Discussion:
RFD :- uk.radio.amateur.moderated
(too old to reply)
gareth
2014-10-07 20:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Let's cut to the chase and get that group set up, chaps!

What I predict is that The Ilk will exhibit one set of behaviours
in the moderated group (if the corresponding attitudes in RSCBTech
are anything to go by) but will continue with their Jekyll and Hyde
transformation by originating gratuitously offensive infantile personal
remarks in ura, if only by continuing to refer to the decent hardcore
of those who try to maintain the technical and gentlemanly traditions
as the usual suspects.

This dichotomy of behaviour may be witnessed today, firstly by the
claims made by reay about RSCBTech in contrast to the psyche
that he presents in ura; and secondly by STC with his posting style
in this unnc NG in contrast with the infantile and abusive psyche
that he, too, presents in ura.

What is bizarre is that both of them claim to want the same things as
do I in ura, civilised technical discussion, but are the two leading lights
in demonstrating the exact opposite.

As Spike said, they create a self-fulfilling prophecy to support
their false and misleading stance.

You read it here, first.
Bernie
2014-10-07 20:47:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 21:37:47 +0100, gareth wrote:


>
> What is bizarre is that both of them claim to want the same things as do
> I in ura, civilised technical discussion, but are the two leading lights
> in demonstrating the exact opposite.

At least three liars, then.
Tony
2014-10-10 15:25:34 UTC
Permalink
On 2014-10-07, gareth <***@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> Let's cut to the chase and get that group set up, chaps!

You can't cut to the chase. I don't understand why you don't understand
the process. There's a minimum discussion period, and then the
proponent has to take some action. Until then, there's nothing to do.

I seem to recall you failing to grasp the process previously as well.
It's explained in the RFD, and also on the website
(http://www.usenet.org.uk).

--
Tony Evans
Seeking archives for uk.* from 1998 and older. Especially interested
in uk.net.news.* and any groups which preceded uk.net.news.* for
hierarchy management (uk.misc? uk.net?).
Roger Hayter
2014-10-15 23:46:42 UTC
Permalink
In message <m11iv0$mr5$***@dont-email.me>, gareth
<***@thank.you.invalid> writes
>Let's cut to the chase and get that group set up, chaps!
>
>What I predict is that The Ilk will exhibit one set of behaviours
>in the moderated group (if the corresponding attitudes in RSCBTech
>are anything to go by) but will continue with their Jekyll and Hyde
>transformation by originating gratuitously offensive infantile personal
>remarks in ura, if only by continuing to refer to the decent hardcore
>of those who try to maintain the technical and gentlemanly traditions
>as the usual suspects.

You may not like it, but there is actually no reason why someone
shouldn't discuss different things, and behave differently, in different
groups; that is one advantage of having ukra and ukram. No-one is
likely to be penalised in ukram for what they have said on ukra, as
long as their posts on ukram are acceptable.

--

Roger Hayter
gareth
2014-10-16 08:29:00 UTC
Permalink
"Roger Hayter" <***@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:***@kalahari.uninhabited.net...
> In message <m11iv0$mr5$***@dont-email.me>, gareth
> <***@thank.you.invalid> writes
>>Let's cut to the chase and get that group set up, chaps!
>>
>>What I predict is that The Ilk will exhibit one set of behaviours
>>in the moderated group (if the corresponding attitudes in RSCBTech
>>are anything to go by) but will continue with their Jekyll and Hyde
>>transformation by originating gratuitously offensive infantile personal
>>remarks in ura, if only by continuing to refer to the decent hardcore
>>of those who try to maintain the technical and gentlemanly traditions
>>as the usual suspects.
>
> You may not like it, but there is actually no reason why someone shouldn't
> discuss different things, and behave differently, in different groups;
> that is one advantage of having ukra and ukram. No-one is likely to be
> penalised in ukram for what they have said on ukra, as long as their posts
> on ukram are acceptable.
>

The point I was making is that those who are crying out the loudest for
moderation are the same ones creating the cesspit that justifies their
sobbing and screaming
No A1A required
2014-10-16 19:30:55 UTC
Permalink
On 16/10/2014 09:29, gareth wrote:
> "Roger Hayter" <***@hayter.org> wrote in message
> news:***@kalahari.uninhabited.net...
>> In message <m11iv0$mr5$***@dont-email.me>, gareth
>> <***@thank.you.invalid> writes
>>> Let's cut to the chase and get that group set up, chaps!
>>>
>>> What I predict is that The Ilk will exhibit one set of behaviours
>>> in the moderated group (if the corresponding attitudes in RSCBTech
>>> are anything to go by) but will continue with their Jekyll and Hyde
>>> transformation by originating gratuitously offensive infantile personal
>>> remarks in ura, if only by continuing to refer to the decent hardcore
>>> of those who try to maintain the technical and gentlemanly traditions
>>> as the usual suspects.
>>
>> You may not like it, but there is actually no reason why someone shouldn't
>> discuss different things, and behave differently, in different groups;
>> that is one advantage of having ukra and ukram. No-one is likely to be
>> penalised in ukram for what they have said on ukra, as long as their posts
>> on ukram are acceptable.
>>
>
> The point I was making is that those who are crying out the loudest for
> moderation are the same ones creating the cesspit that justifies their
> sobbing and screaming
>
>

In other words, odd you toddle, Gareth, you incredible shit stirrer!

--
Collecting Bitcoins for my Pension :)
Please send BTC to 1kZKQMvVPce11u7xG1KbArtrAenuxdZue
I thank you!
gareth
2014-10-16 19:40:49 UTC
Permalink
"No A1A required" <***@wiltshireplods.gov> wrote in message
news:2P-***@giganews.com...
>
> In other words, odd you toddle, Gareth, you incredible shit stirrer!
>

Not-Ham Hull, G7KUJ, continues with his one-sided abusive obsession.
Brian Morrison
2014-10-16 09:10:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:46:42 +0100
Roger Hayter wrote:

> No-one is likely to be penalised in ukram for what they have said on ukra,

Penalised by whom?

--

Brian Morrison
Ian Jackson
2014-10-16 09:35:28 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian
Morrison <***@fenrir.org.uk> writes
>On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:46:42 +0100
>Roger Hayter wrote:
>
>> No-one is likely to be penalised in ukram for what they have said on ukra,
>
>Penalised by whom?
>
One assumes and expects that the moderators will judge whether or not to
allow a submitted post to appear in uk.r.a.m only on the content of that
post and, if there is a whitelist system, on the poster's past posting
history. Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
--
Ian
Brian Morrison
2014-10-16 09:39:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:35:28 +0100
Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message <***@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian
> Morrison <***@fenrir.org.uk> writes
> >On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:46:42 +0100
> >Roger Hayter wrote:
> >
> >> No-one is likely to be penalised in ukram for what they have said
> >> on ukra,
> >
> >Penalised by whom?
> >
> One assumes and expects that the moderators will judge whether or not
> to allow a submitted post to appear in uk.r.a.m only on the content
> of that post and, if there is a whitelist system, on the poster's
> past posting history. Do you have any evidence that this will not be
> the case?

Maybe I was asking the question based on not expecting the moderation
process to involve "penalisation". To me it's a far more pejorative
word than "moderate".

--

Brian Morrison
Ian Jackson
2014-10-16 09:53:43 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian
Morrison <***@fenrir.org.uk> writes
>On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:35:28 +0100
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> In message <***@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian
>> Morrison <***@fenrir.org.uk> writes
>> >On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:46:42 +0100
>> >Roger Hayter wrote:
>> >
>> >> No-one is likely to be penalised in ukram for what they have said
>> >> on ukra,
>> >
>> >Penalised by whom?
>> >
>> One assumes and expects that the moderators will judge whether or not
>> to allow a submitted post to appear in uk.r.a.m only on the content
>> of that post and, if there is a whitelist system, on the poster's
>> past posting history. Do you have any evidence that this will not be
>> the case?
>
>Maybe I was asking the question based on not expecting the moderation
>process to involve "penalisation". To me it's a far more pejorative
>word than "moderate".
>
'Moderating' someone's posts on the basis of what you think of their
character isn't moderation. That's 'blackballing' (which I don't think
is in the proposed charter for uk.r.a.m), and that is a form of
penalisation. The blackballed person is suffering the penalty of being a
thoroughly objectionable and undesirable person.
--
Ian
Paul Cummins
2014-10-16 10:08:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:

> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?

Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
Hierarchy.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Ian Jackson
2014-10-16 10:53:04 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, Paul
Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>
>Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>Hierarchy.

And these people are going to moderate uk.r.a.m? I never knew that. In
the interest of justice, something has to be done!
>

--
Ian
Chronos
2014-10-16 11:33:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:53:04 +0100
Ian Jackson <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> And these people are going to moderate uk.r.a.m? I never knew that.
> In the interest of justice, something has to be done!

