peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/14/91)
Thanks folks. Now we don't have any comp.dcom.telecom at all.
What's the point of all this? Do you get the local paper's subscription
list and send out a mass mailing because you don't like their editorial
policy? Do you call in to radio stations and flame them because you
disagree with Bruce Williams or Rush Limbaugh? Do you then proceed to
jam their frequencies with opposing editorials?
If anything, this is worse... because the moderator of a newsgroup has
less power than any editor or columnist. There are plenty of open channels
where you can rebut their points. But this flaming, these irrelevant
ad-hominem attacks, is sheer foolishness.
First it was Brad Templeton over rec.humor.funny. Then Rich Salz over
comp.sources.unix. Now Pat Townson, who turns out to have thinner skin
than the others. Is that such a sin?
The least you could have done was offer to help: to moderate an alternative
group, or co-moderate TELECOM. Eli did that, and seems conspicuously absent
in this latest skirmish.
--
(peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
`-_-'
'U`randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (02/16/91)
[Followups to comp.org.eff.talk.] The main reason one doesn't criticize a newspaper publicly is lack of access to their distribution channels. Local newspapers are still major political forces and, if methods for criticizing them existed, be sure, they'd be used. Public disagreement, however difficult to deal with, is part of democracy and anarchy. That we have it here is an indication of health. nd t ou ui R Press T __Randolph Fritz sun!cognito.eng!randolph || randolph@eng.sun.com ou ui Mountain View, California, North America, Earth nd t
glass@elaine50.Stanford.EDU (Brett Glass) (02/16/91)
In article <CJF1795@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Thanks folks. Now we don't have any comp.dcom.telecom at all. > >What's the point of all this? Do you get the local paper's subscription >list and send out a mass mailing because you don't like their editorial >policy? Do you call in to radio stations and flame them because you >disagree with Bruce Williams or Rush Limbaugh? Do you then proceed to >jam their frequencies with opposing editorials? Peter: If anything, the disappearance of comp.dcom.telecom shows that the moderator was not able to tolerate the flames which are such a ubiquitous occurrence on the nets. This is a necessary skill for a moderator; if it's "too hot in the kitchen," perhaps he's not fit for the position. Your analogies miss the boat. Moderating an online forum is not the same as being the editor of a newspaper or a radio personality. Published feedback is normal and is often vitriolic. In this case, complaints about the moderator's biases may have been justified. His most recent set of angry messages reflect a temperament that I would not like to see in a moderator. The absence of comp.dcom.telecom leaves the way clear for another forum to replace it. It may or may not be better, but it's certainly an OPPORTUNITY to do better. Don't knock it. <BG> -- "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet. Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or where it will end." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson