RFD: rec.woodworking.moderated moderated

In article <Utv%[email protected]>, Mortimer
Schnerd, RN <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't see any need for it either. My filters seem to keep the crap down to
> a
> dull roar.

Most of my filters for rec.woodworking haven't been used for 60 - 90
days. The OT threads are usually clearly labelled as such if I wanted
to filter them out.

So we have a proposal that no one has spoken in favor of, proposed by
two people who have little record on usenet (one who hasn't posted on
rec.woodworking since mid-2002 and one who according to Google has
*never* posted on usenet) and no experience moderating a newsgroup.

I doubt it will even get to a 2nd RFD.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This group is sort of like a bunch
of people with a common interest sitting around the stove in the feed store.
It's not a technical meeting called to address the problem of an unexpected
failure in the static test article.

Sure, the conversation may be weighted toward the common interest, but it will
deviate in all kinds of directions as a normal part of the ebb and flow of a
conversation among friends and the individual thought processes. (That's
assuming, of course, that there are "thought" processes. Some of the stuff I've
seen makes me less than certain about that.)

That's completely normal, natural, and, IMO, to be desired. There is no need
for, nor should there be, an overseer to crack the whip and keep the
conversation limited to the "common interest". If that were the case, I think
you'd find a lot of empty chairs around the stove. I find myself dropping by the
feed store quite frequently. Not necessarily because I need to buy some feed,
but just to see what the guys are up to now.

If there happens to be a group of guys over in the corner arguing about
politics, religion, what's the best computer OS, or showing off the latest
French postcards, it's easy enough to ignore them. And, if there is nobody
talking about anything that interests me, I can run on over the bank, take care
of business, and drop by again later.

If you want to wall off a separate room and put a guard on the door, go ahead,
but I suspect that it's going to be awfully dry, cold, and very boring inside.



Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:30:32 GMT, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:

>I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This group is sort of like a bunch
>of people with a common interest sitting around the stove in the feed store.
>It's not a technical meeting called to address the problem of an unexpected
>failure in the static test article.
>
... snip
>If there happens to be a group of guys over in the corner arguing about
>politics, religion, what's the best computer OS, or showing off the latest
>French postcards, it's easy enough to ignore them. And, if there is nobody
>talking about anything that interests me, I can run on over the bank, take care
>of business, and drop by again later.
>
>If you want to wall off a separate room and put a guard on the door, go ahead,
>but I suspect that it's going to be awfully dry, cold, and very boring inside.
>


Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time. Since it is
*rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
are all doing for fun.

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Mundt
<[email protected]> wrote:

> As for moderation...I think the REAL problem is that
> moderating a news group is a big job under the best circumstances
> and, for a high volume group such as this could well be a
> FULL TIME job. Anybody want to take that on?

That remains the problem with this proposal.We have little or no
information regarding the experience of the proposed moderators, and no
information about the procedures and tools they propose to use in that
moderation.

Until that information is forthcoming, the proposal is worthless, IMO.

And if the information isn't forthcoming reasonably soon, I will
conclude that this proposal's goal was simply to waste people's tiime
and voice a gripe on the part of the proponent rather than a serious
attempt to form a new group.

djb

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:18:34 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I only see one proponent for this proposal. Was there an error?
>> Perhaps the second moderator should be added to the lists of
>> proponents too? It looks unusual that there is only one proponent..
>> but two moderators.
>
... snip
>The *amusing* thing here is that the hostile reactions of the
>rec.woodworking people have me just about ready to bet real money
>that within two years, we'll see a moderated group proposal here
>from them with wide consensus behind it, a la the recent
>screenplays discussion.
>

I wouldn't bet too much money on that joe. :-) I've been a participant
in rec.ww for coming up on 10 years. If you do a google search on "split
the group", you will note that this proposal comes up every now and again
with various discussions pro and con for splitting the group, which has
occasionally included someone calling for a moderated group as well. It's
not that folks on this group are unknowledgeable of the possibilities, this
just hasn't been seen as a needed change.


>Moderated group proposals from out of the blue are somewhat
>unusual, but it's not at all unusual that when they happen, they
>start someone scratching his or her head and saying "Hmmm, why
>not?" And if the traffic figures and other problems quoted are
>at all real, then I'd sorta expect that to happen in this case too.

Not saying it won't happen, but given past history, it seems very
unlikely. Traffic figures are probably realistic, problems quoted are most
likely overstated. Most trollish problems have been resolved through
filters and kill-files.

>
>Joe Bernstein

Dear Woodworkers:

news.groups is for discussions about the creation of new newsgroups.

If you have a comment about whether to create rec.woodworking.moderated
please post it to rec.woodworking and news.groups.

If you have a comment about anything else, please post it to
rec.woodworking only without crossposting it to news.groups.

We have a job to do, and do not need the additional noise from
you crossposting your flamewars here.

Thanks in advance for helping.

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> says...

>The .moderated group was brought up by a non-participant of the
>rec.woodworking newsgroup for unknown reasons. As such, discussing
>that person's non-participation in the group is relevant to the
>discussion.

Actually, the proposed moderator's non-participation in the group is
relevant to the discussion, but the proponent's non-participation
is irrelevant. Iit shouldn't matter who makes the proposal; the
proposal stands or falls on it's own merits. The moderator, on the
other hand, will have total control over the group, and thus discussing
his character, abilities, and commitment is very much on-topic.

Please keep your discussion related to the proposal when you crosspost
to news.groups and please don't crosspost to news.groups when you are
enaging in generalized flaming.

>> If you have a comment about anything else, please post it to
>> rec.woodworking only without crossposting it to news.groups.
>
>> We have a job to do, and do not need the additional noise from
>> you crossposting your flamewars here.
>
>Do you have a FAQ which talks about the foolishness of creating a
>moderated group when the person suggesting same is unlikely to be
>a positive influence in the process?

No, because it doesn't matter who suggests the name.

>That'd be helpful. Serious question - I've seen many groups where
>a .moderated is created by someone with an agenda, and the .moderated
>group languishes and dies because of non-participation.

In those cases, the correct thing to do is to attack the proposal, not
the proponent.