I've already done something, Ian. I made a brew. Would you like one
while the kettle's hot? I'm out of Hob Nobs but there's sure to be a
shedi about with a stash...
--
Your grandeur passes, and your pageantry,
Your lordships pass, your kingdoms pass; and Time
Disposes wilfully of mortal things.
Ian Jackson
2014-10-16 11:52:16 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@chronos.eternal-september.org>,
Chronos <***@chronos.org.uk> writes
>On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:53:04 +0100
>Ian Jackson <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> And these people are going to moderate uk.r.a.m? I never knew that.
>> In the interest of justice, something has to be done!
>
>I've already done something, Ian. I made a brew. Would you like one
>while the kettle's hot? I'm out of Hob Nobs but there's sure to be a
>shedi about with a stash...

I've got some KitKats (both dark and mint chocolate). Will they do?
--
Ian
Chronos
2014-10-16 14:42:35 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:52:16 +0100
Ian Jackson <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >I've already done something, Ian. I made a brew. Would you like one
> >while the kettle's hot? I'm out of Hob Nobs but there's sure to be a
> >shedi about with a stash...
>
> I've got some KitKats (both dark and mint chocolate). Will they do?

Mmm, minty KitKats. Like After Eights for the masses :-)
--
Your grandeur passes, and your pageantry,
Your lordships pass, your kingdoms pass; and Time
Disposes wilfully of mortal things.
Wymsey
2014-10-16 16:28:35 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:42:35 +0100, Chronos wrote:

> Mmm, minty KitKats. Like After Eights for the masses

But I'm low church!



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
Chronos
2014-10-16 20:06:31 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:28:35 +0000 (UTC)
Wymsey <***@LOLOLO.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:42:35 +0100, Chronos wrote:
>
> > Mmm, minty KitKats. Like After Eights for the masses
>
> But I'm low church!

I prefer to be a little more secular. Give me a packet of Viscounts and
I'm happy for all of ten minutes...
--
Your grandeur passes, and your pageantry,
Your lordships pass, your kingdoms pass; and Time
Disposes wilfully of mortal things.
unknown
2014-10-16 14:31:29 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@chronos.eternal-september.org>, at
12:33:17 on Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Chronos <***@chronos.org.uk> wibbled
>
>I've already done something, Ian. I made a brew. Would you like one
>while the kettle's hot? I'm out of Hob Nobs but there's sure to be a
>shedi about with a stash...

...this Sheddie guards his stash of hobnobs. :)

--
Pedt
1W = 3 slugfurlongs / day
Paul Cummins
2014-10-16 12:01:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:

> And these people are going to moderate uk.r.a.m? I never knew that.
> In the interest of justice, something has to be done!

We don;t know - since there is no obligation to name the mods, other than
the original two, and the moderators can use any means they see fit to
effectively moderate the froup.

That includes appointing M3OSN as the lead moderator.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Ian Jackson
2014-10-16 12:08:07 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, Paul
Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>> And these people are going to moderate uk.r.a.m? I never knew that.
>> In the interest of justice, something has to be done!
>
>We don;t know - since there is no obligation to name the mods, other than
>the original two, and the moderators can use any means they see fit to
>effectively moderate the froup.
>
>That includes appointing M3OSN as the lead moderator.
>
I think you're worrying unduly. We could all be wiped out by ebola or
(more likely), the sky might fall.
--
Ian
Spike
2014-10-16 14:36:21 UTC
Permalink
On 16/10/14 13:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, Paul
> Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:

>>> And these people are going to moderate uk.r.a.m? I never knew that.
>>> In the interest of justice, something has to be done!

>> We don;t know - since there is no obligation to name the mods, other than
>> the original two, and the moderators can use any means they see fit to
>> effectively moderate the froup.

>> That includes appointing M3OSN as the lead moderator.

> I think you're worrying unduly. We could all be wiped out by ebola or
> (more likely), the sky might fall.

I suspect it's the total lack of transparency concerning the appointment
of post-formation moderators, and the lack of sanctions and inability to
remove any that seems to be an issue here.

--
Spike

"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed by-product
of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do"
Jerry Stuckle
2014-10-16 16:51:33 UTC
Permalink
On 10/16/2014 10:36 AM, Spike wrote:
> On 16/10/14 13:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, Paul
>> Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>>>> And these people are going to moderate uk.r.a.m? I never knew that.
>>>> In the interest of justice, something has to be done!
>
>>> We don;t know - since there is no obligation to name the mods, other
>>> than
>>> the original two, and the moderators can use any means they see fit to
>>> effectively moderate the froup.
>
>>> That includes appointing M3OSN as the lead moderator.
>
>> I think you're worrying unduly. We could all be wiped out by ebola or
>> (more likely), the sky might fall.
>
> I suspect it's the total lack of transparency concerning the appointment
> of post-formation moderators, and the lack of sanctions and inability to
> remove any that seems to be an issue here.
>

If there is a problem with the moderators, the group will die. Plain
and simple. It's to the benefit of the moderators to be fair.

The RFD doesn't take anything away - other groups like ukra are still
available.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================
Brian Reay
2014-10-16 17:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Jerry Stuckle <***@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 10/16/2014 10:36 AM, Spike wrote:
>> On 16/10/14 13:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> In message <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, Paul
>>> Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>
>>>>> And these people are going to moderate uk.r.a.m? I never knew that.
>>>>> In the interest of justice, something has to be done!
>>
>>>> We don;t know - since there is no obligation to name the mods, other
>>>> than
>>>> the original two, and the moderators can use any means they see fit to
>>>> effectively moderate the froup.
>>
>>>> That includes appointing M3OSN as the lead moderator.
>>
>>> I think you're worrying unduly. We could all be wiped out by ebola or
>>> (more likely), the sky might fall.
>>
>> I suspect it's the total lack of transparency concerning the appointment
>> of post-formation moderators, and the lack of sanctions and inability to
>> remove any that seems to be an issue here.
>>
>
> If there is a problem with the moderators, the group will die. Plain
> and simple. It's to the benefit of the moderators to be fair.
>

Exactly.
A group with a healthy posting rate, of quality posts (ie on topic etc), is
an indication of a good moderation team.

A group with a pitiful rate of largely dross, is a sign of a group dying
under the jack boot of poor moderation.
Roger Hayter
2014-10-17 19:50:38 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<***@mail.invalid> writes
>On 16/10/14 13:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, Paul
>> Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>>>> And these people are going to moderate uk.r.a.m? I never knew that.
>>>> In the interest of justice, something has to be done!
>
>>> We don;t know - since there is no obligation to name the mods, other than
>>> the original two, and the moderators can use any means they see fit to
>>> effectively moderate the froup.
>
>>> That includes appointing M3OSN as the lead moderator.
>
>> I think you're worrying unduly. We could all be wiped out by ebola or
>> (more likely), the sky might fall.
>
>I suspect it's the total lack of transparency concerning the
>appointment of post-formation moderators, and the lack of sanctions and
>inability to remove any that seems to be an issue here.
>

I agree we should have a way of indicating changes to the moderation
team to the community, and I think this will be addressed. In the mean
time, Paul Schleck has implied once or twice that anyone who would like
to be considered as a moderator in future could contact him. The system
is transparent to the extent that it is stated that current moderators
will select future ones.

Apart from the complications of any democratic or public moderator
selection system it presupposes a generous supply of potential
moderators. If, for instance, the current moderators were deselected
after the group was formed the group would cease to exist in the
absence of new candidates.
--

Roger Hayter
Brian Reay
2014-10-16 15:04:06 UTC
Permalink
On 16/10/2014 13:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, Paul
> Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>
>>> And these people are going to moderate uk.r.a.m? I never knew that.
>>> In the interest of justice, something has to be done!
>>
>> We don;t know - since there is no obligation to name the mods, other than
>> the original two, and the moderators can use any means they see fit to
>> effectively moderate the froup.
>>
>> That includes appointing M3OSN as the lead moderator.
>>
> I think you're worrying unduly. We could all be wiped out by ebola or
> (more likely), the sky might fall.

Both are more likely as there is no M3OSN.

Cummins & Co simply don't have any logical reasons to oppose the idea
and are fabricating any old tosh.
Fred Roberts
2014-10-18 22:45:23 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:04:06 +0100, Brian Reay <***@m.com> wrote:


>> I think you're worrying unduly. We could all be wiped out by ebola or
>> (more likely), the sky might fall.
>
>Both are more likely as there is no M3OSN.

Once M3 always M3. Some of us remember how you used to brag about
being M3OSN in your signature.

>Cummins & Co simply don't have any logical reasons to oppose the idea
>and are fabricating any old tosh.

