A minimally moderated versionof this newsgroup

[John Fortier]

"Michael Black" <et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bmjgl8$koe$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...

John Fields (jfields@austininstruments.com) writes:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:49:56 GMT, "John Fortier"
jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:


Obviously, no-one will have to use the new group if they choose not to,
and
anyone who wants to indulge himself in a pissing match or to start
threads
which have nothing to do with the purported purpose of the group will
still
be free to do so. Joust not in the moderated group, should it come into
being.

Massive snip

If the messiness of community is gone, then it likely

would be too sterile for me.

Michael

Michael, I agree with all the points you made in your post. Personally, I
intend to spend as little time as possible on moderation, and if the
moderated newsgroup is messy, then so be it.

Beginners do tend to ask questions of the group the answers to which they
could easily find elsewhere. And the habit of some of them of not
acknowledging replies is downright rude. On the other hand, when was the
last time you heard a student say "thank you" to a lecturer.

As I have said before, it will take considerable talent to get banned, and
then only for behaviour which is blatantly abusive. So the new group will
be just as free and easy as the present group with regard to the posting of
questions and answers, ramblings off topic and general exchange of views. I
don't know about the other posters here, but I really enjoy some of the off
topic threads, since they tend to be full of information, even if it has
little or no relevance to electronics.

sci.electronics.basics.lightly.moderated (Possible name!) won't be the haunt
of a control freak, just a place where you can exchange information and
views without too much fear of having your ancestry, your sexual preferences
or the shape of your head called into question.

John

 

[John Fortier]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message news:3ooqovg5516a7f2ccc7ok6qh119oahakmo@4ax.com...

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:57:25 GMT, "John Fortier"
jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:


The lack of critical mass is generally caused by an excess of criticism.
A
minimally moderated group will not suffer from a control freak at the
helm,
which is what puts most people off moderated groups.


Power corrupts.

John

The actual quote was: "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts
absolutely."

What power?

 

[Michael Black]

"John Fortier" (jfortier@rochester.rr.com) writes:

As to whether the thread is of topic, this is a moot point. Granted it is
not directly involved with technical questions of electronics or
telecommunications, but, since the purpose of sci.electronics.basics is to
help newcomers with basic electronics problems, anything which makes it
easier to impart such knowledge can be considered on topic Also, it would
be pretty useless to post such a topic elsewhere

Actually, this is fallacy. sci.electronics.basics is for the discussion

of basic electronics. Admittedly, basics often are the realm of the beginner,
but it does not mean this newsgroup is "for the beginner". After all, one
can have progressed up the ladder and still need some help with the basics.

And, what you keep forgetting is that nobody is compelled to "help the
beginner". One could long talk about netiquette, but it is merely
a list of commonsense observed from watching newsgroups. If the beginner
doesn't ask properly, they aren't likely to get an answer, or won't
get a very helpful answer. Someone who asks the right way, because
they've included a joke, or said something that indicates they are
trying, or for a whole bunch of other reasons, is far more likely to
get an answer. Take someone asking for the pinouts from some 30 year old
IC. So I have to get up, dig out a databook, and type in some stuff.
I'll do it in some cases, and not in others, and the reason for
one or the other is likely a subconcious decision. I get no reward for
answering, often we never hear from the poster again, and indeed, I
am paying $30 a month for internet access, and I don't do it so I
can answer beginner's questions.

You might want to consider that this newsgroup is for a group of
people who hang out here to discuss the basics of electronics,
and who will expend some effort when someone comes up with a question
worth answering. But since too often the beginners coming here
are only here for a one time post, not even continuing later in
the thread, they lose out on the existing community.

If you are thinking in terms of "serving the beginner" then likely
you are expecting a certain level of behaviour when someone answers
a question here. And that may be the pivot for why you think
a moderated newsgroup is needed.

Like I said before, too many people think that spaces create
the solution. When in reality, it's a lot more complicated,
and indeed it is the seeming chaos that creates the solution.

In other words, if some people think beginners aren't treated
properly here, the solution is for them to put the effort into
answering the way they feel the questions should be answered,
not setting up more structure where the question of who will
answer such questions is still up in the eair.