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> says...
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:
>
>>Dave Hinz <[email protected]> says...
>>
>>>The .moderated group was brought up by a non-participant of the
>>>rec.woodworking newsgroup for unknown reasons. As such, discussing
>>>that person's non-participation in the group is relevant to the
>>>discussion.
>>
>>Actually, the proposed moderator's non-participation in the group is
>>relevant to the discussion, but the proponent's non-participation
>>is irrelevant. Iit shouldn't matter who makes the proposal; the
>>proposal stands or falls on it's own merits. The moderator, on the
>>other hand, will have total control over the group, and thus discussing
>>his character, abilities, and commitment is very much on-topic.
>
> If you will check the proposal, the proposed moderator and the proponent
>are one and the same entity; thus the discussion of both is equivalent and
>thus germaine to the topic at hand.

I realize that they are the same person in this case. I was
encouraging the woodworkers to use the correct "this moderator
stinks! vote no!" instead of the incorrect "this proponemt stinks!
vote no!." (note: I have no opinion as to whether the proponent/
moderator actually stinks. I am just advising those wh think he
does.)

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
wrote:

I've given this a little more thought and have the following
observations and opinions:

>RATIONALE: rec.woodworking.moderated
>
>This group is proposed as a moderated global forum for the discussion
>of woodworking topics. The group is a moderated subgroup of
>rec.woodworking (The Wreck, as it is commonly referred to by
>subscribers), which is averaging more than 10,000 posts per month
>in 2004.
>
>Reasons for creating a moderated version of rec.woodworking:
>
>1-To ensure that woodworking remains the only topic of discussion
>
*****************************
/begin hidden agenda

>2-To help divide the traffic of busy newsgroup that is very difficult to keep up with

/end hidden agenda
*****************************
>
>3-To provide a family-safe environment to discuss woodworking topics,
>free of foul language and pornography links
>
>4-To offer woodworkers a higher signal to noise ratio than
>rec.woodworking provides

Basically this is just another way of suggesting "split the wreck," a
proposal that has been suggested many times before and roundly
excoriated each time some self important, know-it-most newbie proposes
it by the regular users of the Wreck. I have no expectations but that
it will be scuttled yet again.

>MODERATOR INFO: rec.woodworking.moderated
>
>Moderator: Susan Welchel <[email protected]>
>Moderator: Vito Kuhn <[email protected]>

Frankly, other than the fact that the proposed moderator(s) apparently
can't keep up with the Wreck traffic (see highlighted area above), I
couldn't care less if they want to take their dolls and...er, start a
new newsgroup. I do think they need to delete all (TM)'ed references,
such as "the Wreck," "jummy wood," and "klown hammer" or any
derivatives or diminuitives in their activities. Most real Wreckers
won't want to have any association with "wreck liters" (TM, here and
now).

>Administrative contact address: <[email protected]>
>
>Article submission address: <[email protected]>

>Proponent: Vito Kuhn <[email protected]>

I suggest an email alias of [email protected] in order to conform
with the "truth in advertising" concept.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

I too dislike moderated newsgroups. Even normally fair moderators can
occasionally act against the best interest of the group (everyone has
his/her own agenda now and then). I can filter out people I don't want to
hear from pretty effectively even with OE. I prefer I have that control
rather than some moderator I don't know and have no way to judge.

Do you really want someone else deciding what you can read? That's what a
moderated Ng is.

If you want that, there are thousands of email lists and forums that are
moderated and the owner/moderator can decide for you what you are allowed to
read, and you will never even know what you might have missed.

"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There are numerous ways to filter out the junk. Many applications
> are very effective. Personally, I dislike moderated groups although
> they might be of value to some people. A moderator may omit posts
> which are actually related to woodworking, and I tend to read
> "slightly off" topic posts (remember the shop dog that passed away?)
> Plus, moderated groups delay posts and I occasionally I appreciate
> quick responses.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:18:31 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, reply-to, is, disabled, to, stop, spam wrote:
>>
>>Gee, and here I was thinking that you might be an incarnation of
>>BAD. I know what a sock puppet is, I'm just not sure that you
>>aren't one. Have fun.
>
> He might be, but he's not BAD -- unless the BADboy changed ISPs, newsservers,
> *and* newsreaders.

...and learned speling and grammar...

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:18:53 -0700, Guy Macon <> wrote:
>
> Dear Woodworkers:
>
> news.groups is for discussions about the creation of new newsgroups.
>
> If you have a comment about whether to create rec.woodworking.moderated
> please post it to rec.woodworking and news.groups.

The .moderated group was brought up by a non-participant of the
rec.woodworking newsgroup for unknown reasons. As such, discussing
that person's non-participation in the group is relevant to the
discussion.

> If you have a comment about anything else, please post it to
> rec.woodworking only without crossposting it to news.groups.

> We have a job to do, and do not need the additional noise from
> you crossposting your flamewars here.

Do you have a FAQ which talks about the foolishness of creating a
moderated group when the person suggesting same is unlikely to be
a positive influence in the process? That'd be helpful. Serious
question - I've seen many groups where a .moderated is created by
someone with an agenda, and the .moderated group languishes and dies
because of non-participation.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:46:45 GMT, Mortimer Schnerd, RN <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>> He might be, but he's not BAD -- unless the BADboy changed ISPs, newsservers,
>>> *and* newsreaders.
>>
>> ...and learned speling and grammar...
>
> "Speling" ?

Somewhere there's a Usenet rule that any message mentioning the spelling of
another poster, must contain at least one spelling error. I figure since
it's got to be there anyway, I'd put it where I knew where it was.

Dave Hinz

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:01:03 +0100, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2004 02:07:06 -0700, [email protected] (VK) wrote:
>
>>We have a total of seven connections.
>
> Unless you live in a real server bunker, I don't see your "seven
> connections" as especially reliable. Where do they run? To the same
> telegraph pole ? Down the same garden path? It's still exposed to
> these same single point failures.

Well, he's got hotmail, and 6 "AOL Free 1000 Hours" CDs, so he's set.
Cut the guy some slack, he's clearly thought this through.

>>There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.
> Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.

Yup. Hell, I've got more computers than that in my workshop.

> What sort of UPS capacity do you have on the house ? And if you did
> lose power / gain a plumbing flood, would you still be interested in
> mod duties ?