You have a track record of obsessively taking over organisations and
wanting to dominate.
Brian Reay
2014-10-20 08:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Fred Roberts <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:04:06 +0100, Brian Reay <***@m.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I think you're worrying unduly. We could all be wiped out by ebola or
>>> (more likely), the sky might fall.
>>
>> Both are more likely as there is no M3OSN.
>
> Once M3 always M3. Some of us remember how you used to brag about
> being M3OSN in your signature.
>
>> Cummins & Co simply don't have any logical reasons to oppose the idea
>> and are fabricating any old tosh.
>
> You have a track record of obsessively taking over organisations and
> wanting to dominate.

Another lie Frank.
gareth
2014-10-20 08:03:03 UTC
Permalink
"Brian Reay" <***@m.com> wrote in message
news:483271586435484112.148393no.sp-***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Fred Roberts <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:04:06 +0100, Brian Reay <***@m.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I think you're worrying unduly. We could all be wiped out by ebola or
>>>> (more likely), the sky might fall.
>>>
>>> Both are more likely as there is no M3OSN.
>>
>> Once M3 always M3. Some of us remember how you used to brag about
>> being M3OSN in your signature.

>
> Another lie Frank.

But it's true, and is supported by evidence in that same archive to which
you direct others for their research.
Paul Cummins
2014-10-20 09:16:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <m1omp2$slo$***@dont-email.me>, ***@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:

> Cummins & Co simply don't have any logical reasons to oppose the
> idea and are fabricating any old tosh.

There is no "and Co" - I have my objections independently of anyone else.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Rob Morley
2014-10-20 17:40:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:16 +0100 (BST)
***@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

> In article <m1omp2$slo$***@dont-email.me>, ***@m.com (Brian Reay)
> wrote:
>
> > Cummins & Co simply don't have any logical reasons to oppose the
> > idea and are fabricating any old tosh.
>
> There is no "and Co" - I have my objections independently of anyone
> else.
>
Isn't it funny how members of cliques assume that others who disagree
with them, but agree with each other, must be communicating with each
other rather than independently forming their inconvenient POV?
Steve
2014-10-20 18:44:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:40:47 +0100, Rob Morley wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:16 +0100 (BST)
> ***@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
>> In article <m1omp2$slo$***@dont-email.me>, ***@m.com (Brian Reay)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Cummins & Co simply don't have any logical reasons to oppose the idea
>> > and are fabricating any old tosh.
>>
>> There is no "and Co" - I have my objections independently of anyone
>> else.
>>
> Isn't it funny how members of cliques assume that others who disagree
> with them, but agree with each other, must be communicating with each
> other rather than independently forming their inconvenient POV?

Absolutely! You have hit the nail on the head here.

Well said.
Lordgnome
2014-10-21 08:32:23 UTC
Permalink
On 20/10/2014 18:40, Rob Morley wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:16 +0100 (BST)
> ***@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

> Isn't it funny how members of cliques assume that others who disagree
> with them, but agree with each other, must be communicating with each
> other rather than independently forming their inconvenient POV?
>

And is it not funny how certain people manage to sing from the same
hymnsheet, using almost the same words in boring repetition, thus
leading others to assume rightly or wrongly, that there is a connection
at least in common purpose - hence the abbreviation "and co". It saves
analysing each batch of waffle.


Les.
Brian Reay
2014-10-21 08:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Rob Morley <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:16 +0100 (BST)
> ***@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
>> In article <m1omp2$slo$***@dont-email.me>, ***@m.com (Brian Reay)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Cummins & Co simply don't have any logical reasons to oppose the
>>> idea and are fabricating any old tosh.
>>
>> There is no "and Co" - I have my objections independently of anyone
>> else.
>>
> Isn't it funny how members of cliques assume that others who disagree
> with them, but agree with each other, must be communicating with each
> other rather than independently forming their inconvenient POV?

How does & Co suggest communication?, other than the letters co?

It is simply a collective term.

Like Spike, you make assumptions to match your agenda and present them as
facts.
gareth
2014-10-21 09:01:46 UTC
Permalink
"Brian Reay" <***@m.com> wrote in message
news:777674755435573651.930150no.sp-***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Like Spike, you make assumptions to match your agenda and present them as
> facts.

More gratuitous abuse originatng from your keyboard, OM?
Paul Cummins
2014-10-21 19:05:00 UTC
Permalink
In article
<777674755435573651.930150no.sp-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
***@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:

> It is simply a collective term.

I am not a collective. My biological and technological distinctiveness
remains distinct and unique.

Resistance is... an effective way of building muscle tone.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Alan Braggins
2014-10-21 14:26:35 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@ntlworld.com>, Rob Morley wrote:
>Isn't it funny how members of cliques assume that others who disagree
>with them, but agree with each other, must be communicating with each
>other rather than independently forming their inconvenient POV?

I see what you did there :-)
Steve
2014-10-20 19:28:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:16:00 +0100, Paul Cummins wrote:

> In article <m1omp2$slo$***@dont-email.me>, ***@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>> Cummins & Co simply don't have any logical reasons to oppose the idea
>> and are fabricating any old tosh.
>
> There is no "and Co" - I have my objections independently of anyone
> else.

So do I.

+1
gareth
2014-10-20 20:18:01 UTC
Permalink
"Steve" <***@haha.nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:and1w.589142$***@fx15.am4...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:16:00 +0100, Paul Cummins wrote:
>
>> In article <m1omp2$slo$***@dont-email.me>, ***@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>>> Cummins & Co simply don't have any logical reasons to oppose the idea
>>> and are fabricating any old tosh.
>> There is no "and Co" - I have my objections independently of anyone
>> else.
> So do I.
> +1

WHS, however, "reay & co", "tomlinson & co", "cole & co" might be three
ways of describing the Three Furies
Bobby Socks
2014-10-20 20:27:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:18:01 +0100, gareth wrote:

> "Steve" <***@haha.nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:and1w.589142$***@fx15.am4...
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:16:00 +0100, Paul Cummins wrote:
>>
>>> In article <m1omp2$slo$***@dont-email.me>, ***@m.com (Brian Reay)
>>> wrote:
>>>> Cummins & Co simply don't have any logical reasons to oppose the idea
>>>> and are fabricating any old tosh.
>>> There is no "and Co" - I have my objections independently of anyone
>>> else.
>> So do I.
>> +1
>
> WHS, however, "reay & co", "tomlinson & co", "cole & co" might be three
> ways of describing the Three Furies

I think you should go back to the numbered behaviour, Gareth. That was
funnier and didn't look in the slightest bit mental.
Robert Smits
2014-10-21 23:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Paul Cummins wrote:

> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>
> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
> Hierarchy.
>


Moderation <> Censorship


Bob, VE7HS
Spike
2014-10-22 07:28:25 UTC
Permalink
On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
> Paul Cummins wrote:

>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:

>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?

>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>> Hierarchy.

> Moderation <> Censorship

The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the other.

> Bob, VE7HS

--
Spike

"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed by-product
of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do"
Jerry Stuckle
2014-10-22 13:45:50 UTC
Permalink
On 10/22/2014 3:28 AM, Spike wrote:
> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>
>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>
>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>>> Hierarchy.
>
>> Moderation <> Censorship
>
> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the other.
>

Only for those who are abusive to others in the newsgroup. Treat others
with respect and follow the charter - no problem.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
***@attglobal.net
==================
Spike
2014-10-22 16:11:59 UTC
Permalink
On 22/10/14 14:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 3:28 AM, Spike wrote:
>> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>>> Paul Cummins wrote:

>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:

>>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?

>>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>>>> Hierarchy.

>>> Moderation <> Censorship

>> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the other.

> Only for those who are abusive to others in the newsgroup. Treat others
> with respect and follow the charter - no problem.

Straw Man.

--
Spike

"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed by-product
of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do"
Jerry Stuckle
2014-10-22 19:25:54 UTC
Permalink
On 10/22/2014 12:11 PM, Spike wrote:
> On 22/10/14 14:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/22/2014 3:28 AM, Spike wrote:
>>> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>
>>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>
>>>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>>>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>>>>> Hierarchy.
>
>>>> Moderation <> Censorship
>
>>> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the other.
>
>> Only for those who are abusive to others in the newsgroup. Treat others
>> with respect and follow the charter - no problem.
>
> Straw Man.
>

Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit. No
wonder you are against it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================
Spike
2014-10-22 21:00:39 UTC
Permalink
On 22/10/14 20:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 12:11 PM, Spike wrote:
>> On 22/10/14 14:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 10/22/2014 3:28 AM, Spike wrote:
>>>> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>>>>> Paul Cummins wrote:

>>>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:

>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?

>>>>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>>>>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>>>>>> Hierarchy.

>>>>> Moderation <> Censorship

>>>> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the other.

>>> Only for those who are abusive to others in the newsgroup. Treat others
>>> with respect and follow the charter - no problem.

>> Straw Man.

> Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit.

