page@ulowell.UUCP (02/14/87)
kim@amdahl.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) wrote in article <5663@amdahl.UUCP>: >It is curious that the "mod.amiga" group has been active again ... >we seem to get a few atricles from it about once a week, with most >of the addresses looking like they came from Europe and/or were >gatewayed into Usenet from somewhere. Anyone know what's going on? Here's the whole poop on the moderated Amiga groups. The 'discussion' group is mod.amiga, and the 'sources' groups are mod.amiga.sources and mod.amiga.binaries. The 'discussion' group is 'moderated' from ulowell, and I am the moderator. The sources groups come from Purdue; I don't know what happened to Doc, although Purdue is still on the net. So what do I do, and why are there so few postings, and why are there articles in it now, after a long silence? The news software automagically mails articles posted to mod.amiga to me. I reformat & spell-check the articles (although I haven't been spell-checking them recently), put on the headers the way that news likes them, and post away. There aren't many articles in it because I don't get many. When the Great Renaming took place in the fall, I started posting everything to comp.sys.amiga, since mod.amiga was (reportedly) going away. After a while, I returned to posting to mod.amiga. The articles look like they all come from BITNET or ARPANET because that's where most of them come from. The ARPANET has a mail group called INFO-AMIGA, based out of Rutgers. Eliot Lear, the moderator, just grabs articles posted to comp.sys.amga and mod.amiga, edits/reformats the comp.sys.amiga articles, throws away what he doesn't like, and puts out a digest format - sort of "the best of Usenet's Amiga groups". When a reader responds, it goes to the address INFO-AMIGA@RUTGERS.ARPA, which is really pointed at me. I do my thing here, and Eliot picks it up from mod.amiga for redistribution through the ARPANET. I get very few submissions from USENET - most people prefer to post to the unmoderated group. >Most recently, Mike Meyer sent something to Purdue That would be the sources group. >Not meaning this to be a flame against Doc, but this seems typical of >moderated groups (with a few noteable exceptions like mod.risks and >[usually] mod.sources). Unfortunately, it is typical. (There are other mod groups of high-quality like mod.risks and mod.sources, I suspect you did not list them because you don't read them). Moderators are subject to: >obvious things like doing real work for one's employer, vacations, sickness, >machine outages, busted software, final exams, death, taxes, etc ...)! (For the record, moderators are volunteers). >And this is why I'm against any move to moderate comp.sys.amiga ... >it is just too unreliable The whole concept of moderated groups as we know them is changing, since it is widely recognized that they don't work very well in most configurations. New software is being written, etc. I am against making comp.sys.amiga moderated because the tools to handle the volume do not exist yet. Q: Is comp.sys.amiga going to become moderated? A: Nobody knows just yet. Probably not, but there will be some kind of newsgroup that's moderated, where the S/N level is very high and the traffic isn't overpowering. It will probably be a "best of the unmoderated group" group, for those who just want info and don't care about religious wars or getting the same answer sixteen different times. ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. ulowell!page, page@ulowell.CSNET
doc@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (02/17/87)
Ok, here is the state of comp.sources.amiga or whatever your
favorite name is. I am still the moderator for this group and am doing
my best to get it up and running on the net. Unfortunatly, I am not
totally in control of this.
It seems that a few sites were premature in removing
mod.sources.amiga and replacing it with comp.sources.amiga. That
includes my site and quite a few around me, so in effect, I cannot get
out to all of the people who have mod.sources.amiga still on their
machines. Most of the machines in this area have also created the
newsgroup comp.sources.amiga, so when I was posting quite a few things
earlier, the only sources that I could really check from had my
postings arriving just fine. After I heard from alot of people that
comp.sources.amiga didn't exist everywhere, I got in touch with some of
the higher ups (spaf@gatech, etc.) and found that officially, all
moderated groups that started with anything other than mod do not exist
yet.
Currently I am still trying to get someone to officially create the
group, and hopefully I can get somewhere this week with that. After
that, I am planning on reposting most of the sources I have recieved so
far, including releases of the Shell, DBW's vt100 and many other
programs. Also, after I get my copy of the new Manx compiler (they
have been promising soon for a long time, but I got a Feb. 24th out of
them finally) I plan on posting alot of the binaries with them.
