgroups.
That remains the problem with this proposal.We have little or no information regarding the experience of the proposed moderators, and no information about the procedures and tools they propose to use in that moderation.
Until that information is forthcoming, the proposal is worthless, IMO.
And if the information isn't forthcoming reasonably soon, I will conclude that this proposal's goal was simply to waste people's tiime and voice a gripe on the part of the proponent rather than a serious attempt to form a new group.
djb
Just out of curiosity, are the moderators the same?
/end hint of agenda
I only glanced after the first two, but they seemed more than a little similar.
snipped-for-privacy@usask.ca wrote in news:chqcs7$7nt$ snipped-for-privacy@tribune.usask.ca:
Well, the wording of your original statement (topic space... can be made usable) implies the replacement of the current group with the moderated group (yes, I recognize that the way things work right now, a true replacement isn't possible). It may not be obvious to everyone reading this thread that both a mod and a non-mod group can exist in parallel.
With both groups potentially existing, two questions arise: firstly, would the new .mod group attract enough readership to be viable (and, as you say, the vote will reveal that; I suspect the answer will be no, but we shall see); and secondly if the proposed moderators understand and are capable of doing what they propose (which I do not beleive to be the case, and on which grounds I'll vote no if the proposal reaches a CFV).
John
I'm thinking that this "may" have been one of the best trolls yet. Put it together, an unknown drops in, incites a riot and disappears. Excellent job, I'd say. Took us all in Dave in Fairfax
Exactly.
Some specific questions:
- Who are you ? You're near invisible from previous postings. Why should we give moderator status to you of all people, let alone someone else who we have never heard of at all ? Why has there been no attempt made to even talk to some of the high volume posters and see if they would be interested in sharing the moderation task ?
- A hotmail address isn't a convincing technical argument for being capable of moderating this high volume ng single-handed.
- How _are_ you going to deal with single-handed moderation of a very large group ?
- How do postings arrive in rec.woodworking.moderated ? Will they be posted to it, or are you planning to make it a digest of the existing rec.woodworking traffic ? I can tell you know that you do _not_ have my agreement to repost any of my postings into this new ng.
- How are you going to exclude the puppy whizzer etc. from a moderated group ? There is a problem with these fools (best dealt with by killfiling), but do you think forged moderation is really beyond the wit of trolls ?
I accept that it's your right as a usenet user to post any deluded RFD you might wish to. However there seems to be a total absence of any support for it, and I look forward to the CFV (if any) being thoroughly defeated.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.