Michael

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 03:09:57 GMT, "John Fortier"
<jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message news:3ooqovg5516a7f2ccc7ok6qh119oahakmo@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:57:25 GMT, "John Fortier"
jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:


The lack of critical mass is generally caused by an excess of criticism.
A
minimally moderated group will not suffer from a control freak at the
helm,
which is what puts most people off moderated groups.


Power corrupts.
^
John ^
^
^
^
The actual quote was: "Power tends to corrupt, ^
absolute power corrupts absolutely." ^
^
^

^
^
No. My actual quote was "power corrupts." It's right up there ^


John

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 02:47:14 GMT, "John Fortier"
<jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

John,

As with any forum, if you don't agree with the miniimal controls I am
proposing, you don't have to take part. This would be a pity, since, when
you are not involved in a clash of personalities, your advice within the
group is usually relevant and good, and would be a valuable contribution to
the purposes of the group, which is to help beginners in the field of
electronics.

---
Thanks very much, but I will probably just stay here. I'm comfortable
here, there are plenty of questions to answer, and plenty of assholes to
slam without the intervention of some self-appointed "peacekeeper" to
cramp my style.
---

As to whether the thread is of topic, this is a moot point. Granted it is
not directly involved with technical questions of electronics or
telecommunications, but, since the purpose of sci.electronics.basics is to
help newcomers with basic electronics problems, anything which makes it
easier to impart such knowledge can be considered on topic

---
Frayed knot. Anything not directly related to the discussion of
electronics is off-topic here, regardless of how "helpful" you may think
what you consider to be learning aids is. Resistors, capacitors,
inductors, voltage, impedance, etc. is on topic. The size of shoes to
wear when reading an electronics book is not.
---

Also, it would
be pretty useless to post such a topic elsewhere

---
As it is here.
---

Basically, John, if you don't agree with the idea, don't use it. Stay away.
It's a free internet, nobody's forcing you to join in.

---
You seem to have a remarkable grasp of the obvious.
---

But, if you do join in, and wish to continue to join in, all you need do is
abide by some pretty simple, non restrictive rules.

---
Non-restrictive rules? Can you say oxymoron? Are you really so stupid
that you you don't realize that rules, by their very nature, are
restrictive?
---

If that is too much for
you, perhaps you would be happier elsewhere.

---
Well, if you ever get it together maybe I'll drop by for a laugh or
two...

--
John Fields

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Fortier wrote:

No society can operate efficiently without some rules or binding customs.
------------------

Garbage. Control freak Fundies and Rightist prick assholes always
SAY this, but they are unable to SHOW it in any way AT ALL!

(Please don't start an offshoot thread on that one!)
-----------------

Eat shit and DIE, then you KNEW it was just a fucking LIE!!

At present we have no rules and unruly and disruptive behaviour
are, of necessity, tolerated.
-------------------

YOU mean ignored and enjoyed!!
And harmless, don't read it if you don't like it, you're nothing but a
fucking censoring little cowardly squirrel!

Everyone of you fucking Net/News/Newbies think that your ego just
can't STAND it if someone calls you a stupid little fuck, that you'll
JUST GO FUCKING MAD if it happens to you ONE MORE TIME when YOU can't
get AT them, but in a few more YEARS of this, after it GROWS YOU THE
FUCK UP, it won't bother you at all, but for NOW you're just a little
sheltered opinionated asshole who JUST can't STAND being contradicted!!
You're an emotional CHILD and you NEED this abuse to grow you up,
you silly little asshole! Your mommy sheltered your cowardly ass!

All I intend for the new group is the imposition of some minimal
rules which will lubricate the flow of information and ideas.
John
--------------------

Rule one being we can't call you what you ARE!

Aw, you're nothing but a fucking stupid little WHINER!
Quit your fucking childish cowardly whinging and get on with posting
or else just go the fuck away and CRY, you hypersensitive infant!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:57:25 GMT, "John Fortier"
jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

The lack of critical mass is generally caused by an excess of criticism. A
minimally moderated group will not suffer from a control freak at the helm,
which is what puts most people off moderated groups.

Power corrupts.

John
-----------

No, it's just that the people who crave it are corrupted and immature.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Shaun Lewis]

Do you guys have any I dea, why I can not post any new messages but I can
reply. If you have any suggestions please let me know

SHAUN

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F91D5B2.6E84@armory.com...