I'm glad to hear that the proposed new group's modpol would forbid Straw
Man arguments, but I can't quite see where that is stated; I must have
missed it.

> No wonder you are against it.

I still haven't seen any significant support for it or arguments in its
favour.

--
Spike

"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed by-product
of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do"
Jerry Stuckle
2014-10-22 21:18:04 UTC
Permalink
On 10/22/2014 5:00 PM, Spike wrote:
> On 22/10/14 20:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/22/2014 12:11 PM, Spike wrote:
>>> On 22/10/14 14:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 10/22/2014 3:28 AM, Spike wrote:
>>>>> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>
>>>>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>
>>>>>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>>>>>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>>>>>>> Hierarchy.
>
>>>>>> Moderation <> Censorship
>
>>>>> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the
>>>>> other.
>
>>>> Only for those who are abusive to others in the newsgroup. Treat
>>>> others
>>>> with respect and follow the charter - no problem.
>
>>> Straw Man.
>
>> Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit.
>
> I'm glad to hear that the proposed new group's modpol would forbid Straw
> Man arguments, but I can't quite see where that is stated; I must have
> missed it.
>
> > No wonder you are against it.
>
> I still haven't seen any significant support for it or arguments in its
> favour.
>

No, it would prevent personal attacks such as the one you made.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================
Mike Fleming
2014-10-22 21:43:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <m296u8$2dv$***@dont-email.me>, Jerry Stuckle
<***@attglobal.net> writes:

> On 10/22/2014 5:00 PM, Spike wrote:
> > On 22/10/14 20:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >> On 10/22/2014 12:11 PM, Spike wrote:
> >>> On 22/10/14 14:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >>>> On 10/22/2014 3:28 AM, Spike wrote:
> >>>>> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
> >>>>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
> >>>>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
> >
> >>>>>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
> >>>>>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
> >>>>>>> Hierarchy.
> >
> >>>>>> Moderation <> Censorship
> >
> >>>>> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the
> >>>>> other.
> >
> >>>> Only for those who are abusive to others in the newsgroup. Treat
> >>>> others
> >>>> with respect and follow the charter - no problem.
> >
> >>> Straw Man.
> >
> >> Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit.
> >
> > I'm glad to hear that the proposed new group's modpol would forbid Straw
> > Man arguments, but I can't quite see where that is stated; I must have
> > missed it.
> >
> > > No wonder you are against it.
> >
> > I still haven't seen any significant support for it or arguments in its
> > favour.
> >
>
> No, it would prevent personal attacks such as the one you made.

Do you understand the meaning of the term "straw man"? It is not a
personal attack, it's a criticism of the argument.

--
Mike Fleming
Brian Reay
2014-10-22 22:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <m296u8$2dv$***@dont-email.me>, Jerry Stuckle
> <***@attglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 10/22/2014 5:00 PM, Spike wrote:
>>> On 22/10/14 20:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 10/22/2014 12:11 PM, Spike wrote:
>>>>> On 22/10/14 14:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/22/2014 3:28 AM, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>>>>>>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>>>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>>>>>>>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>>>>>>>>> Hierarchy.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Moderation <> Censorship
>>>
>>>>>>> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the
>>>>>>> other.
>>>
>>>>>> Only for those who are abusive to others in the newsgroup. Treat
>>>>>> others
>>>>>> with respect and follow the charter - no problem.
>>>
>>>>> Straw Man.
>>>
>>>> Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit.
>>>
>>> I'm glad to hear that the proposed new group's modpol would forbid Straw
>>> Man arguments, but I can't quite see where that is stated; I must have
>>> missed it.
>>>
>>> > No wonder you are against it.
>>>
>>> I still haven't seen any significant support for it or arguments in its
>>> favour.
>>>
>>
>> No, it would prevent personal attacks such as the one you made.
>
> Do you understand the meaning of the term "straw man"? It is not a
> personal attack, it's a criticism of the argument.


And would not apply in this case as there as been no parallel proposal,
quite the converse.


Spike has misused 'straw man' many times but I've let it pass. Evans does
the same. I prefer to let them continue to make fools of themselves.
gareth
2014-10-23 07:14:46 UTC
Permalink
"Brian Reay" <***@m.com> wrote in message
news:1291604556435710422.722987no.sp-***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Spike has misused 'straw man' many times but I've let it pass. Evans does
> the same. I prefer to let them continue to make fools of themselves.

More gratuitous personal abuse from you, and not even relevant to unnc.
Jerry Stuckle
2014-10-23 02:58:31 UTC
Permalink
On 10/22/2014 5:43 PM, Mike Fleming wrote:
> In article <m296u8$2dv$***@dont-email.me>, Jerry Stuckle
> <***@attglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 10/22/2014 5:00 PM, Spike wrote:
>>> On 22/10/14 20:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 10/22/2014 12:11 PM, Spike wrote:
>>>>> On 22/10/14 14:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/22/2014 3:28 AM, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>>>>>>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>>>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>>>>>>>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>>>>>>>>> Hierarchy.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Moderation <> Censorship
>>>
>>>>>>> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the
>>>>>>> other.
>>>
>>>>>> Only for those who are abusive to others in the newsgroup. Treat
>>>>>> others
>>>>>> with respect and follow the charter - no problem.
>>>
>>>>> Straw Man.
>>>
>>>> Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit.
>>>
>>> I'm glad to hear that the proposed new group's modpol would forbid Straw
>>> Man arguments, but I can't quite see where that is stated; I must have
>>> missed it.
>>>
>>> > No wonder you are against it.
>>>
>>> I still haven't seen any significant support for it or arguments in its
>>> favour.
>>>
>>
>> No, it would prevent personal attacks such as the one you made.
>
> Do you understand the meaning of the term "straw man"? It is not a
> personal attack, it's a criticism of the argument.
>

No, "straw man argument" is a criticism of the argument (and not valid
in this case - as Spike proved). "Straw man" is a personal attack.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================
Paul Cummins
2014-10-22 23:20:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <m290bu$57n$***@dont-email.me>, ***@attglobal.net (Jerry
Stuckle) wrote:

> > Straw Man.
> >
>
> Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit. No
> wonder you are against it.

Don't see any abuse here... I see a robust and accurate response to your
comment.

If this is what is expected to be censored, then I will begin drumming up
support for the no vote.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Roger Hayter
2014-10-22 23:48:05 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, Paul
Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>In article <m290bu$57n$***@dont-email.me>, ***@attglobal.net (Jerry
>Stuckle) wrote:
>
>> > Straw Man.
>> >
>>
>> Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit. No
>> wonder you are against it.
>
>Don't see any abuse here... I see a robust and accurate response to your
>comment.
>
>If this is what is expected to be censored, then I will begin drumming up
>support for the no vote.
>
I think I can say that such polite (if not wholly cogent) refutations of
arguments will *not* be censored. It is possible that if the whole
argument was prolonged, repetitive and remained off topic then the
thread might be gently put to sleep, but, no, I am sure that describing
someone's argument as a straw man would not, in itself, be grounds for
rejection. Robust argument yes, personal abuse no. Sometimes the
difference may be a judgement call, and we will not always be perfect.

--

Roger Hayter
Clive George
2014-10-23 00:37:47 UTC
Permalink
On 23/10/2014 00:20, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <m290bu$57n$***@dont-email.me>, ***@attglobal.net (Jerry
> Stuckle) wrote:
>
>>> Straw Man.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit. No
>> wonder you are against it.
>
> Don't see any abuse here... I see a robust and accurate response to your
> comment.
>
> If this is what is expected to be censored, then I will begin drumming up
> support for the no vote.

ULM would probably reject similar with "No legal content" or similar. An
explanation of which bits are straw men and why would be appropriate.

FWIW it wasn't a straw man - Spike seems to be using that as phrase
meaning "I disagree", where it means something quite specific and different.
Spike
2014-10-23 07:54:18 UTC
Permalink
On 23/10/14 01:37, Clive George wrote:
> On 23/10/2014 00:20, Paul Cummins wrote:
>> In article <m290bu$57n$***@dont-email.me>, ***@attglobal.net (Jerry
>> Stuckle) wrote:

>>>> Straw Man.

>>> Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit. No
>>> wonder you are against it.

>> Don't see any abuse here... I see a robust and accurate response to your
>> comment.

>> If this is what is expected to be censored, then I will begin drumming up
>> support for the no vote.

> ULM would probably reject similar with "No legal content" or similar. An
> explanation of which bits are straw men and why would be appropriate.

> FWIW it wasn't a straw man - Spike seems to be using that as phrase
> meaning "I disagree", where it means something quite specific and
> different.

The definition of the Straw Man (add 'argument' for those of thin skin)
is quite wide, and Stuckle's just used it again in his response.