Prediction: If by some random chance this actually passes, it'll wither
and die just like every other "I want a moderated group because I can"
group.

> Co-resident moderators just aren't distinguishable moderators from a
> reliability viewpoint, even if they are from the volume aspect.

...and when he gets bored with it, it'll just die, taking up namespace.
Seen it happen for more than a dozen years, over and over and over.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:18:34 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The *amusing* thing here is that the hostile reactions of the
> rec.woodworking people have me just about ready to bet real money
> that within two years, we'll see a moderated group proposal here
> from them with wide consensus behind it, a la the recent
> screenplays discussion.

I'm not familiar with the screenplays discussion, so I hope I'm not making
an obvious point here, but... Yes, it's possible, likely even, that within
a couple of years we'll have another troll infestation and some of the more
motivated, technical, and participating folks in the group will have had
enough to fix it. Right now, the S:N ratio is held good enough by
killfiles and/or a "trollfilter" that one of the members has developed.
The "usual suspect" is away at the moment (...or maybe he's got a webtv
account now...), but he's almost immediately recognizable so that's more
a gnat than a real problem.

So, yes, maybe at some point a moderated group will be appropriate, but
this proposal is at the wrong time, from the wrong person, for the
wrong reasons.

Dave Hinz

On 16 Sep 2004 12:33:29 -0400, DJ Delorie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:
>> >>There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.
>> > Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.
>> Yup. Hell, I've got more computers than that in my workshop.

> Heck, I have more computers than that on my DESK.

Hm, let's see. Depending on if you count the VMWare instance of
Windows that I have running on the Linux box, then yes or no.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:20:57 GMT, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:20:27 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>DJ Delorie wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> >>There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.
>>>> > Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.
>>>> Yup. Hell, I've got more computers than that in my workshop.
>>>
>>> Heck, I have more computers than that on my DESK.
>>
>>Heck, I have more than that in my pockets most of the time.
>
> First liar hasn't got a chance, has he? 8-)

We're just getting started, Tom. Hell, when I was a kid, I used to
_dream_ of only having to carry 4 computers around in my pockets...why,
computers in those days were the size of cars, and we all had an even dozen
of 'em to heft around. 'Course, we had onions tied to our belts in those
days, as was the fashion, ...

On 12 Sep 2004 01:52:40 -0700, [email protected] (VK) wrote:

>I expect to have a nice
>subscriber base, judging from the e-mail support I have been getting
>from likeminded folk.

I don't believe you.

Now you've already admitted to having a secret and undisclosed plot
for at least one extra moderator, selected solely by you and
undisclosed in the RFD, so already I don't regard you as a
particularly open or trustworthy person.

If anyone really _is_ in favour of this proposal, would they please
care to speak up openly ?

In article <[email protected]>,
Old Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
><[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
>......and in reply I say!:
>
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>>If you're going to comment on this thread, please check that your
>>follow-ups are at least x-posted to news.groups, which is the correct
>>place to discuss RFDs. If they're not, then they can tend to get lost
>>from sight of the official process.
>
>I'm not commenting on the thread, so I only post here. How does Don
>Vito manage to send a message to thge wreck, but make it that my reply
>_only_ goes to news.groups?

There is a 'magic incantation' to do that automatically.

Look at the 'full headers' of the original posting.

See the header named "Followup-To:"?

Care to guess what it's purpose is? <grin>

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

>If you're going to comment on this thread, please check that your
>follow-ups are at least x-posted to news.groups, which is the correct
>place to discuss RFDs. If they're not, then they can tend to get lost
>from sight of the official process.

I'm not commenting on the thread, so I only post here. How does Don
Vito manage to send a message to thge wreck, but make it that my reply
_only_ goes to news.groups?
*****************************************************
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.

LRod wrote:
> Did I miss a memo?

Same one everybody did, seems like Vito got a wild hair. Strikes
me like a lousey idea.
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Andy Dingley wrote:
> If you're going to comment on this thread, please check that your
> follow-ups are at least x-posted to news.groups, which is the correct
> place to discuss RFDs. If they're not, then they can tend to get lost
> from sight of the official process.
>
> But yes, it's a lousy idea. I also _really_ don't like the idea of two
> self-appointed moderators who don't even have real email address. One
> is a lurker who has barely posted and the other is completely unknown.
> Why not just call it rec.woodworking.me.me.me ?

I make it a point, with this exception and occas stupidity, to not
x-post. I doubt that this group that Vito is longing for will
ever get off the ground, even ssuming it gets a "yes" vote. He
has managed to miss the point and the ethos of this NG, which
along with RCW is one of the few left that has common decency as a
core value and pleasant give and take as a manner. Take a look at
the wRECk and you see the remnants of the the older porch and
pond. why would we want to give that up for a sterile serving of
pablum. Thanks for catching the extra e BTW. %-)

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Gary Newman wrote:
a bunch of crap

A Google shows you never posted here before. A sock puppet
perhaps?
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Gary Newman wrote:
> lol, thanks for proving my point
> That's right Dave, you are arguing with yourself and now you have outed
> yourself, must be a split personality.
> You obviously have no clue what a sockpuppet is, but if commenting without
> a clue were a crime, several people here would be in jail.
> Get out of ignorance free card, do not pass go, do not get your chisels
> sharpened...
> sock puppet
> n. [Usenet: from the act of placing a sock over
> your hand and talking to it and pretending it's talking back] In
> Usenet parlance, a pseudo through which the puppeteer posts
> follow-ups to their own original message to give the appearance that
> a number of people support the views held in the original message.

Gee, and here I was thinking that you might be an incarnation of
BAD. I know what a sock puppet is, I'm just not sure that you
aren't one. Have fun.
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Doug Miller wrote:
> He might be, but he's not BAD -- unless the BADboy changed ISPs, newsservers,
> *and* newsreaders.

Hi Doug, I figured that HWSNBN might be feeling deprived and have
done just that. Conversley, I have 3 ISP's, 2 OS's and run 4
browsers, depending on what I'm doing. So I don't put it against
anybody else to do the same or even more.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

dave in Fairfax:

> Gary Newman wrote:
> a bunch of crap

lol, thanks for proving my point

> A Google shows you never posted here before. A sock puppet
> perhaps?