-Docdoc@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (02/19/87)
Just got a letter from Mark Horton, sent to me and a few other Usenet "officials" > >We need to get this group running again. This evidently involves sending >out a newgroup for either mod.amiga.sources or comp.sources.amiga (or >whatever the new and old group names are.) Which do you folks want to do? > > Mark I will keep ya all posted as to what group forms, hope you all can hold on for a bit longer till we get this all ironed out! -Doc
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (11/13/89)
In article (Andrew C. Plotkin) writes: > Even so, creating the group will not keep out the fundies, skeptics, > or other posters whose sole purpose seems to be bent on detraction > and/or harassment. Is moderation such a dirty word? Great tactic that: Lump together two groups who consider themselves quite fundamentally different. Makes them both angry. I consider the newagers and the "fundies", as you call them, very similar because, by my way of thinking both find solace in irrationality. The fundies put me in with the newagers, because we haven't found Jesus. You put me (I guess I'm one of your "skeptics") in with the fundies because, well, you tell me. The point is that it works. You had me going there for a few seconds. A woderful example comes up again and again: Every few months a certain correspondent posts a message to some group or another saying "Atheism is a religion." He must do it just for spite, because the atheists rail against it for months every time. I know I did. Now to the question at hand: Is "moderation" (as in "moderator") a dirty word? If you want to silence opinions you don't share, it can be a wonderful word, or a nasty one, depending on whether the moderator agrees with you. I really don't see why anybody would favor moderators for these talk groups. The exchange of ideas is what it's all about. If somebody is rude, or if they write things you don't want to read, just ignore them. It's just for fun, right?
ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) (11/15/89)
> Excerpts from netnews.talk.religion.newage: 13-Nov-89 Re: Moderation > (was Re: Dis.. Dave Jones@megatest.UUCP (1463) > In article (Andrew C. Plotkin) writes: > > Even so, creating the group will not keep out the fundies, skeptics, > > or other posters whose sole purpose seems to be bent on detraction > > and/or harassment. Is moderation such a dirty word? > Great tactic that: Lump together two groups who consider themselves > [....] Disclaimer: I didn't write that. (I don't remember who did.) Please watch your attributions. --Z
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/16/89)
In article <9608@goofy.megatest.UUCP>, djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: | A woderful example comes up again and again: Every few months a certain | correspondent posts a message to some group or another saying "Atheism is a | religion." He must do it just for spite, because the atheists rail against | it for months every time. I know I did. ??? How could anyone disagree with that? A religion is a (system of) beliefs about the nature of God. I can't see that anyone could possibly deny you the right to call yourself a religion of you choose to do so. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/04/90)
In article <9002040025.AA12193@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: > Please note that the so called "sci diehards" (of whom I happen to be > one) have vigorously opposed *any* moderation. If our purpose was not > to welcome any dissent or criticism, we would have actively supported > moderation. What does toleration of dissent or criticism have to do with moderation? There have been plenty of cases where moderators have posted messages highly critical of themselves... let alone the subject matter of the group or their personal opinions. Have a look at comp.dcom.telecom some time. A paragon of moderated groups. Of course you need the *right* moderator. From evidence in this group I'd suggest T. William Wells. He seems the only objectivist with a truly open mind. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (02/05/90)
In article <.1J1O5Cxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <9002040025.AA12193@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: >> Please note that the so called "sci diehards" (of whom I happen to be >> one) have vigorously opposed *any* moderation. If our purpose was not >> to welcome any dissent or criticism, we would have actively supported >> moderation. >What does toleration of dissent or criticism have to do with moderation? There >have been plenty of cases where moderators have posted messages highly critical >of themselves... let alone the subject matter of the group or their personal >opinions. Have a look at comp.dcom.telecom some time. A paragon of moderated >groups. The person moderating the newsgroup dictates what the purpose of the newsgroup is and what is proper to it and what is not. The fact that some moderators do a good job does not necessarily make a case for moderation. Given the amount of controversy on the issues of Objectivism, it is not likely that just anyone will do a good job. >Of course you need the *right* moderator. From evidence in this group I'd >suggest T. William Wells. He seems the only objectivist with a truly open >mind. Ah, but I have seen the messages by him here where he has already said explicitly, to some sci proponents that they are ignorant or don't use their faculty of reason etc. I don't think he understands Objectivism but if he is the moderator, he is the one who will decide what is proper to the future newsgroup and what is not. I can be certain that under those circumstances, my views and views of several others would be simply edited off as "flames" or "inappropriate". The point is that no one single individual or group of individuals should get to decide what belongs to a group and what does not. It IS possible to maintaing a quality newsgroup *without* moderation. I have been reading sci.philosophy.tech for quite some time and there are very few flames or out of line postings there. The contributors voluntarily maintain a good quality. It is not also that topics there are not controversial. Recently, there was a big debate about "can machines think" which was very controversial and there was a lot of discussion on it. But I didn't see flames. I think it is largely upto the contributors of a newsgroup to maintain its quality. If flames and hostility is simply ignored, the flamers will ultimately go away or not get any attention (objections to the contrary notwithstanding). There is no reason to limit controversy on a subject. The groups are for discussions and controversies are most often the source of debates. The question is only to delimit the discussion to the subject matter of the group. I think this can be accomplished without moderation. -- --Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "For I lean on no dead kin, my name is mine for fame or scorn And the world began when I was born and the world is mine to win" --Badger Clark--