--
Spike

"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed by-product
of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do"
Jerry Stuckle
2014-10-23 10:19:23 UTC
Permalink
On 10/23/2014 3:54 AM, Spike wrote:
> On 23/10/14 01:37, Clive George wrote:
>> On 23/10/2014 00:20, Paul Cummins wrote:
>>> In article <m290bu$57n$***@dont-email.me>, ***@attglobal.net (Jerry
>>> Stuckle) wrote:
>
>>>>> Straw Man.
>
>>>> Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit. No
>>>> wonder you are against it.
>
>>> Don't see any abuse here... I see a robust and accurate response to your
>>> comment.
>
>>> If this is what is expected to be censored, then I will begin
>>> drumming up
>>> support for the no vote.
>
>> ULM would probably reject similar with "No legal content" or similar. An
>> explanation of which bits are straw men and why would be appropriate.
>
>> FWIW it wasn't a straw man - Spike seems to be using that as phrase
>> meaning "I disagree", where it means something quite specific and
>> different.
>
> The definition of the Straw Man (add 'argument' for those of thin skin)
> is quite wide, and Stuckle's just used it again in his response.
>

You obviously don't know the difference. And I agree with Clive - you
disagree with the proposal, so any argument for it must be a straw man
argument.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================
Spike
2014-10-23 11:14:28 UTC
Permalink
On 23/10/14 11:19, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/23/2014 3:54 AM, Spike wrote:
>> On 23/10/14 01:37, Clive George wrote:
>>> On 23/10/2014 00:20, Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>> In article <m290bu$57n$***@dont-email.me>, ***@attglobal.net (Jerry
>>>> Stuckle) wrote:

>>>>>> Straw Man.

>>>>> Exactly the type of abuse the moderated group would not permit. No
>>>>> wonder you are against it.

>>>> Don't see any abuse here... I see a robust and accurate response to your
>>>> comment.

>>>> If this is what is expected to be censored, then I will begin
>>>> drumming up
>>>> support for the no vote.

>>> ULM would probably reject similar with "No legal content" or similar. An
>>> explanation of which bits are straw men and why would be appropriate.

>>> FWIW it wasn't a straw man - Spike seems to be using that as phrase
>>> meaning "I disagree", where it means something quite specific and
>>> different.

>> The definition of the Straw Man (add 'argument' for those of thin skin)
>> is quite wide, and Stuckle's just used it again in his response.

> You obviously don't know the difference. And I agree with Clive - you
> disagree with the proposal, so any argument for it must be a straw man
> argument.

I think that's another Straw Man! Well done, you're getting the idea.

I have said that the proposal is too wordy, too limiting, and should be
sponsored by someone of substance. For the benefit of the totally dim,
that's a suggestion for its improvement. How you could turn that into
what you claim is beyond belief.

--
Spike

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by
men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding" Louis D. Brandeis
Ian Jackson
2014-10-23 07:58:41 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Clive
George <***@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>


>
>ULM would probably reject similar with "No legal content" or similar.

At one time, it seemed to me that posts to ULM were being carefully
dissected by the moderators, and that they were determined that each and
every post should have some verifiable legal point - and rejecting many
as having "No legal content" (often rather harshly, in my opinion). More
recently, the moderators seem to be taking a much more relaxed approach,
and are letting a lot of stuff through which is extremely questionable.
My understanding is the uk.r.a.m will be extremely tolerant of a
reasonable amount of off-topic material - provided it is not abusive and
repetitive (no interminable soap-box stuff), and that the posters
concerned actually also provide a fair amount of genuine on-topic posts.
>
>
>


>



--
Ian
Lordgnome
2014-10-23 09:57:32 UTC
Permalink
On 23/10/2014 08:58, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Clive
> George <***@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>
>
>
>>
>> ULM would probably reject similar with "No legal content" or similar.
>
> At one time, it seemed to me that posts to ULM were being carefully
> dissected by the moderators, and that they were determined that each and
> every post should have some verifiable legal point - and rejecting many
> as having "No legal content" (often rather harshly, in my opinion). More
> recently, the moderators seem to be taking a much more relaxed approach,
> and are letting a lot of stuff through which is extremely questionable.
> My understanding is the uk.r.a.m will be extremely tolerant of a
> reasonable amount of off-topic material - provided it is not abusive and
> repetitive (no interminable soap-box stuff), and that the posters
> concerned actually also provide a fair amount of genuine on-topic posts.

The great point about ULM is that personal abuse is not allowed. I don't
mid off-topic stuff or gentle ramblings at all. The problem with the
UKRA site is the constant and pointless insults and bickering. It would
seem that the only logical way to stop this is a moderated group.

Les.
Scion
2014-10-23 12:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard:

> In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Clive
> George <***@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>
>>
>
>
>>ULM would probably reject similar with "No legal content" or similar.
>
> At one time, it seemed to me that posts to ULM were being carefully
> dissected by the moderators, and that they were determined that each and
> every post should have some verifiable legal point - and rejecting many
> as having "No legal content" (often rather harshly, in my opinion). More
> recently, the moderators seem to be taking a much more relaxed approach,
> and are letting a lot of stuff through which is extremely questionable.
> My understanding is the uk.r.a.m will be extremely tolerant of a
> reasonable amount of off-topic material - provided it is not abusive and
> repetitive (no interminable soap-box stuff), and that the posters
> concerned actually also provide a fair amount of genuine on-topic posts.

There's a problem with that very last sentence. A post should be allowed
or blocked on its content only, not on the poster.
Ian Jackson
2014-10-23 13:25:04 UTC
Permalink
In message <m2at3p$qhq$***@dont-email.me>, Scion <***@nospam.invalid>
writes
>Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard:
>
>> In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Clive
>> George <***@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>ULM would probably reject similar with "No legal content" or similar.
>>
>> At one time, it seemed to me that posts to ULM were being carefully
>> dissected by the moderators, and that they were determined that each and
>> every post should have some verifiable legal point - and rejecting many
>> as having "No legal content" (often rather harshly, in my opinion). More
>> recently, the moderators seem to be taking a much more relaxed approach,
>> and are letting a lot of stuff through which is extremely questionable.
>> My understanding is the uk.r.a.m will be extremely tolerant of a
>> reasonable amount of off-topic material - provided it is not abusive and
>> repetitive (no interminable soap-box stuff), and that the posters
>> concerned actually also provide a fair amount of genuine on-topic posts.
>
>There's a problem with that very last sentence. A post should be allowed
>or blocked on its content only, not on the poster.

I can't see anything wrong with what I said. It's reasonable to allow
someone whose posting record has been in the spirit of the raison d'être
for the NG to contribute a reasonable amount of off-topic material. If
all they post about is the price of beeswax in Denmark, then I would
expect the moderators to suggest they do their do their posting
elsewhere.
--
Ian
Spike
2014-10-23 15:28:55 UTC
Permalink
On 23/10/14 14:25, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <m2at3p$qhq$***@dont-email.me>, Scion <***@nospam.invalid> writes
>> Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard:

>>> My understanding is the uk.r.a.m will be extremely tolerant of a
>>> reasonable amount of off-topic material - provided it is not abusive and
>>> repetitive (no interminable soap-box stuff), and that the posters
>>> concerned actually also provide a fair amount of genuine on-topic posts.

>> There's a problem with that very last sentence. A post should be allowed
>> or blocked on its content only, not on the poster.

> I can't see anything wrong with what I said. It's reasonable to allow
> someone whose posting record has been in the spirit of the raison d'être
> for the NG to contribute a reasonable amount of off-topic material. If
> all they post about is the price of beeswax in Denmark, then I would
> expect the moderators to suggest they do their do their posting elsewhere.

It's that 'reasonable' word again.

Are you really struggling with the concept that what you find
reasonable, others don't? And with at least the same validity?

I tried to tell you that using Napoleon and Moscow as a real-life
example, but it clearly whooshed.


--
Spike

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by
men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding" Louis D. Brandeis
Steve
2014-10-23 13:49:22 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:25:04 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message <m2at3p$qhq$***@dont-email.me>, Scion <***@nospam.invalid>
> writes

>>
>>There's a problem with that very last sentence. A post should be allowed
>>or blocked on its content only, not on the poster.
>
> I can't see anything wrong with what I said. It's reasonable to allow
> someone whose posting record has been in the spirit of the raison d'être
> for the NG to contribute a reasonable amount of off-topic material. If
> all they post about is the price of beeswax in Denmark, then I would
> expect the moderators to suggest they do their do their posting
> elsewhere.

Different rules for different posters. That is going to be a problem!
Brian Morrison
2014-10-23 14:55:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:49:22 GMT
Steve wrote:

> Different rules for different posters. That is going to be a problem!

Looks like the pro- side are still digging.