That's right Dave, you are arguing with yourself and now you have outed
yourself, must be a split personality.

You obviously have no clue what a sockpuppet is, but if commenting without
a clue were a crime, several people here would be in jail.

Get out of ignorance free card, do not pass go, do not get your chisels
sharpened...

sock puppet

n. [Usenet: from the act of placing a sock over
your hand and talking to it and pretending it's talking back] In
Usenet parlance, a pseudo through which the puppeteer posts
follow-ups to their own original message to give the appearance that
a number of people support the views held in the original message.

Greetings and Salutations....

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:34:52 -0700, Mary Shafer <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:26:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> More seriously, it will be interesting to see if very many respond to
>> this request positively. rec.ww has its own unique flavor, but it is akin
>> to a real-world shop, where people talk about all sorts of things in
>> addition to the wood project de' jour.
>
>I subscribed to rec.woodworking briefly before I retired, looking for
>a post-retirement hobby, and I found the group to be an extremely
>pleasant place, with a charming personality. Very little acrimony,
>too. And helpful to the ignorant (moi). Unless it has changed
>dramatically, I'd think that this request is doomed to failure.
>
>Mary
>
>--
>Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>[email protected]
I have to agree here. Not only is there a fairly
good history of "on topic" postings, but, very few flame
wars (and I have been a part of BOTH). It is generally a
good resource for WW discussion and information.
As for moderation...I think the REAL problem is that
moderating a news group is a big job under the best circumstances
and, for a high volume group such as this could well be a
FULL TIME job. Anybody want to take that on?
Regards
Dave Mundt

I agree that the OTs can be tiresome at times (they are frequently entertaining
too!). On the other hand, moderated groups tend to be stale and die an early
death. I kinda like the picture of a bunch of old codgers (and Mary Schafer,
Juanita too) sitting around the stove at the old hardware store. Things aren't
always on topic or interesting for everyone, but if you listen, you will get
something out of it.

Grant

Bill Rogers wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:26:15 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>If you want to wall off a separate room and put a guard on the door, go ahead,
> >>but I suspect that it's going to be awfully dry, cold, and very boring inside.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
> >argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time.
>
> Not a chance. The same reasons would apply.
>
> >Since it is
> >*rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
> >an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
> >are all doing for fun.
>
> A good point , but the wrong emphasis. Try rec.*woodworking*. Also
> "all doing for fun" [which is just fine] should include "fun for all".
> The objection, mine at least, to OT threads is not so much that they
> are there, but that they are at a point of taking over completely.
> That beer-soaked group in the corner gets louder and louder until
> nobody can hear themselves speak; a subtle, but important difference.
> Trying to find useful information about actual woodworking becomes a
> chore, not a pleasant evening's occupation. Nobody complains when
> sent to a site that holds useful information, and nothing but useful
> information. They point other people there as well, as a good place
> to visit. The reason people complain is because there is something to
> complain about. This becomes not such a good place to visit, so a
> whole lot of potentially good contributors, who simply don't want to
> wade through the crap, are lost in the shuffle.
>
> Bill.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> And if the information isn't forthcoming reasonably soon, I will
> conclude that this proposal's goal was simply to waste people's tiime
> and voice a gripe on the part of the proponent rather than a serious
> attempt to form a new group.

I'm thinking that this "may" have been one of the best trolls
yet. Put it together, an unknown drops in, incites a riot and
disappears. Excellent job, I'd say. Took us all in
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Well, from my standpoint, I think he (Vito)is a CONTROL FREAK! I think
he wants to exert absolute control over those that don't share his
point-of-view. I will stick with the regular Wreck - I have been on (and
off) it for years. I have made some good online wrecker acquaintances
that I wouldn't change for anything - even though we very often disagree
with each other's position. At least on the Old Wreck, one can express
his opinion - a lot like visiting each other's woodshop. While
woodworking is sure the topic of choice, having a Net Nanny that would
kick one of us out for using an F-word, S-word or other innocuous
explanation is an unacceptable choice.

He can go off and form his own group. And then...uh....stay there. And
leave the unadulterated Wreck for men and women with stronger
constitutions...

my .02 worth

Philski

http://www.pacificnet.net/~johnr/cgi/aesop1.cgi?srch&fabl/TheDogintheManger

"Old Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
> <[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
>
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> I agree.
>
> >But yes, it's a lousy idea. I also _really_ don't like the idea of two
> >self-appointed moderators who don't even have real email address. One
> >is a lurker who has barely posted and the other is completely unknown.
> >Why not just call it rec.woodworking.me.me.me ?
>
> *****************************************************
> I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
> am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
> the things I know I am right about.

On 12 Sep 2004 02:07:06 -0700, [email protected] (VK) wrote:

>We have a total of seven connections.

Unless you live in a real server bunker, I don't see your "seven
connections" as especially reliable. Where do they run? To the same
telegraph pole ? Down the same garden path? It's still exposed to
these same single point failures.


>There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.

Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.


What sort of UPS capacity do you have on the house ? And if you did
lose power / gain a plumbing flood, would you still be interested in
mod duties ?

Co-resident moderators just aren't distinguishable moderators from a
reliability viewpoint, even if they are from the volume aspect.

On 11 Sep 2004 01:02:30 -0700, [email protected] (VK) wrote:

>There is nothing wrong with the existing group

Exactly.


Some specific questions:

- Who are you ? You're near invisible from previous postings. Why
should we give moderator status to you of all people, let alone
someone else who we have never heard of at all ? Why has there been
no attempt made to even talk to some of the high volume posters and
see if they would be interested in sharing the moderation task ?

- A hotmail address isn't a convincing technical argument for being
capable of moderating this high volume ng single-handed.

- How _are_ you going to deal with single-handed moderation of a very
large group ?

- How do postings arrive in rec.woodworking.moderated ? Will they
be posted to it, or are you planning to make it a digest of the
existing rec.woodworking traffic ? I can tell you know that you do
_not_ have my agreement to repost any of my postings into this new ng.

- How are you going to exclude the puppy whizzer etc. from a
moderated group ? There is a problem with these fools (best dealt
with by killfiling), but do you think forged moderation is really
beyond the wit of trolls ?