John Fortier wrote:

No society can operate efficiently without some rules or binding
customs.
------------------
Garbage. Control freak Fundies and Rightist prick assholes always
SAY this, but they are unable to SHOW it in any way AT ALL!


(Please don't start an offshoot thread on that one!)
-----------------
Eat shit and DIE, then you KNEW it was just a fucking LIE!!


At present we have no rules and unruly and disruptive behaviour
are, of necessity, tolerated.
-------------------
YOU mean ignored and enjoyed!!
And harmless, don't read it if you don't like it, you're nothing but a
fucking censoring little cowardly squirrel!

Everyone of you fucking Net/News/Newbies think that your ego just
can't STAND it if someone calls you a stupid little fuck, that you'll
JUST GO FUCKING MAD if it happens to you ONE MORE TIME when YOU can't
get AT them, but in a few more YEARS of this, after it GROWS YOU THE
FUCK UP, it won't bother you at all, but for NOW you're just a little
sheltered opinionated asshole who JUST can't STAND being contradicted!!
You're an emotional CHILD and you NEED this abuse to grow you up,
you silly little asshole! Your mommy sheltered your cowardly ass!


All I intend for the new group is the imposition of some minimal
rules which will lubricate the flow of information and ideas.
John
--------------------
Rule one being we can't call you what you ARE!

Aw, you're nothing but a fucking stupid little WHINER!
Quit your fucking childish cowardly whinging and get on with posting
or else just go the fuck away and CRY, you hypersensitive infant!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Shaun Lewis wrote:

Do you guys have any I dea, why I can not post any new messages but I can
reply. If you have any suggestions please let me know

SHAUN
---------------

Hmmm, I dunno, maybe your header is malformed when you originate it.
When you reply you merely use the legacy header of the thread, except
your address.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <fEIib.52199$uA2.10733@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
jfortier@rochester.rr.com mentioned...

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbomhsu.g2m.don@manx.misty.com...
In article <7oflov4t842df5vegfbtole4m9g9ard32k@4ax.com>, John Larkin
wrote:


clipped



I think we can have some sort of mild form of moderation that does not
require human action on most posts...

The original proposal was for consequences of offenses being privately
e-mailed warnings, posted warnings for further offenses, then banning.
This sounds to me like posts will not have to be approved prior to
posting.

One idea I have: Since the original plan is for posts to automatically
go through unless from banned individuals, it may help to have a
robomoderator. The robot would scan posts for signs from being from
heavily offending individuals, based on things like words/phrases used
mainly by them. Should "flagged" posts be from or appearing likely to be
from individuals "already on probation", such posts would be submitted to
a group of human moderators, any of which can approve the post. This
means the post goes through unless all of the human moderators reject it.

As for which newsgroups: I think this should apply not just for
sci.electronics.basics, but also sci.electronics.design and
sci.electronics.misc. I would vote for such a degree of moderation of
these groups themselves, or else encourage migration to some newly created
sci.electronics.moderated. I do think that .basics, .design, and .misc
won't be too bad to combine into one group.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com, http://www.misty.com/~don/index.html)

Exactly right, don. I don't have any ambition to become the master of
sci.electronics. In fact, had the situation not reached the point where
those with no self discipline are spoiling the group for all users, I would
not have put this proposal forward.

If you know of any means whereby the robomoderator could be achieved, I'd be
very interested in hearing about it. I don't pretend to be an expert in
these matters myself, being a DSL and transmission specialist, but it
certainly sounds feasible.

As far as expanding the idea to take in other groups, this certainly has
merit, but unless the majority of supporters of the idea agree to such and
expansion, I'd rather walk before we run and perhaps bring moderation to
other groups when we have our own group operating acceptably.

John Fortier.

You could create your own newsgroup in the alt.* heirarchy. Maybe
alt.electronics.whatever. Or else start your own BBS, where you are
the moderator. Of course, if no one comes, then it's no party.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <jvnmov4ak5e5dlrtoth2699i40fj0pue4t@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com mentioned...

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:47:26 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:


I do think that .basics, .design, and .misc
won't be too bad to combine into one group.

I thought they once were one group, and were split up to separate the
hardcore stuff from the beginners questions.

