That's true, but why does he use this group as his 'founding'
You'd think that if things here bothered him as much as his proposal says, he'd
have popped up somewhere complaining about them. The only reference I could
find was his application for a new group.
Sort of like the '60s, "What If They Gave A War And Nobody Came?"
"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and
hurry off as if nothing happened." Sir Winston Churchill
Do you guys remember a troll threatening to do exactly this, not so long
ago? It's not worth a response really, if it had been someone who was
serious about it, they'd be answering some of the comments..
"LRod" < email@example.com> wrote in message
The proponent has been actively participating in the news.groups discussion
about the proposal..at least recently. He seems to be pretty serious. After
all, he did created a website for the proposed newsgroup. He posted it this
But still has not responded to questions about the qualifications of
the two proposed moderators, and has declined to identify an anonymous
That's the weakest part of the proposal right now, IMO. If noboody has
confidence in the moderators, why would they vote for the proposal?
While I'm not inherently opposed to a moderated group being established
(though I think it will rapidly fall flat on its face) if there are no
qualified moderators added to the RFD then I will vote "No" should it
actually come to a vote.
I think that is a pop-up by the free hosting provider. There is nothing in
the HTML source to indicate that Vito or Susan are responsible for the pop-
up. They would be better off looking for a web host with no forced
Dave, please don't misread my position. Speaking as both a part-time
wrecker and a news.groups regular, I'm trying to stay as objective as
possible until I see a final proposal. Since I would never read a moderated
group, I am certain that there will not be a "yes" vote with my name on it
for the soft wreck. Depending on how the proponent handles the second RFD
(if he does the right thing) will be tie-breaker as to whether I vote
"abstain" or "no".
There could be one benefit of passing this group..the prudes and nannies
would have another woodworking group to use. Remember BAD's attempted (but
unsuccessful) little smear campaign against Charlie for using a "bad word"?
That was pathetic. It might be better to isolate sensitive little girls
like that from the men. Who knows! Like someone around here says..It will
all be over someday!
I don't think I'm misreading you, and I recognize and appreciate your
efforts to stay objective. I'm looking forward to a second RFD also.
I started out adamantly opposed to the creation of a moderated
woodwrecking group, but after all the discussion over the past 5 days,
have softened somewhat.
Like you, I can't see voting "yes". If the proponents of the new group
address the concerns I have regarding moderation, however, I'm thinking
they can avoid a "no" vote with my name on it. I'm still undecided as
to whether I'd vote "abstain" or not, although it remains a strong
Also like you, I can see a side benefit to the creation of the
moderated group in that a reply of "If you don't like it here, go to
rec.woodworking.moderated" would be an effective way to get rid of the
The only problem with the proposal at this point, objectively, is the
reliability of the moderators. I don't believe they will be able to
effectively address that (my opinion only) and as a result believe the
proposal will fail.
But if it fails, it should fail on merit and nothing else.
No matter what happens, rec.woodworking will not be affected by this
just an observation from there site, they give no qualifications or
experience in woodworking, no pictures of projects they've made, or how
long they have been doing it etc. also nether of them really strike me as
wood workers, I could be wrong but the pics are of two people sitting in
front of computers, one in a wheelchair, don't get me wrong people with
disabilities are capable woodworkers, the greatest bird house I have ever
seen was made by a man in his 70's the was completely blind, so far nothing
about them makes me believe there woodworkers, but if they want to be net
nanny's and have the own little group good for them! it's what America is
Woodchuck Bill wrote:
From what I've seen, a complaint posted here is more of a RFA
(Request For Abuse). I have more respect for the OP for making a
positive step toward a group narrowly focused on woodworking than if
he just whined about the crap that ends up here. I cannot remember any
complaints that generated improvements in the quality of discussion.
I can deal with the problems of the current group but it does get
tiresome. I usually kill the threads that have degenerated into flame
wars. I also kill any thread that lasts more than 10-12 posts since it
will be hopelessly OT by that point. There are a few web sites that
have moderated woodworking discussions, but I find them to be slow and
awkward to navigate compared to using a good news reader like Agent.
I'd like to give a moderated woodworking group a try. Nobody is
suggesting that his group be abolished, only that another option be
firstname.lastname@example.org (Charlie Self) wrote:
Then you should make sure you read the RFP on news.groups and decide
whether this specific proposal fits your ideas of what that group
I still have several problems with the proposal that have not been
addressed byt the proponent/proposed moderator. Until those are
answered satisfactorily on *news.groups* I don't see the proposal even
going to a vote, never mind passing.
If it does go to a vote without answers, I will vote no. If the answers
are given, I may or may not vote.
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.