I accept that it's your right as a usenet user to post any deluded RFD
you might wish to. However there seems to be a total absence of any
support for it, and I look forward to the CFV (if any) being
thoroughly defeated.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, Power Tripping Pinhead "Vito Kuhn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Moderation Policy: This newsgroup is moderated the old fashioned
>way, by live human beings. The moderators of the group reserve the
>unconditional right to reject any post if it violates any part of
>the newsgroup charter. All rejections will be at the sole discretion
>of the moderators.

LOL!
Good luck talking to yourselves.
Usenet has enough power tripping netkops without another group run by them.
Go to yahoo and stop wasting our time.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:01:41 +0100, LRod <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated
>
>Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
>>Moderator: Susan Welchel <[email protected]>
>>Moderator: Vito Kuhn <[email protected]>
>
>Did I miss a memo?
>
>

Seems like we have an answer to the question, "Who died and made you
newsgroup monitor?" ;-)

More seriously, it will be interesting to see if very many respond to
this request positively. rec.ww has its own unique flavor, but it is akin
to a real-world shop, where people talk about all sorts of things in
addition to the wood project de' jour.

To summarize: I don't think a new group such as this would be very
interesting, nor a very good idea.


>- -
>LRod
>
>Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
>Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
>http://www.woodbutcher.net

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 19:12:49 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

>In news.groups Gary Newman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Having said all that, I would still oppose a moderated group... there are
>>plenty of web forums for people who want that sort of stuff.
>
>Web forum are not the same as usenet forums. Some folks prefer
>usenet over web forums from a technical standpoint. The issue
>at hand is whether an existing topic space, with existing readership,
>can be made usable (again),

At issue here is whether rec.ww is un-usable (now). I suspect the
concensus, with a few exceptions will be that it is not un-usable as it
currently stands.

>not whether it should be moved off usenet.
>Sometimes, when the readership proves to have too little discipline,
>moderation is the only solution left. Whether it proves to be a
>viable solution can only be determined by trying it (starting with
>whether it can manage to get to a vote).
>
>ru

Tue, Sep 7, 2004, 12:37am (EDT+4) [email protected] (Vito=A0Kuhn)
skipped his meds:
<SNIP>

I bet you'd try to suck the fun out of a rock.



JOAT
A clear case of sub-optimization with respect to the ratio of effort to
enhanced effects.
- Myki

Attaboy: http://www.dailywav.com/0702/attaboy5.wav

[email protected] (VK) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Trying to decide at this point which proposal is worst, this one or te
> > satanism one.
>
> If you are comparing me to a satanist, then you have got a real
> problem. I am a God-fearing Christian. I will not longer reply to
> anyone with such a disrespectful tone.

So, before the new group has even been put to a vote, the proposed
moderator has

(a) demonstrated an inability to understand the content of a
message in plain english--whereas the original poster was merely
comparing two RFDs, the proposed moderator immediately takes personal
offense.

(b) demonstrated an inability to respond impartially--rather than
addressing the comment, he insults the original poster and resolves to
ignore him.

(c) brought off-topic, irrelevant personal details into the
discussion--the fact that he is a "God-fearing Christian" is of no
interest, except to demonstrate potential biases the proposed
moderator will bring with him. Tell me, will posts from Jewish
woodworkers be permitted? What if a black muslim wishes to
participate? Or a (gasp) ATHEIST?

Normally, none of those questions would cross my mind, but from
personal experience, someone who responds to trivial matters by
trumpeting their status as a God-Fearing Christian, what I hear quite
often is someone trumpeting narrow-minded, intolerant bigotry and
hypocrisy.

For what it's worth I'm not particularly opposed to a moderated
woodworking newsgroup, but I wouldn't visit it if it did exist. The
reason is I occasionally enjoy the off topic comments (especially Tom
Watson's stories for example) and the flame wars can go nicely with
lunch too ;) And I'm always looking for a bargain so the occasional
FS and FA postings generate a click from me. They're easily ignored
if I want to and that's okay too.

I prefer rec.woodworking as is and not a watered down version. So,
now that I've blathered on, if you're wanting to know if this is a
vote for, against, or an abstain, since there hasn't been much support
for one (I wouldn't stand in the way) I'll vote no for now.

Thanks,
Mike

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dear Woodworkers:
>
> news.groups is for discussions about the creation of new newsgroups.
>
> If you have a comment about whether to create rec.woodworking.moderated
> please post it to rec.woodworking and news.groups.
>
> If you have a comment about anything else, please post it to
> rec.woodworking only without crossposting it to news.groups.
>
> We have a job to do, and do not need the additional noise from
> you crossposting your flamewars here.
>
> Thanks in advance for helping.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:26:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

> More seriously, it will be interesting to see if very many respond to
> this request positively. rec.ww has its own unique flavor, but it is akin
> to a real-world shop, where people talk about all sorts of things in
> addition to the wood project de' jour.

I subscribed to rec.woodworking briefly before I retired, looking for
a post-retirement hobby, and I found the group to be an extremely
pleasant place, with a charming personality. Very little acrimony,
too. And helpful to the ignorant (moi). Unless it has changed
dramatically, I'd think that this request is doomed to failure.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
[email protected]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Has Don Vito actually posted any other ww stuff here? I lost my
messages a while back, but do not remember much if any input from him.

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated
>
>Newsgroup line:
>rec.woodworking.moderated Woodworking discussion group for all ages. (Moderated)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
>a world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup rec.woodworking.moderated.

*****************************************************
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.

Dave Hinz wrote:
>> He might be, but he's not BAD -- unless the BADboy changed ISPs, newsservers,
>> *and* newsreaders.
>
> ...and learned speling and grammar...


"Speling" ?




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:26:15 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
> argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time. Since it is
> *rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
> an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
> are all doing for fun.
>

FWIW, there's a rash of "RFD yada.yada moderated" this week. I've seen
nearly identcial threads with similar headers in a bunch of different
newsgroups.