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/05/90)
In article <9002042318.AA15297@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: > In article <.1J1O5Cxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Of course you need the *right* moderator. From evidence in this group I'd > >suggest T. William Wells. He seems the only objectivist with a truly open > >mind. > Ah, but I have seen the messages by him here where he has already said > explicitly, to some sci proponents that they are ignorant or don't use > their faculty of reason etc. I must say that I happen to agree with his conclusions in this matter. But that aside, he has also stated that he would not act as a censor and that he would explicitly include messages from proponents with your brand of objectivism. > I can be certain that under > those circumstances, my views and views of several others would be simply > edited off as "flames" or "inappropriate". I doubt it, but in that case you have many recourses, including setting up a second moderator. In the past moderators who have attempted to censor their groups have been singularly unsuccessful. And Bill knows this. [ lack of flames: ] > I think this can be accomplished without moderation. Observed behaviour of similar groups in the past leads me to believe otherwise. And a lack of flames is hardly the goal you should aspire to. That's like the accused burglar pleading that at least he didn't kill anyone. Repetitive and voluminous discussion never reaching a conclusion is not a great advance over flaming. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) (02/06/90)
In article <A_J1KB6xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: | Repetitive and | voluminous discussion never reaching a conclusion is not a great advance over | flaming. Nor does it result in a *.philosophy.objectivism group ... :-) Let's go with the current idea of the two-step vote, the first for Yay/Nay on the creation, the second for Talk/Sci. Seems to be the only diplomatic way of solving the problem. I see no problem with Bill Wells as the moderator of the proposed group, and the traffic here so far in news.groups seems to warrant moderation. Eric -- Eric J. Peterson <> peterson@nu.cs.fsu.edu <> uunet!nu.cs.fsu.edu!peterson Florida State Univ * CS Systems Support Group * Room 011 Love * (904) 644-2296 echo "This is not a pipe." | lpr -P laserjet; more ~/.disclaimer
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (02/07/90)
: In article <.1J1O5Cxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: : >Of course you need the *right* moderator. From evidence in this group I'd : >suggest T. William Wells. He seems the only objectivist with a truly open : >mind. That won't go over with the Randroids at all. They *hate* open minds. In article <9002042318.AA15297@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: : Ah, but I have seen the messages by him here where he has already said : explicitly, to some sci proponents that they are ignorant or don't use : their faculty of reason etc. I don't think he understands Objectivism : but if he is the moderator, he is the one who will decide what is proper : to the future newsgroup and what is not. I can be certain that under : those circumstances, my views and views of several others would be simply : edited off as "flames" or "inappropriate". You can be "certain", you say. And in doing so, you debase the very word. On what evidence do you base your "certainty"? We are all waiting with bated breath for such evidence. You have adduced no such evidence since the last time you made this accusation. That I'm willing to call ignorance ignorance and irrationality irrationality has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. You have, based entirely on your prejudices, said that I'd edit you out were I the moderator. This is in spite of: 1) I'm willing to have a co-moderator. Even you. 2) Such editing out would discredit me as moderator. 3) No such editing has occured on the Objectivism list I run. Of course, you will, as you did the last time I challenged you on this, say that dealing with all that is too much effort. You "know" that I will edit you out and so considering evidence is a waste of effort. You have called me a liar. On no evidnce whatsoever. That is contemptible. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com "We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (02/09/90)
In article <1990Feb7.072513.4270@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >You have called me a liar. On no evidnce whatsoever. > >That is contemptible. Not really. You are contemptible. Where is the lawsuit you promised to deliver us as an entertainment present? You said you were going to sue Richard and you said you were going to be doing it the next day. I've yet to hear anything new about the lawsuit. Maybe you were lying? -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/10/90)
In article <17897@rpp386.cactus.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > In article <1990Feb7.072513.4270@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: > >You have called me a liar. On no evidnce whatsoever. > > > >That is contemptible. > > Not really. You are contemptible. Where is the lawsuit you > promised ... > I've yet to hear anything > new about the lawsuit. Maybe you were lying? Or maybe you don't read the Fort Lauderdale papers. -- Thank you for not coercing.