John

Not only that, but the volumes of the .design NG is too high by
itself, and adding it to another group or two is just plain too much.
Splitting the original sci.electronics up made the volume of posts
much more manageable.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[John Fortier]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message news:6ig1pvcegis9r8qp07i87rat0nma25ojal@4ax.com...

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 03:09:57 GMT, "John Fortier"
jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message news:3ooqovg5516a7f2ccc7ok6qh119oahakmo@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:57:25 GMT, "John Fortier"
jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:


The lack of critical mass is generally caused by an excess of
criticism.
A
minimally moderated group will not suffer from a control freak at the
helm,
which is what puts most people off moderated groups.


Power corrupts.
^
John ^
^
^
^
The actual quote was: "Power tends to corrupt, ^
absolute power corrupts absolutely." ^
^
^
^
^
No. My actual quote was "power corrupts." It's right up there ^


John

Who are you quoting?

John Fortier

 

[John Fortier]

"Michael Black" <et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bmqbnf$cdf$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...

"John Fortier" (jfortier@rochester.rr.com) writes:

As to whether the thread is of topic, this is a moot point. Granted it
is
not directly involved with technical questions of electronics or
telecommunications, but, since the purpose of sci.electronics.basics is
to
help newcomers with basic electronics problems, anything which makes it
easier to impart such knowledge can be considered on topic Also, it
would
be pretty useless to post such a topic elsewhere

Actually, this is fallacy. sci.electronics.basics is for the discussion
of basic electronics. Admittedly, basics often are the realm of the
beginner,
but it does not mean this newsgroup is "for the beginner". After all, one
can have progressed up the ladder and still need some help with the
basics.

And, what you keep forgetting is that nobody is compelled to "help the
beginner". One could long talk about netiquette, but it is merely
a list of commonsense observed from watching newsgroups. If the beginner
doesn't ask properly, they aren't likely to get an answer, or won't
get a very helpful answer. Someone who asks the right way, because
they've included a joke, or said something that indicates they are
trying, or for a whole bunch of other reasons, is far more likely to
get an answer. Take someone asking for the pinouts from some 30 year old
IC. So I have to get up, dig out a databook, and type in some stuff.
I'll do it in some cases, and not in others, and the reason for
one or the other is likely a subconcious decision. I get no reward for
answering, often we never hear from the poster again, and indeed, I
am paying $30 a month for internet access, and I don't do it so I
can answer beginner's questions.

You might want to consider that this newsgroup is for a group of
people who hang out here to discuss the basics of electronics,
and who will expend some effort when someone comes up with a question
worth answering. But since too often the beginners coming here
are only here for a one time post, not even continuing later in
the thread, they lose out on the existing community.

If you are thinking in terms of "serving the beginner" then likely
you are expecting a certain level of behaviour when someone answers
a question here. And that may be the pivot for why you think
a moderated newsgroup is needed.

Like I said before, too many people think that spaces create
the solution. When in reality, it's a lot more complicated,
and indeed it is the seeming chaos that creates the solution.

In other words, if some people think beginners aren't treated
properly here, the solution is for them to put the effort into
answering the way they feel the questions should be answered,
not setting up more structure where the question of who will
answer such questions is still up in the eair.


Michael

Michael,

These are valid points. However, isn't someone who asks a question of the
group concerning an area of electronics outside his particular area of
expertise just as much a beginner in that area as someone who is a complete
beginner to the entire field? Granted such a person will have a good
background in the elements of electronics, but may be being quite ignorant
in the area of enquiry. This may help the enquirer to format his question
intelligibly but, on the other hand, may not Such a person may or may not
have posted to the group previously and may or may not be aware of expected
norms with regard to posting etiquette.

However, all of this begs the question of those who are deliberately abusive
and insulting to both enquirers and answerers. The new, proposed, group
will allow just as much free reign to ideas and their exchange, the asking
of questions and the dissemination of knowledge. It will, however, be
moderated to ensure a modicum of politeness in its affairs. And that is all
the moderation which is proposed.

Some here have objected to even that much control over their behaviour.
They seem to think that behaviour which would get them banned from any
decent pub or bar is completely acceptable in a newsgroup. The question is;
why should it be? Why should the norms which govern the exchange of ideas
in day to day, interpersonal life not apply to the electronic media? I'd be
interested in hearing a well reasoned response to that question, defending
such behaviour.