Well Said Tom

Tom Watson wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated
>
>
>
> The great beauty of the Wreck is its lack of moderation.
>
> It is an immoderate society of equals without equal.
>
> Your request for discussion will suffer concussion, percussion,
> repercussion - and plain old cussin'.
>
> NetNazis need not apply to the Wreck - The Wreck needs no guidance.
>
> It is as it ever was, a beacon in the darkened sea of UseLessNet,
> shining its weird light on fools and philosophers alike, with no more
> respect for one than the other.
>
> As Wreckers, we will beat on each other but those who are not Wreck
> shall only beat on their empty drums.
>
> Get you along Fisherman, your lures are without attraction and your
> hooks are dull.
>
> You are as a fart in a windstorm, a pimple on the ass of time, a
> baitless barb in a sea of well-fed fishes.
>
> I wish you well
>
> Whatever your agenda
>
> Keep hold of your pudenda
>
> It is your only friend.
>
>
>
> (burma shave)
>
>
> Regards,
> Tom.
>
> Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:14:59 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:44:04 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles
> Krug"@cdksystems.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:26:15 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
>>> argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time. Since it is
>>> *rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
>>> an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
>>> are all doing for fun.
>>>
>>
>>FWIW, there's a rash of "RFD yada.yada moderated" this week. I've seen
>>nearly identcial threads with similar headers in a bunch of different
>>newsgroups.
>
> Just out of curiosity, are the moderators the same?
>

I only glanced after the first two, but they seemed more than a little
similar.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> To summarize: I don't think a new group such as this would be very
> interesting, nor a very good idea.



I don't see any need for it either. My filters seem to keep the crap down to a
dull roar.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

In article <[email protected]>, reply-to, is, disabled, to, stop, spam wrote:
>Gary Newman wrote:
[snipped]
>
>Gee, and here I was thinking that you might be an incarnation of
>BAD. I know what a sock puppet is, I'm just not sure that you
>aren't one. Have fun.

He might be, but he's not BAD -- unless the BADboy changed ISPs, newsservers,
*and* newsreaders.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

dave in Fairfax <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> LRod wrote:
>> Did I miss a memo?
>
> Same one everybody did, seems like Vito got a wild hair. Strikes
> me like a lousey idea.
> Dave in Fairfax

Amen to what Dave & LRod said. Completely civilized is usually boring.

I filter out all kinds of crap in analog life. My own filters. Why should
digital life be any different?

Patriarch

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>
> At issue here is whether rec.ww is un-usable (now). I suspect the
> concensus, with a few exceptions will be that it is not un-usable as
> it currently stands.
>
Those who find currently unusable now are likely taking a break, and may,
or may not, return.

So it goes with most of life's activities. I wish parts of them were more
civilized, too, but nobody really wants me to be the moderator for THAT
forum.

I don't want the job, either.

Patriarch

[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:

> The issue
> at hand is whether an existing topic space, with existing readership,
> can be made usable (again)

You have slightly jumped the gun here, ru. The question of whether
the existing topic space is unusable has not been determined (and
I would say the evidence is that the current group is very usable,
hence the trend to oppose creating a .mod group).

John

Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> --snip--
>
> Just to be OT: Relax, breathe, and read this:
>
>
> Jewish Zen
> ----------
>
<snippage>

Thanks, Larry!

[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:

> I'm waiting to hear from the proponents

I only see one proponent for this proposal. Was there an error? Perhaps the
second moderator should be added to the lists of proponents too? It looks
unusual that there is only one proponent..but two moderators.

--
Bill

[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:

> In news.groups John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>> The issue
>>> at hand is whether an existing topic space, with existing readership,
>>> can be made usable (again)
>
>>You have slightly jumped the gun here, ru. The question of whether
>>the existing topic space is unusable has not been determined (and
>>I would say the evidence is that the current group is very usable,
>>hence the trend to oppose creating a .mod group).
>
> Ultimately, that is what this proposal would determine if it is
> followed through. If there are enough people that vote for it's
> creation, then that would indicate that enough people think the
> existing group is not usable and that the proposed group should
> be created. Basically, that's what matters most, barring
> moderation issues. So in some sense, whether the existing
> group is considered usable or not by a majority is irrelevant.

Well, the wording of your original statement (topic space...
can be made usable) implies the replacement of the current group
with the moderated group (yes, I recognize that the way things
work right now, a true replacement isn't possible). It may not
be obvious to everyone reading this thread that both a mod and
a non-mod group can exist in parallel.

With both groups potentially existing, two questions arise: firstly,
would the new .mod group attract enough readership to be viable (and,
as you say, the vote will reveal that; I suspect the answer will be
no, but we shall see); and secondly if the proposed moderators
understand and are capable of doing what they propose (which I do
not beleive to be the case, and on which grounds I'll vote no if
the proposal reaches a CFV).

John

DJ Delorie <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>> >>There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.
>> > Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.
>> Yup. Hell, I've got more computers than that in my workshop.
>
> Heck, I have more computers than that on my DESK.

I don't see why they would need more than two computers (one primary, and
one for backup) to perform moderation duties, given that their software
runs in an IE window. Technically, one computer and the WebTV would
probably be enough.

--
Bill

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:37:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Most trollish problems have been resolved through
>filters and kill-files.

Moderators don't kill trolls, killfiles do ?


(with apologies to Newport's finest)

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:33:52 -0400, [email protected] (J T) wrote:

>Tue, Sep 7, 2004, 12:37am (EDT+4) [email protected] (Vito Kuhn)
>skipped his meds:
><SNIP>
>
> I bet you'd try to suck the fun out of a rock.
>

Simple, succinct, eloquent -- I love it! :-)

Much better than the wordy response I came up with.

>
>
>JOAT
>A clear case of sub-optimization with respect to the ratio of effort to
>enhanced effects.
>- Myki
>
>Attaboy: http://www.dailywav.com/0702/attaboy5.wav

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:20:27 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>>
>> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:
>>> >>There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.
>>> > Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.
>>> Yup. Hell, I've got more computers than that in my workshop.
>>
>> Heck, I have more computers than that on my DESK.
>
>Heck, I have more than that in my pockets most of the time.