--

Brian Morrison
Ian Jackson
2014-10-23 15:24:33 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian
Morrison <***@fenrir.org.uk> writes
>On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:49:22 GMT
>Steve wrote:
>
>> Different rules for different posters. That is going to be a problem!
>
>Looks like the pro- side are still digging.
>
So your solution would be to impose a rigid on-topic policy for all
posts? That would be a sure way of killing the newsgroup off.
--
Ian
Steve
2014-10-22 07:44:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:28:25 +0100, Spike wrote:

> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>
>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>
>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>
>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>>> Hierarchy.
>
>> Moderation <> Censorship
>
> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the other.
>
>> Bob, VE7HS

One sounds more reasonable than the other, but they are both the same.
Jerry Stuckle
2014-10-22 13:47:20 UTC
Permalink
On 10/22/2014 3:44 AM, Steve wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:28:25 +0100, Spike wrote:
>
>> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>
>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>
>>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>>
>>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>>>> Hierarchy.
>>
>>> Moderation <> Censorship
>>
>> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the other.
>>
>>> Bob, VE7HS
>
> One sounds more reasonable than the other, but they are both the same.
>

See my reply to Spike.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================
Steve
2014-10-22 14:33:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:47:20 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> On 10/22/2014 3:44 AM, Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:28:25 +0100, Spike wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>>>
>>>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>>>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>>>>> Hierarchy.
>>>
>>>> Moderation <> Censorship
>>>
>>> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the
>>> other.
>>>
>>>> Bob, VE7HS
>>
>> One sounds more reasonable than the other, but they are both the same.
>>
>>
> See my reply to Spike.

I saw it. We are discussing the proposition that moderation is or isn't
censorship. It is.

We were not discussing how the censorship is applied, just that it is.
Jerry Stuckle
2014-10-22 15:51:08 UTC
Permalink
On 10/22/2014 10:33 AM, Steve wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:47:20 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/22/2014 3:44 AM, Steve wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:28:25 +0100, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>>>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>>>>
>>>>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents and
>>>>>> those supporting this introduction of further censorship in the UK
>>>>>> Hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>>> Moderation <> Censorship
>>>>
>>>> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the
>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>>> Bob, VE7HS
>>>
>>> One sounds more reasonable than the other, but they are both the same.
>>>
>>>
>> See my reply to Spike.
>
> I saw it. We are discussing the proposition that moderation is or isn't
> censorship. It is.
>
> We were not discussing how the censorship is applied, just that it is.
>

No, moderation is not censorship. Censorship prohibits the expounding
of thoughts and ideas. Moderation only ensures that those ideas are
presented in a way acceptable to the majority of the audience (and, in
the case of usenet, is within the charter of the newsgroup).

Moderation does, for instance, prevent trolls from claiming two concepts
- one generally neutral in its emotional acceptance, while the other
having extremely negative emotional acceptance - are the same thing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================
Mike Fleming
2014-10-22 16:44:29 UTC
Permalink
In article <m28jp8$np4$***@dont-email.me>, Jerry Stuckle
<***@attglobal.net> writes:

> No, moderation is not censorship. Censorship prohibits the expounding
> of thoughts and ideas. Moderation only ensures that those ideas are
> presented in a way acceptable to the majority of the audience (and, in
> the case of usenet, is within the charter of the newsgroup).

Rubbish.

The one differentiator that you can make is that censorship is
imposed, whereas posting to a moderated group is implicit acceptance
of the censorship applied to that group, and as long as an unmoderated
equivalent group exists, the censorship implicit in moderation can be
avoided.

--
Mike Fleming
Steve
2014-10-22 16:29:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:51:08 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> On 10/22/2014 10:33 AM, Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:47:20 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/22/2014 3:44 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:28:25 +0100, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22/10/14 00:57, Robert Smits wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>>>> ***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that this will not be the case?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only in the behaviour of current moderators, previous proponents
>>>>>>> and those supporting this introduction of further censorship in
>>>>>>> the UK Hierarchy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Moderation <> Censorship
>>>>>
>>>>> The aims and mechanisms of the one are the same as those for the
>>>>> other.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob, VE7HS
>>>>
>>>> One sounds more reasonable than the other, but they are both the
>>>> same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> See my reply to Spike.
>>
>> I saw it. We are discussing the proposition that moderation is or isn't
>> censorship. It is.
>>
>> We were not discussing how the censorship is applied, just that it is.
>>
>>
> No, moderation is not censorship.

It is a nicely fluffy and more acceptable name for the same thing.

> Censorship prohibits the expounding
> of thoughts and ideas. Moderation only ensures that those ideas are
> presented in a way acceptable to the majority of the audience (and, in
> the case of usenet, is within the charter of the newsgroup).

By use of censorship.

>
> Moderation does, for instance, prevent trolls from claiming two concepts
> - one generally neutral in its emotional acceptance, while the other
> having extremely negative emotional acceptance - are the same thing.

Well I think I have argued the opposite above and as I was saying we are
not really discussing how censorship is applied, just that moderation is
censorship.
Clive George
2014-10-22 18:54:24 UTC
Permalink
On 22/10/2014 17:29, Steve wrote:

> Well I think I have argued the opposite above and as I was saying we are
> not really discussing how censorship is applied, just that moderation is
> censorship.

There are other forms of censorship. Polluting a newsgroup sufficiently
that people are put off posting there is one.

That's why I don't treat seriously people's complaints that moderation
is censorship, censorship is inherently bad, and hence moderation is
inherently bad.

Somebody's already mentioned the role of the Speaker - he is acting as a
censor, though mostly he's there to make sure people self-censor. His
presence means the discussion carries on positively.

So, first questions : Is UKRA a pleasant, welcoming environment? Are you
getting new posters? Or is it being dominated by a few petty squabbles?

Second : Are there enough people who would enjoy similar discussion more
with some different censorship applied?

Third : Can suitable censors be found? They'd need to be trusted by
enough people to do a decent job.
Spike
2014-10-22 20:54:05 UTC
Permalink
On 22/10/14 19:54, Clive George wrote:
> On 22/10/2014 17:29, Steve wrote:

>> Well I think I have argued the opposite above and as I was saying we are
>> not really discussing how censorship is applied, just that moderation is
>> censorship.

> There are other forms of censorship. Polluting a newsgroup sufficiently
> that people are put off posting there is one.

> That's why I don't treat seriously people's complaints that moderation
> is censorship, censorship is inherently bad, and hence moderation is
> inherently bad.

> Somebody's already mentioned the role of the Speaker - he is acting as a
> censor, though mostly he's there to make sure people self-censor. His
> presence means the discussion carries on positively.

> So, first questions : Is UKRA a pleasant, welcoming environment? Are you
> getting new posters? Or is it being dominated by a few petty squabbles?

> Second : Are there enough people who would enjoy similar discussion more
> with some different censorship applied?

> Third : Can suitable censors be found? They'd need to be trusted by
> enough people to do a decent job.

I think your posting has a small army of Straw Men in it.

--
Spike

"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed by-product
of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do"
Paul Cummins
2014-10-22 08:41:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <5M2dnRDQpNmYbtvJnZ2dnUVZ5h-***@giganews.com>, ***@rsmits.ca
(Robert Smits) wrote:

> Moderation <> Censorship

if I am not free to call a spade a spade, then I am being censored,
whatever pretty name you may use for the process.

I would have thought that someone with the protections of the first
amendment (such as the proponent) would understand that clearly.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Ian Jackson
2014-10-22 09:23:09 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, Paul
Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>In article <5M2dnRDQpNmYbtvJnZ2dnUVZ5h-***@giganews.com>, ***@rsmits.ca
>(Robert Smits) wrote:
>
>> Moderation <> Censorship
>
>if I am not free to call a spade a spade, then I am being censored,
>whatever pretty name you may use for the process.
>
>I would have thought that someone with the protections of the first
>amendment (such as the proponent) would understand that clearly.
>
In the proposed moderated group, you'll be perfectly free to call a
spade a spade - provided you call it a spade in what is sometimes called
'Parliamentary Language'.

You may not have noticed that the function of The Speaker in the House
of Commons is not to stop people speaking, but instead it is to ensure
that they present their case in a civilised and respectful manner. But
if you don't have the skills to do this, you will still be perfectly
free to say what you want - and in the way you want to say it - in the
unmoderated group.

Is this really too hard to understand? [That's a rhetorical question,
BTW, and doesn't require an answer.]
--
Ian
Stephen Thomas Cole
2014-10-22 09:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Paul Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5M2dnRDQpNmYbtvJnZ2dnUVZ5h-***@giganews.com>, ***@rsmits.ca
> (Robert Smits) wrote:
>
>> Moderation <> Censorship
>
> if I am not free to call a spade a spade, then I am being censored,
> whatever pretty name you may use for the process.
>
> I would have thought that someone with the protections of the first
> amendment (such as the proponent) would understand that clearly.

You could still call a spade a spade, you just couldn't call it a dickhead.


