richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (06/20/88)
In article <28.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes: >In article <2805@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: >>In article <1988Jun14.230853.7574@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>>Actually, there is one thing that can be done without software changes, >>>something that would cut traffic quite a bit and simultaneously greatly >>>improve the signal/noise ratio: go 100% moderated. >> >> bravo! here's my vote, and an offer to moderate a group. > >Do I finally hear some peace and quiet coming??? :-) Here's my vote too. >I also will offer to moderate a group - even one I don't read! Did somebody start a contest for the most idiotic post of the year ? Weemba ? Let me see if I understand this, you're offering to moderate a group you don't even read ? Hmm. Can I make the tacit assumption that if you don't read a group it's because you arn't interested in the content ? Could I even go so far as to say you don't know anything about the subject ? Hey, makes sense to me. I offer to moderate rec.guns. Really. -- "Shrimp Ahoy" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (06/22/88)
In article <31.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes: >In article <4542@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) >>In article <28.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes: >>>Do I finally hear some peace and quiet coming??? :-) Here's my vote too. >>>I also will offer to moderate a group - even one I don't read! >> Let me see if I understand this, you're offering to moderate a group >> you don't even read ? >> >> Hmm. Can I make the tacit assumption that if you don't read a group it's >> because you arn't interested in the content ? Could I even go so far as >> to say you don't know anything about the subject ? > >Actually, no, you can *not* make that assumption. I happen to be both >interested and somewhat knowledgable about a fairly diverse range of >topics. That however does *not* mean that I read all of the news.groups >concerning those subjects. Maybe you have either: a) a narrow enough >range of interests, or b) more than enough unproductive time to allow >you to read all of the news.groups in which you might be interested. Or maybe c) I read fast. >I do not. Oh. >There are at least 60 news.groups that I would like to read >which I do not, for various reasons. So, the answer to your question(s) >is, it would depend on the topic. > >I might add further that, being an effective moderator does *not* >require either an in-depth knowledge of, or any personal interest in, >the particular issue being debated. Which makes me a perfect candidate to moderate rec.guns. I'm serious about this. >What it does require is a decent >sense of fair play, some knowledge of the rules of debate and order, and >the ability to remain unbiased in your decisions, irregardless of >personal opinions/feelings (which is not always terribly easy to do :-) ). Well what about tha case where somebody posts something of a highly complex and technical nature that is completely bogus ? It seems to me it would help to have some understanding of the subject you are moderating, rather than just have memorized Roberts rules of order. >What it would appear that you have suggested is, Judges are not >qualified to administrate/moderate court cases, unless they have a >personal knowledge and interest in the matter being tried. Obviously >such is not true. What the Judges require is a knowledge of the law and >legal precedent, proper procedure, and the ability to judge in an >unbiased fashion the issues at hand. While Judges certainly don't live >in a vacuum, their prior personal knowledge and/or opinions about the >details of a case can make the proper execution of their task just that >much more difficult for them. I could site other examples too, if you >should so desire. Ok, coming from a family of laywers and judges, I asked them. Their reply was that a judge that makes decisions on pure cut and dried legal technicalites is a LEGAL judge, he/she is not a GOOD judge. Actually, this is borne out by watching L.A. Law, but since you don't have time to read the NET, you hardly have time to watch TV. >Perhaps now it makes more sense to you. I understand your position. I also understood Hitlers position. Neither make sense. -- "Shrimp Ahoy" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard
tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) (06/22/88)
In article <4542@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) >In article <28.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes: >>Do I finally hear some peace and quiet coming??? :-) Here's my vote too. >>I also will offer to moderate a group - even one I don't read! > > Did somebody start a contest for the most idiotic post of the year ? > > Weemba ? > > Let me see if I understand this, you're offering to moderate a group > you don't even read ? > > Hmm. Can I make the tacit assumption that if you don't read a group it's > because you arn't interested in the content ? Could I even go so far as > to say you don't know anything about the subject ? > > Hey, makes sense to me. Actually, no, you can *not* make that assumption. I happen to be both interested and somewhat knowledgable about a fairly diverse range of topics. That however does *not* mean that I read all of the news.groups concerning those subjects. Maybe you have either: a) a narrow enough range of interests, or b) more than enough unproductive time to allow you to read all of the news.groups in which you might be interested. I do not. There are at least 60 news.groups that I would like to read which I do not, for various reasons. So, the answer to your question(s) is, it would depend on the topic. I might add further that, being an effective moderator does *not* require either an in-depth knowledge of, or any personal interest in, the particular issue being debated. What it does require is a decent sense of fair play, some knowledge of the rules of debate and order, and the ability to remain unbiased in your decisions, irregardless of personal opinions/feelings (which is not always terribly easy to do :-) ). What it would appear that you have suggested is, Judges are not qualified to administrate/moderate court cases, unless they have a personal knowledge and interest in the matter being tried. Obviously such is not true. What the Judges require is a knowledge of the law and legal precedent, proper procedure, and the ability to judge in an unbiased fashion the issues at hand. While Judges certainly don't live in a vacuum, their prior personal knowledge and/or opinions about the details of a case can make the proper execution of their task just that much more difficult for them. I could site other examples too, if you should so desire. Perhaps now it makes more sense to you. Ted Manos tmanos@aocgl.{COM,UUCP,UU.NET} or ...!{uunet,mcdchg}!aocgl!tmanos