First liar hasn't got a chance, has he? 8-)


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:01:41 +0100, LRod <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated
>>
>>Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>>
>>
>>>Moderator: Susan Welchel <[email protected]>
>>>Moderator: Vito Kuhn <[email protected]>
>>
>>Did I miss a memo?
>>
>>
>
>
> Seems like we have an answer to the question, "Who died and made you
> newsgroup monitor?" ;-)
>
> More seriously, it will be interesting to see if very many respond to
> this request positively. rec.ww has its own unique flavor, but it is akin
> to a real-world shop, where people talk about all sorts of things in
> addition to the wood project de' jour.
>
> To summarize: I don't think a new group such as this would be very
> interesting, nor a very good idea.
>
>
>
>>- -
>>LRod
>>
>>Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>>
>>Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>>
>>http://www.woodbutcher.net
>
>

This is right up there with the censorship pushed through by a bunch of
idiots that controls political ads by citizens within 30-60 days of anelection.

In news.groups Gary Newman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Having said all that, I would still oppose a moderated group... there are
>plenty of web forums for people who want that sort of stuff.

Web forum are not the same as usenet forums. Some folks prefer
usenet over web forums from a technical standpoint. The issue
at hand is whether an existing topic space, with existing readership,
can be made usable (again), not whether it should be moved off usenet.
Sometimes, when the readership proves to have too little discipline,
moderation is the only solution left. Whether it proves to be a
viable solution can only be determined by trying it (starting with
whether it can manage to get to a vote).

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

In news.groups John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:

>> The issue
>> at hand is whether an existing topic space, with existing readership,
>> can be made usable (again)

>You have slightly jumped the gun here, ru. The question of whether
>the existing topic space is unusable has not been determined (and
>I would say the evidence is that the current group is very usable,
>hence the trend to oppose creating a .mod group).

Ultimately, that is what this proposal would determine if it is
followed through. If there are enough people that vote for it's
creation, then that would indicate that enough people think the
existing group is not usable and that the proposed group should
be created. Basically, that's what matters most, barring
moderation issues. So in some sense, whether the existing
group is considered usable or not by a majority is irrelevant.

It doesn't hurt to have an idea of what the consensus is beforehand,
but generally that's to gauge what to write in the proposal
rather than if the proposal should go forward. In the face of
great opposition, yes, a proponent may consider withdrawing.
But I don't consider lack of interest or lack of need to be
adequate reasons to oppose a proposal... lack of YES votes should
take care of that. When I say opposition, I mean views along the
lines of the proposed group adversely affecting the readership of
the proposed group because of the way the proposal is composed,
or will adversely affect existing groups. Generally, if there
is a segment of usenet readers that want a group to read about
a topic with more focus or specialization, then opposers should
seriously consider if they are trying to prevent others from
creating a group of their own, and why. The converse is also
true, though; supporters should also seriously consider if they
are trying to help others get their group or help themselves
get their group (the former isn't really appropriate, while the
latter is), and why.

Having said all that, I'm waiting to hear from the proponents
about the moderation issues, because I think that will be their
stumbling block.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

In article <[email protected]>,
Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

> I only see one proponent for this proposal. Was there an error?
> Perhaps the second moderator should be added to the lists of
> proponents too? It looks unusual that there is only one proponent..
> but two moderators.

There's nothing unusual about proponent and moderator lists differing.
Proponents are people who are involved in crafting an RFD and a CFV,
and who at least in theory actively collaborate in pushing the
proposal on news.groups, *and* in assessing comments on the proposal
(whether on news.groups, in e-mail, or elsewhere) and considering
possible changes.

Moderators are people who, well, moderate newsgroups. They decide
whether to post posts, and they have various other jobs depending
on circumstances. But they rarely act as text editors or salesmen,
which are the two basic jobs proponents have. (Especially if you
think of "salesmen" in a relatively sophisticated way. I've worked
at industrial companies where a salesman might be involved in going
back to the plant people and saying "OK, can we do this? If so,
what can I tell them about specifications and ...")

Now, in *this* case, it's pretty obvious that the only salesman
involved is the official proponent, so he's the only one who should
be listed. Text editing is more complicated, because moderators do
after all have to live with what the proponents write; but the
other moderator candidate could be text editing behind the scenes.
It is also possible that she doesn't exist, although that's not my
read of the proponent's character based on his posts so far.
Whatever. The unusual thing here is a moderated group proposal
with so little artillery behind it, not the details of which names
appear where on the RFD.

The *amusing* thing here is that the hostile reactions of the
rec.woodworking people have me just about ready to bet real money
that within two years, we'll see a moderated group proposal here
from them with wide consensus behind it, a la the recent
screenplays discussion.

Moderated group proposals from out of the blue are somewhat
unusual, but it's not at all unusual that when they happen, they
start someone scratching his or her head and saying "Hmmm, why
not?" And if the traffic figures and other problems quoted are
at all real, then I'd sorta expect that to happen in this case too.

Assuming, of course, that the proponent doesn't snatch victory
from the jaws of defeat and actually a) pass a vote and b) get a
working group set up. I'm not ready to bet real money on either
of *those* propositions, though.

Joe Bernstein

--
Joe Bernstein, bookseller and writer [email protected]
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/>

In news.groups Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:18:34 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I only see one proponent for this proposal. Was there an error?
>>> Perhaps the second moderator should be added to the lists of
>>> proponents too? It looks unusual that there is only one proponent..
>>> but two moderators.
>>
>... snip
>>The *amusing* thing here is that the hostile reactions of the
>>rec.woodworking people have me just about ready to bet real money
>>that within two years, we'll see a moderated group proposal here
>>from them with wide consensus behind it, a la the recent
>>screenplays discussion.
>
> I wouldn't bet too much money on that joe. :-) I've been a participant
>in rec.ww for coming up on 10 years. If you do a google search on "split
>the group", you will note that this proposal comes up every now and again
>with various discussions pro and con for splitting the group, which has
>occasionally included someone calling for a moderated group as well. It's
>not that folks on this group are unknowledgeable of the possibilities, this
>just hasn't been seen as a needed change.

Actually, those are just the kinds of conditions that seem to suggest
what Joe is predicting. If a group regularly goes through discussions
of splits, there's a higher than usual chance that it's headed towards
a split or some sort of reorg. The fact that someone actually went as
far as submitting and RFD, just bumps the probabilities even higher,
or the timeline that much closer, for the event being realized.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

DJ Delorie wrote:

>
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:
>> >>There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.
>> > Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.
>> Yup. Hell, I've got more computers than that in my workshop.
>
> Heck, I have more computers than that on my DESK.