Hopefully, beginners making enquiries in the new group will be better
treated than those asking questions of the present group. if only because of
the absence of some of the more abusive posters to the present group.

John Fortier

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fortier wrote:

"Michael Black" <et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bmqbnf$cdf$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
"John Fortier" (jfortier@rochester.rr.com) writes:

As to whether the thread is of topic, this is a moot point. Granted it
is
not directly involved with technical questions of electronics or
telecommunications, but, since the purpose of sci.electronics.basics is
to
help newcomers with basic electronics problems, anything which makes it
easier to impart such knowledge can be considered on topic Also, it
would
be pretty useless to post such a topic elsewhere

Actually, this is fallacy. sci.electronics.basics is for the discussion
of basic electronics. Admittedly, basics often are the realm of the
beginner,
but it does not mean this newsgroup is "for the beginner". After all, one
can have progressed up the ladder and still need some help with the
basics.

And, what you keep forgetting is that nobody is compelled to "help the
beginner". One could long talk about netiquette, but it is merely
a list of commonsense observed from watching newsgroups. If the beginner
doesn't ask properly, they aren't likely to get an answer, or won't
get a very helpful answer. Someone who asks the right way, because
they've included a joke, or said something that indicates they are
trying, or for a whole bunch of other reasons, is far more likely to
get an answer. Take someone asking for the pinouts from some 30 year old
IC. So I have to get up, dig out a databook, and type in some stuff.
I'll do it in some cases, and not in others, and the reason for
one or the other is likely a subconcious decision. I get no reward for
answering, often we never hear from the poster again, and indeed, I
am paying $30 a month for internet access, and I don't do it so I
can answer beginner's questions.

You might want to consider that this newsgroup is for a group of
people who hang out here to discuss the basics of electronics,
and who will expend some effort when someone comes up with a question
worth answering. But since too often the beginners coming here
are only here for a one time post, not even continuing later in
the thread, they lose out on the existing community.

If you are thinking in terms of "serving the beginner" then likely
you are expecting a certain level of behaviour when someone answers
a question here. And that may be the pivot for why you think
a moderated newsgroup is needed.

Like I said before, too many people think that spaces create
the solution. When in reality, it's a lot more complicated,
and indeed it is the seeming chaos that creates the solution.

In other words, if some people think beginners aren't treated
properly here, the solution is for them to put the effort into
answering the way they feel the questions should be answered,
not setting up more structure where the question of who will
answer such questions is still up in the eair.


Michael


Michael,

These are valid points. However, isn't someone who asks a question of the
group concerning an area of electronics outside his particular area of
expertise just as much a beginner in that area as someone who is a complete
beginner to the entire field? Granted such a person will have a good
background in the elements of electronics, but may be being quite ignorant
in the area of enquiry. This may help the enquirer to format his question
intelligibly but, on the other hand, may not Such a person may or may not
have posted to the group previously and may or may not be aware of expected
norms with regard to posting etiquette.

However, all of this begs the question of those who are deliberately abusive
and insulting to both enquirers and answerers. The new, proposed, group
will allow just as much free reign to ideas and their exchange, the asking
of questions and the dissemination of knowledge. It will, however, be
moderated to ensure a modicum of politeness in its affairs. And that is all
the moderation which is proposed.

Some here have objected to even that much control over their behaviour.
They seem to think that behaviour which would get them banned from any
decent pub or bar is completely acceptable in a newsgroup. The question is;
why should it be? Why should the norms which govern the exchange of ideas
in day to day, interpersonal life not apply to the electronic media? I'd be
interested in hearing a well reasoned response to that question, defending
such behaviour.

Hopefully, beginners making enquiries in the new group will be better
treated than those asking questions of the present group. if only because of
the absence of some of the more abusive posters to the present group.

John Fortier

Go ahead and start as many news groups as you want.

More than likely they will get little, or no traffic. I can't keep up
with the newsgroup I want to read right now. I'm sure others are in
similar situations. Also: The more you fragment the user base, the less
effective it becomes. It will cause more duplicate posts, or massive
cross posting. There are already some post I can't reply to because
they exceed the group limit imposed by my ISP's news servers.