--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone
Roger Hayter
2014-10-22 09:28:58 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, Paul
Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>In article <5M2dnRDQpNmYbtvJnZ2dnUVZ5h-***@giganews.com>, ***@rsmits.ca
>(Robert Smits) wrote:
>
>> Moderation <> Censorship
>
>if I am not free to call a spade a spade, then I am being censored,
>whatever pretty name you may use for the process.
>
>I would have thought that someone with the protections of the first
>amendment (such as the proponent) would understand that clearly.
>

Quite apart from wishing to support the proposal I am part of, this sort
of false logic and playing with words, sophistry even, does irritate me.

'Censorship' is usually used of a process where a whole society attempts
to suppress political, social or artistic ideas by forbidding their
expression.

Editing is the process of producing a coherent work out of disparate
contributions.


Usenet moderation is a process of censoring (ok!) particular
contributions, from a particular discussion group (but *not* from nearby
groups which remain open!), in this case to remove personal insults and
excessive straying from the topic (perhaps the latter will be largely
tolerated, actually).

To some extent all three are synonym, but the logic:


Censorship is bad;
Moderation is censorship;
Therefore moderation is bad.


Is only true if one has a particular, pedantic, view that usenet should
be unconstrained[1], unlike web forums and other types of publication.
Some people do believe this, but see footnote, but for the majority of
us saying that censorship is a social evil (which it often is) and
therefore usenet moderation (but not Facebook moderation!) is evil is
just dishonest playing with words. After all, editorial control of
Wikipedia is probably a good thing!


OK, moderation is a form of censorship; so what?


[1] However, usenet is already censored by American political police
and copyright holders - free speech is highly circumscribed even in the
land of the free, try sending a message of support to IS!




--

Roger Hayter
Brian Morrison
2014-10-22 10:42:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:28:58 +0100
Roger Hayter wrote:

> OK, moderation is a form of censorship; so what?

A lot of people are fundamentally opposed to censorship, it's only
purpose is to distort the message and alter people's knowledge and
understanding of the true situation.

--

Brian Morrison
Roger Hayter
2014-10-22 10:58:29 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian
Morrison <***@fenrir.org.uk> writes
>On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:28:58 +0100
>Roger Hayter wrote:
>
>> OK, moderation is a form of censorship; so what?
>
>A lot of people are fundamentally opposed to censorship, it's only
>purpose is to distort the message and alter people's knowledge and
>understanding of the true situation.
>


Is that the "only purpose" of the editing of Wikipedia? In a literal
sense, yes, but "distorting" the message of liars and vandals may be
justified, nay useful, in some contexts. I think you conflate global,
directed censorship of all media with censorship of a small enclave
surrounded by free access for the same people to emit their message, so
that it is by no means lost. People would have to be very deliberately
obtuse have their knowledge and understanding altered significantly as a
result of their access to a particular newsgroup. Why, they'll be
reading *books* next, and totally warping their knowledge of reality!

--

Roger Hayter
Lordgnome
2014-10-22 12:28:58 UTC
Permalink
On 22/10/2014 11:42, Brian Morrison wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:28:58 +0100
> Roger Hayter wrote:
>
>> OK, moderation is a form of censorship; so what?
>
> A lot of people are fundamentally opposed to censorship, it's only
> purpose is to distort the message and alter people's knowledge and
> understanding of the true situation.
>

I wonder how many people with say, a five year old daughter would
'fundamentally' object to someone preventing her watching obscene or
grossly violent/frightening films? That is censorship after all.

The good/bad bit relates to the motives for the censorship in any
particular case.

Les.
Brian Morrison
2014-10-22 14:26:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:28:58 +0100
Lordgnome wrote:

> On 22/10/2014 11:42, Brian Morrison wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:28:58 +0100
> > Roger Hayter wrote:
> >
> >> OK, moderation is a form of censorship; so what?
> >
> > A lot of people are fundamentally opposed to censorship, it's only
> > purpose is to distort the message and alter people's knowledge and
> > understanding of the true situation.
> >
>
> I wonder how many people with say, a five year old daughter would
> 'fundamentally' object to someone preventing her watching obscene or
> grossly violent/frightening films? That is censorship after all.

That is parental choice/responsibility in action, if the government
prevents anyone from seeing such things then it is censorship and
wrong-headed.

>
> The good/bad bit relates to the motives for the censorship in any
> particular case.

Yes. FTAOD I did not prevent my children from looking at anything for
themselves but I did tell them that if it disturbed them I was more
than happy to discuss whatever it was with them. I have only been asked
a couple of things and that is since both of them were older than the
age of consent.

--

Brian Morrison
Lordgnome
2014-10-22 15:30:00 UTC
Permalink
On 22/10/2014 15:26, Brian Morrison wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:28:58 +0100
> Lordgnome wrote:
>

>>
>> I wonder how many people with say, a five year old daughter would
>> 'fundamentally' object to someone preventing her watching obscene or
>> grossly violent/frightening films? That is censorship after all.
>
> That is parental choice/responsibility in action, if the government
> prevents anyone from seeing such things then it is censorship and
> wrong-headed.

Ah - so 'parental censorship' is OK then. So what is wrong with someone
electing to join a moderated - i.e. in some way censored, group? It is
their choice. The government is not in question as regards newsgroups
(yet!).

Les.
Spike
2014-10-22 16:12:28 UTC
Permalink
On 22/10/14 11:42, Brian Morrison wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:28:58 +0100
> Roger Hayter wrote:

>> OK, moderation is a form of censorship; so what?

> A lot of people are fundamentally opposed to censorship, it's only
> purpose is to distort the message and alter people's knowledge and
> understanding of the true situation.

That's the exact reason that a secret meeting was convened at the BBC,
with only parties of one view present, that took the decision that the
BBC would only broadcast the case in favour of man-made global warming,
and totally ignore any case that could be made against it. And that they
have done.

Was that 'moderation' or 'censorship'? Was it done for good and
sufficient reason? Did it meet the BBC's Charter?

--
Spike

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by
men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding" - Louis D. Brandeis
Brian Reay
2014-10-22 22:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Brian Morrison <***@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:28:58 +0100
> Roger Hayter wrote:
>
>> OK, moderation is a form of censorship; so what?
>
> A lot of people are fundamentally opposed to censorship, it's only
> purpose is to distort the message and alter people's knowledge and
> understanding of the true situation.


You know as well as I do that those against the new group are playing with
words.
Censorship is much more emotive than moderation, therefore play on the word
Censorship.

None of this would be necessary if those so against the idea could act in a
civilised manner.
gareth
2014-10-23 07:16:13 UTC
Permalink
"Brian Reay" <***@m.com> wrote in message
news:745993286435709802.713094no.sp-***@news.eternal-september.org...
> None of this would be necessary if those so against the idea could act in
> a
> civilised manner.

Are you the same Brian Reay who is currently originating much uncivilised
abuse directed at me over in rraa and ura?
Paul Cummins
2014-10-23 08:03:00 UTC
Permalink
In article
<745993286435709802.713094no.sp-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
***@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:

> None of this would be necessary if those so against the idea could
> act in a civilised manner.

I simply draw your attention to the comments made by this vociferous
supporter of the moderated group in the ukra thread commencing with
Message-ID: <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>

Now we know why ukra is a cesspit, and what this poster considers to be
acceptable behaviour in an unmoderated group.

And this demonstrates exactly why he should never be considered to
moderate ukram if it ever gets past the current pre-coital stage of the
discussion.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Stephen Thomas Cole
2014-10-23 12:48:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:03 +0100 (BST), ***@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article
><745993286435709802.713094no.sp-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
>***@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>> None of this would be necessary if those so against the idea could
>> act in a civilised manner.
>
>I simply draw your attention to the comments made by this vociferous
>supporter of the moderated group in the ukra thread commencing with
>Message-ID: <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>
>
>Now we know why ukra is a cesspit, and what this poster considers to be
>acceptable behaviour in an unmoderated group.
>


What about posting someone's real-life details, like say, address,
telephone number, callsign?


--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone
Stephen Thomas Cole
2014-10-23 13:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Stephen Thomas Cole <***@example.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:03 +0100 (BST), ***@spam.vlaad.co.uk
> (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <745993286435709802.713094no.sp-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> ***@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>>
>>> None of this would be necessary if those so against the idea could
>>> act in a civilised manner.
>>
>> I simply draw your attention to the comments made by this vociferous
>> supporter of the moderated group in the ukra thread commencing with
>> Message-ID: <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>
>>
>> Now we know why ukra is a cesspit, and what this poster considers to be
>> acceptable behaviour in an unmoderated group.
>>
>
>
> What about posting someone's real-life details, like say, address,
> telephone number, callsign?
>

I didn't post this.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone
Steve
2014-10-23 06:57:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:36:31 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

> Brian Morrison <***@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:28:58 +0100 Roger Hayter wrote:
>>
>>> OK, moderation is a form of censorship; so what?
>>
>> A lot of people are fundamentally opposed to censorship, it's only
>> purpose is to distort the message and alter people's knowledge and
>> understanding of the true situation.
>
>
> You know as well as I do that those against the new group are playing
> with words.

