Most of my filters for rec.woodworking haven't been used for 60 - 90
days. The OT threads are usually clearly labelled as such if I wanted
to filter them out.
So we have a proposal that no one has spoken in favor of, proposed by
two people who have little record on usenet (one who hasn't posted on
rec.woodworking since mid-2002 and one who according to Google has
*never* posted on usenet) and no experience moderating a newsgroup.
I doubt it will even get to a 2nd RFD.
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:26:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
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 Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
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?
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
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.
On 11 Sep 2004 01:02:30 -0700, email@example.com (VK) wrote:
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
firstname.lastname@example.org (VK) wrote in message
So, before the new group has even been put to a vote, the proposed
(a) demonstrated an inability to understand the content of a
message in plain english--whereas the original poster was merely
comparing two RFDs, the proposed moderator immediately takes personal
(b) demonstrated an inability to respond impartially--rather than
addressing the comment, he insults the original poster and resolves to
(c) brought off-topic, irrelevant personal details into the
discussion--the fact that he is a "God-fearing Christian" is of no
interest, except to demonstrate potential biases the proposed
moderator will bring with him. Tell me, will posts from Jewish
woodworkers be permitted? What if a black muslim wishes to
participate? Or a (gasp) ATHEIST?
Normally, none of those questions would cross my mind, but from
personal experience, someone who responds to trivial matters by
trumpeting their status as a God-Fearing Christian, what I hear quite
often is someone trumpeting narrow-minded, intolerant bigotry and
And, gasp, you've just slipped into politics, describing our current Prez. Or,
rather, quoting his description of himself.
"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and
hurry off as if nothing happened." Sir Winston Churchill
Well, from my standpoint, I think he (Vito)is a CONTROL FREAK! I think
he wants to exert absolute control over those that don't share his
point-of-view. I will stick with the regular Wreck - I have been on (and
off) it for years. I have made some good online wrecker acquaintances
that I wouldn't change for anything - even though we very often disagree
with each other's position. At least on the Old Wreck, one can express
his opinion - a lot like visiting each other's woodshop. While
woodworking is sure the topic of choice, having a Net Nanny that would
kick one of us out for using an F-word, S-word or other innocuous
explanation is an unacceptable choice.
He can go off and form his own group. And then...uh....stay there. And
leave the unadulterated Wreck for men and women with stronger
my .02 worth
On 12 Sep 2004 01:52:40 -0700, email@example.com (VK) wrote:
I don't believe you.
Now you've already admitted to having a secret and undisclosed plot
for at least one extra moderator, selected solely by you and
undisclosed in the RFD, so already I don't regard you as a
particularly open or trustworthy person.
If anyone really _is_ in favour of this proposal, would they please
care to speak up openly ?
On 12 Sep 2004 02:07:06 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org (VK) wrote:
Unless you live in a real server bunker, I don't see your "seven
connections" as especially reliable. Where do they run? To the same
telegraph pole ? Down the same garden path? It's still exposed to
these same single point failures.
Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.
What sort of UPS capacity do you have on the house ? And if you did
lose power / gain a plumbing flood, would you still be interested in
mod duties ?
Co-resident moderators just aren't distinguishable moderators from a
reliability viewpoint, even if they are from the volume aspect.
I don't see why they would need more than two computers (one primary, and
one for backup) to perform moderation duties, given that their software
runs in an IE window. Technically, one computer and the WebTV would
probably be enough.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.