Go ahead and do what you want, but don't be surprised if the new
groups are not picked up by any major news servers, or that there is
little or no traffic.
--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 03:23:27 +0000, Michael Black wrote:

Actually, this is fallacy. sci.electronics.basics is for the discussion
of basic electronics.

FYI, the description of sci.electronics basics that is on the servers is
"Elementary questions about electronics"

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 00:03:53 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

---
Lots snipped to save bandwidth
---

Aw, you're nothing but a fucking stupid little WHINER! Quit your fucking
childish cowardly whinging and get on with posting or else just go the
fuck away and CRY, you hypersensitive infant!!

Don't hold back, Steve, tell us what you *really* think

Actually, you're expressing what I believe a number of us (certainly me)
think, but could never express in quite the way you do.

If I ever go into politics (Heaven forfend), there's a job for you as my
speech writer

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:32:15 -0500, John Fields wrote:

Thanks very much, but I will probably just stay here. I'm comfortable
here, there are plenty of questions to answer, and plenty of assholes to
slam without the intervention of some self-appointed "peacekeeper" to
cramp my style.

Exactly my feelings on the subject.

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:09:21 GMT, "John Fortier"
<jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

Hopefully, beginners making enquiries in the new group will be better
treated than those asking questions of the present group. if only because of
the absence of some of the more abusive posters to the present group.

---
Once you've been around here for a while you'll find that newbies are,
for the most part, treated fairly. Even charitably, when the newbie
doesn't show up with a chip on his shoulder.

As for your group, I predict that it'll fail because you're going to
wind up with a small population of pussies who feel they need to be
protected from those big ol' rough boys who play over on
sci.electronics.basics and OMIGOD sci.electronics.design. Don't _even_
go over _there_, it's like the wild, wild, West!

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:06:41 -0700, "Baphomet"
<fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:

Steve -

You just proved John Fortier's point of the desirability of a "minimally
moderated newgroup", however crudely, ineloquently and childishly.

---
On the contrary, I believe he's shown that Fortier's avowed use of
censorship would have kept him (Steve) from responding with heart-felt
emotion to the idiocy of Fortier's proposal, had Fortier said something
stupid (which he seems to be incapable of avoiding) and been the
moderator here.

--
John Fields

 

[Baphomet]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F91D5B2.6E84@armory.com...

John Fortier wrote:

No society can operate efficiently without some rules or binding
customs.
------------------
Garbage. Control freak Fundies and Rightist prick assholes always
SAY this, but they are unable to SHOW it in any way AT ALL!


(Please don't start an offshoot thread on that one!)
-----------------
Eat shit and DIE, then you KNEW it was just a fucking LIE!!


At present we have no rules and unruly and disruptive behaviour
are, of necessity, tolerated.
-------------------
YOU mean ignored and enjoyed!!
And harmless, don't read it if you don't like it, you're nothing but a
fucking censoring little cowardly squirrel!

Everyone of you fucking Net/News/Newbies think that your ego just
can't STAND it if someone calls you a stupid little fuck, that you'll
JUST GO FUCKING MAD if it happens to you ONE MORE TIME when YOU can't
get AT them, but in a few more YEARS of this, after it GROWS YOU THE
FUCK UP, it won't bother you at all, but for NOW you're just a little
sheltered opinionated asshole who JUST can't STAND being contradicted!!
You're an emotional CHILD and you NEED this abuse to grow you up,
you silly little asshole! Your mommy sheltered your cowardly ass!


All I intend for the new group is the imposition of some minimal
rules which will lubricate the flow of information and ideas.
John
--------------------
Rule one being we can't call you what you ARE!

Aw, you're nothing but a fucking stupid little WHINER!
Quit your fucking childish cowardly whinging and get on with posting
or else just go the fuck away and CRY, you hypersensitive infant!!

Steve -

You just proved John Fortier's point of the desirability of a "minimally
moderated newgroup", however crudely, ineloquently and childishly. Are you
taking your cues from Dark Matter? Even he in his latest posting "Looking f
or repair ideas on a projection TV" of 18 October, rose to the occasion with
a reasoned response without resorting to doo doo ca ca name calling. And you
called John a hypersensitive infant? Grow up or go play in your sandbox with
your rattle and teething ring and let the adults who have learned to share
and play well with others do so!