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (02/11/90)
In article <17897@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: : In article <1990Feb7.072513.4270@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: : >You have called me a liar. On no evidnce whatsoever. : > : >That is contemptible. : : Not really. You are contemptible. Where is the lawsuit you : promised to deliver us as an entertainment present? None of your fucking business. And I'm not in the business of doing things for *your* entertainment. Not only that, but what does the one have to do with the other? Even imagining I had lied on the one issue, calling me a liar on the other when the evidence is against it is contemptible, and especially so in an Objectivist. : You said you were going to sue Richard and you said you were : going to be doing it the next day. I've yet to hear anything : new about the lawsuit. So? Got a hotline to god? Keeping an eye on my personal affairs? Let's put it this way: even if there were a suit going on right now (there isn't), what reason do you suppose I might have for broadcasting that fact? Or the others to do so? But since you are so hot on keeping this topic in the public eye: the lawyer I originally consulted wanted me to spend kilobucks on furthering his education; I've found a new one who is not quite so greedy. Just as soon as I finish the half a dozen *constructive* things I've got on the fire I'll actually go in for an appointment.... : Maybe you were lying? Maybe you don't know what you are talking about? --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (02/12/90)
In article <1990Feb11.061130.995@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >None of your fucking business. And I'm not in the business of >doing things for *your* entertainment. raw nerve! wow! i've not seen this much response from someone on the net since my last really good posting to alt.flame. gee, i can hardly wait for the sequel. >Not only that, but what does the one have to do with the other? >Even imagining I had lied on the one issue, calling me a liar on >the other when the evidence is against it is contemptible, and >especially so in an Objectivist. huh? you either are or aren't a liar. being a liar on only one issue merely means you do not lie all of the time. you have lost credibility. hoping to be a part-time liar won't help you gain it back. abandon hope, all ye who enter here. >: You said you were going to sue Richard and you said you were >: going to be doing it the next day. I've yet to hear anything >: new about the lawsuit. > >So? Got a hotline to god? Keeping an eye on my personal affairs? >Let's put it this way: even if there were a suit going on right >now (there isn't), what reason do you suppose I might have for >broadcasting that fact? Or the others to do so? now bill, let me clear things up for our gentle readers. on january 9th you informed me that your were going to contact your lawyer. you also informed me that your had a considerable amount of financial resources behind you and that spending the money wouldn't be a bother for you. in my reply to you of the same day i suggested that your either shut up, or get on with the business of suing richard. since i am aware of your current non-lawsuit status and since you have not yet shut up regarding this proposed legal action, i can only point out that you have made yourself look like an incredible idiot. >But since you are so hot on keeping this topic in the public eye: >the lawyer I originally consulted wanted me to spend kilobucks on >furthering his education; I've found a new one who is not quite so >greedy. Just as soon as I finish the half a dozen *constructive* >things I've got on the fire I'll actually go in for an >appointment.... i don't care if you tell us exactly how many kilobucks [ or megapennies, for that matter ] your attorney asked for. as i've stated to you on several occassions, any responsible and respectable lawyer will tell you to save your money. besides, you're rich, right? you said so yourself. maybe you were lying? we've all seen your beggings for jobs in your .signatures. tell you what, if someone could come up with the proper counter-suit against you [ notably one which included legal fees ... ] i would be willing to invest several kilobucks myself against a reasonable rate of return. you didn't get a less greedy lawyer, you got a less smart one. besides, you've already priced the cost of a federal court suit, remember? even i told you it would be very expensive against non-existent damages. do you remember writing "I make scads of money and have no debts to speak of. I've already priced the cost of a Federal suit (because I was considering challenging a particular state law), and it is well within my means." >: Maybe you were lying? > >Maybe you don't know what you are talking about? naw, judging from your response, i know exactly what i am talking about. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (02/13/90)
Mr. Hough redirected followups to comp.archives, an action
completely consistent with his continued childish harassment of
me. He is beneath contempt and deserves no further replies.
Accordingly, he goes in my kill file.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com