oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (02/03/88)
In article <752@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > >There is no more insult in what I said than there is in your claim >(and the claim of the person to whom I was replying) that the sources >in one group are of better ``quality'' that the sources in the other >group. Of course there is. What I said was: > I disagree completely. In my opinion, both comp.sources.unix > and comp.sources.misc moderators have been doing a great job, > ... I stated a clear opinion, free from gratuitious insults. You, however, wrote: > ... a more discerning > group of readers who can fend for themselves instead of be nurse-maided by a > moderator, ... This gem speaks for itself. You still did not answer the original question. Here is a slow replay: > ....How do you > know what a *more discerning* net reader wants to read ?? > Do tell us. (Make sure to cross post to all newsgroups.) I eagerly await your expose. (This may be your big chance :-) oz -- Those who lose the sight Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yunexus!oz of what is really important ......!seismo!mnetor!yunexus!oz are destined to become Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yulibra|yuyetti] irrelevant. - anon Phonet: +1 416 736-5257 x 3976
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (02/05/88)
In article <306@yunexus.UUCP>, oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: > Of course there is. What I said was: > > > I disagree completely. In my opinion, both comp.sources.unix > > and comp.sources.misc moderators have been doing a great job, > > ... > > I stated a clear opinion, free from gratuitious insults. If this had been all you posted, you would be right -- but it wasn't, so you aren't. ----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (02/10/88)
As quoted from <796@brandx.rutgers.edu> by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber): +--------------- | In article <306@yunexus.UUCP>, oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: | > > I disagree completely. In my opinion, both comp.sources.unix | > > and comp.sources.misc moderators have been doing a great job, | > | > I stated a clear opinion, free from gratuitious insults. | | If this had been all you posted, you would be right -- but it wasn't, | so you aren't. +--------------- The only gratuitous insult in that message was the kind of thing that could only be interpreted as an insult by the kind of person who regularly tells the whole world that it is incorrect and that he is hereby taking the role of God onto himself. (Two examples: the "rogue moderator" business last year and comp.sys.mac.programmer this year.) -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc {well!hoptoad,uunet!hnsurg3,cbosgd,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!allbery KABOOM!!! Worf: "I think I'm sick." LaForge: "I'm sure half the ship knows it."
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (02/14/88)
In article <7212@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > ... > The only gratuitous insult in that message was the kind of thing that could > only be interpreted as an insult by the kind of person who regularly tells > the whole world that it is incorrect and that he is hereby taking the role of > God onto himself. (Two examples: the "rogue moderator" business last year > and comp.sys.mac.programmer this year.) Although I realize that this is incomprehensible to you, being a moderator yourself, but it is the case that most of the net does not view being a ``moderator'' as being the role of the Diety. In any event, I never sought to be a ``moderator'' but rather spoke to the possibility of helping others to have postings under the same newsgroup name (although with clearly distinct Approved: headers -- which are easy for anyone to produce). And as the THIRD person who tried to pick up the mess the mac.programmer vote became, I hardly see anything particularly novel about the action (the person running it still makes false announcements about what is needed to overturn it). All of the ``insults'' have been of the nature of the speaker presuming to be able to judge ``quality'' themselves. Thus, all these silly moderators presume to know what is best for me to read under certain news group headings. And more recently some people have made quality claims about the sources in various groups. I, on the otherhand, have made comments of about what appeals to the ``discerning reader.'' And what is a ``discerning reader'' but someone who seeks and consumes quality reading material? The trueism that the discerning reader prefers unmoderated groups is no different than the trueism that unmoderated groups are of higher quality than moderated groups. There is no more insult in it than there is in the reverse claim. ---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)