Well actually, the question was raised by someone involved in neither
camp but don't let this little fact get in the way.

> Censorship is much more emotive than moderation, therefore play on the
> word Censorship.

Yes, let's use the nice fluffy modern word 'moderation' instead of that
nasty word 'censorship' and it makes all the problems associated with
censorship go away. Now who is playing with words?
Spike
2014-10-22 16:13:00 UTC
Permalink
On 22/10/14 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:

> Usenet moderation is a process of censoring (ok!) particular
> contributions, from a particular discussion group (but *not* from nearby
> groups which remain open!), in this case to remove personal insults and
> excessive straying from the topic (perhaps the latter will be largely
> tolerated, actually).

> To some extent all three are synonym, but the logic:

> Censorship is bad;
> Moderation is censorship;
> Therefore moderation is bad.

> Is only true if one has a particular, pedantic, view that usenet should
> be unconstrained[1], unlike web forums and other types of publication.
> Some people do believe this, but see footnote, but for the majority of
> us saying that censorship is a social evil (which it often is) and
> therefore usenet moderation (but not Facebook moderation!) is evil is
> just dishonest playing with words. After all, editorial control of
> Wikipedia is probably a good thing!

> OK, moderation is a form of censorship; so what?

> [1] However, usenet is already censored by American political police
> and copyright holders - free speech is highly circumscribed even in the
> land of the free, try sending a message of support to IS!

I think you've just undermined your own case.

If the law of the land is 'stronger' than the modpol, why have the
latter at all?

If the modpol is 'stronger' than the T&Cs of the Amateur Licence, what
does that make the former?

It is to restrict further that which is proposed to be said on the
moderated group - and that is 'censorship' no matter what other name
it is given or what pious hopes are expressed about it beforehand.

--
Spike

"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed by-product
of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do"
Paul Cummins
2014-10-22 19:15:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@kalahari.uninhabited.net>, ***@hayter.org
(Roger Hayter) wrote:

> 'Censorship' is usually used of a process where a whole society
> attempts to suppress political, social or artistic ideas by
> forbidding their expression.

Yes - and if you consider an newsgroup to be a "society" and discussion
about the RSGB to be "political ideas" then you can see exactly why
moderation, in that case, is the equivalent of censorship.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ
Roger Hayter
2014-10-22 22:45:04 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, Paul
Cummins <***@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>In article <***@kalahari.uninhabited.net>, ***@hayter.org
>(Roger Hayter) wrote:
>
>> 'Censorship' is usually used of a process where a whole society
>> attempts to suppress political, social or artistic ideas by
>> forbidding their expression.
>
>Yes - and if you consider an newsgroup to be a "society" and discussion
>about the RSGB to be "political ideas" then you can see exactly why
>moderation, in that case, is the equivalent of censorship.
>



But a newsgroup is not a society, it is just a very small part of one.
And an actual society is not going to be significantly affected by what
goes on in one newsgroup. Your analogy simply does not work.
--

Roger Hayter
gareth
2014-10-22 09:39:03 UTC
Permalink
"Robert Smits" <***@rsmits.ca> wrote in message
news:5M2dnRDQpNmYbtvJnZ2dnUVZ5h-***@giganews.com...
>
> Moderation <> Censorship

It is when one of the intending moderators is also the
moderator for the Yahoo group RSCBTech, where
blackballing takes place of anyone who at any time has disagreed
with that moderator.
Chronos
2014-10-22 10:10:23 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:39:03 +0100
"gareth" <***@thank.you.invalid> wrote:

> It is when one of the intending moderators is also the
> moderator for the Yahoo group RSCBTech, where
> blackballing takes place of anyone who at any time has disagreed
> with that moderator.

I think you may be getting your Brians mixed up. Brian Howie and Roger
Hayter are the proposed moderators.
--
Your grandeur passes, and your pageantry,
Your lordships pass, your kingdoms pass; and Time
Disposes wilfully of mortal things.
gareth
2014-10-22 10:14:19 UTC
Permalink
"Chronos" <***@chronos.org.uk> wrote in message
news:***@chronos.eternal-september.org...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:39:03 +0100
> "gareth" <***@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>> It is when one of the intending moderators is also the
>> moderator for the Yahoo group RSCBTech, where
>> blackballing takes place of anyone who at any time has disagreed
>> with that moderator.
>
> I think you may be getting your Brians mixed up. Brian Howie and Roger
> Hayter are the proposed moderators.

Oops!
Chronos
2014-10-22 10:21:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:14:19 +0100
"gareth" <***@thank.you.invalid> wrote:

> "Chronos" <***@chronos.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@chronos.eternal-september.org...
>
> > I think you may be getting your Brians mixed up. Brian Howie and
> > Roger Hayter are the proposed moderators.
>
> Oops!

I suspect Brian Howie will forgive the error. He's a decent chap, as is
Brian Morrison. "There's something in a name" turns out to be about as
valid as numerology ;-)
--
Your grandeur passes, and your pageantry,
Your lordships pass, your kingdoms pass; and Time
Disposes wilfully of mortal things.
gareth
2014-10-22 10:26:50 UTC
Permalink
"Chronos" <***@chronos.org.uk> wrote in message
news:***@chronos.eternal-september.org...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:14:19 +0100
> "gareth" <***@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Chronos" <***@chronos.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:***@chronos.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> > I think you may be getting your Brians mixed up. Brian Howie and
>> > Roger Hayter are the proposed moderators.
>>
>> Oops!
>
> I suspect Brian Howie will forgive the error. He's a decent chap, as is
> Brian Morrison. "There's something in a name" turns out to be about as
> valid as numerology ;-)

BTW, I've just posted over in ura and rraa a pointer to some very good EM
lectures, although I suspect that you as a physicist will find them to be
somewhat elementary!
Brian Howie
2014-10-22 20:47:01 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@chronos.eternal-september.org>,
Chronos <***@chronos.org.uk> writes
>On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:14:19 +0100
>"gareth" <***@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Chronos" <***@chronos.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:***@chronos.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> > I think you may be getting your Brians mixed up. Brian Howie and
>> > Roger Hayter are the proposed moderators.
>>
>> Oops!
>
>I suspect Brian Howie will forgive the error. He's a decent chap, as is
>Brian Morrison. "There's something in a name" turns out to be about as
>valid as numerology ;-)

Indeed I am one of the moderators. No problems, it's not first time
some called Brian has had to deal with a mistaken identity. One has to
look on the bright side.

73 DIJ

--
Brian Howie

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Ian Jackson
2014-10-22 21:06:25 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@b-howie.demon.co.uk>, Brian Howie
<***@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <***@chronos.eternal-september.org>,
>Chronos <***@chronos.org.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:14:19 +0100
>>"gareth" <***@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "Chronos" <***@chronos.org.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:***@chronos.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> > I think you may be getting your Brians mixed up. Brian Howie and
>>> > Roger Hayter are the proposed moderators.
>>>
>>> Oops!
>>
>>I suspect Brian Howie will forgive the error. He's a decent chap, as is
>>Brian Morrison. "There's something in a name" turns out to be about as
>>valid as numerology ;-)
>
>Indeed I am one of the moderators. No problems, it's not first time
>some called Brian has had to deal with a mistaken identity. One has to
>look on the bright side.
>
>73 DIJ

One of the other Brians is being a very naughty boy, and says he is
going to vote NO for 'uk.radio.amateur.moderated', I wonder if he'd be
happier with 'uk.amateur.radio.moderated' - or
'uk.moderated.radio.amateur' - or 'uk.moderated.amateur.radio'?
>

--
Ian
Chronos
2014-10-22 21:31:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:06:25 +0100
Ian Jackson <***@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> One of the other Brians is being a very naughty boy, and says he is
> going to vote NO for 'uk.radio.amateur.moderated', I wonder if he'd
> be happier with 'uk.amateur.radio.moderated' - or
> 'uk.moderated.radio.amateur' - or 'uk.moderated.amateur.radio'?

How is voting according to your conscience "being a very naughty boy"?
Yes, I get the Python reference (and the "bignose" one over the road)
but I'd still like to understand the point you're making. Brian M's
objection to a moderated group is not based on its place in the
hierarchy.

From the same film:

"Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't
need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all
individuals!"

That said, the way this thread is developing, "Blessed are the
cheesemakers." is probably as relevant. And useful.
--
Your grandeur passes, and your pageantry,
Your lordships pass, your kingdoms pass; and Time
Disposes wilfully of mortal things.
Loading...