Heck, I have more than that in my pockets most of the time.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

> one of the few left that has common decency as a
> core value and pleasant give and take as a manner.

ha ha, that's funny

This group is one of the most intolerant groups that I frequent. RW is
having a lull at the moment since some of the worst are away, but this
group has zero tolerance for disagreement and our esteemed cabinetmaker
ret. was one of the worst.

On top of that, there are a percentage of idiots here who just cannot help
but respond to every spam, OT and troll post that comes through.

The only way to stomach this place for more than a few days is heavy use
of filters and killfiles.

Having said all that, I would still oppose a moderated group... there are
plenty of web forums for people who want that sort of stuff.

On 8 Sep 2004 20:04:03 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:


>
>Do you have a FAQ which talks about the foolishness of creating a
>moderated group when the person suggesting same is unlikely to be
>a positive influence in the process? That'd be helpful. Serious
>question - I've seen many groups where a .moderated is created by
>someone with an agenda, and the .moderated group languishes and dies
>because of non-participation.
>

Well there is not one FAQ that says foolish as I recall, however there
are two FAQs that discuss moderated groups.

http://www.swcp.com/~dmckeon/mod-faq.html

http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html

also in my sig is a link to n.g FAQ, that points to creation process
in the big-8

Hopes this helps some.

--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:06:50 GMT, dave in Fairfax <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Strikes me like a lousey idea.

If you're going to comment on this thread, please check that your
follow-ups are at least x-posted to news.groups, which is the correct
place to discuss RFDs. If they're not, then they can tend to get lost
from sight of the official process.

But yes, it's a lousy idea. I also _really_ don't like the idea of two
self-appointed moderators who don't even have real email address. One
is a lurker who has barely posted and the other is completely unknown.
Why not just call it rec.woodworking.me.me.me ?

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated


The great beauty of the Wreck is its lack of moderation.

It is an immoderate society of equals without equal.

Your request for discussion will suffer concussion, percussion,
repercussion - and plain old cussin'.

NetNazis need not apply to the Wreck - The Wreck needs no guidance.

It is as it ever was, a beacon in the darkened sea of UseLessNet,
shining its weird light on fools and philosophers alike, with no more
respect for one than the other.

As Wreckers, we will beat on each other but those who are not Wreck
shall only beat on their empty drums.

Get you along Fisherman, your lures are without attraction and your
hooks are dull.

You are as a fart in a windstorm, a pimple on the ass of time, a
baitless barb in a sea of well-fed fishes.

I wish you well

Whatever your agenda

Keep hold of your pudenda

It is your only friend.



(burma shave)


Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:26:15 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>If you want to wall off a separate room and put a guard on the door, go ahead,
>>but I suspect that it's going to be awfully dry, cold, and very boring inside.
>>
>
>
> Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
>argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time.

Not a chance. The same reasons would apply.

>Since it is
>*rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
>an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
>are all doing for fun.

A good point , but the wrong emphasis. Try rec.*woodworking*. Also
"all doing for fun" [which is just fine] should include "fun for all".
The objection, mine at least, to OT threads is not so much that they
are there, but that they are at a point of taking over completely.
That beer-soaked group in the corner gets louder and louder until
nobody can hear themselves speak; a subtle, but important difference.
Trying to find useful information about actual woodworking becomes a
chore, not a pleasant evening's occupation. Nobody complains when
sent to a site that holds useful information, and nothing but useful
information. They point other people there as well, as a good place
to visit. The reason people complain is because there is something to
complain about. This becomes not such a good place to visit, so a
whole lot of potentially good contributors, who simply don't want to
wade through the crap, are lost in the shuffle.

Bill.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:06:50 GMT, dave in Fairfax <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Strikes me like a lousey idea.
>
>If you're going to comment on this thread, please check that your
>follow-ups are at least x-posted to news.groups, which is the correct
>place to discuss RFDs. If they're not, then they can tend to get lost
>from sight of the official process.
>
>But yes, it's a lousy idea. I also _really_ don't like the idea of two
>self-appointed moderators who don't even have real email address. One
>is a lurker who has barely posted and the other is completely unknown.
>Why not just call it rec.woodworking.me.me.me ?

I think we may just get an answer to the burning question "what if
they made a whiney net-nanny's group and nobody came?"


Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." - Lily Tomlin

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:44:04 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles
Krug"@cdksystems.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:26:15 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Very well said. If this was pro.woodworking I think one could make the
>> argument that all inquiries should be on-topic all the time. Since it is
>> *rec*.woodworking, the wide-ranging ideas and backgrounds of the group form
>> an important part of the group dynamic. After all, this is something we
>> are all doing for fun.
>>
>
>FWIW, there's a rash of "RFD yada.yada moderated" this week. I've seen
>nearly identcial threads with similar headers in a bunch of different
>newsgroups.

Just out of curiosity, are the moderators the same?

/end hint of agenda

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:43:54 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <[email protected]>
wrote:

>You don't define "foul" language.

I suggest Googling some not-too-distant thread in rec.wood There
_have_ been problems with troll attacks from Puppy Wizard, the forged
anti-JOAT, and even our own pet buffoon BAD (who is at least genuinely
interested in woodworking). No-one is supporting these, or would
oppose any real means to avoid them. As an empirical definition of
"foul", just take a look.

But that's not what moderation does. Moderation is easily defeated by
the deliberate troll. Moderation's main target is the OT posting and
that can be all too subjective.

I don't _want_ Christian flamewars in rec.woodworking, and there have
been a few. You can't kf these posters, because they're genuine
posters in an OT thread. On the whole I'd rather it didn't happen, and
I rarely comment myself (and hopefully in a fairly objective and
even-handed manner when I have done so). Likewise Bush/Kerry. It's
not a big problem though (the volume just isn't - get over it) and
it's a very small price to pay for the atmosphere of the group.

What's "woodworking" anyway ? I really wouldn't want to see
large-scale crossposts from alt.home-repair or uk.d-i-y. So far the
moderation guidelines appear to permit this.

I don't know if rec.wood has a spam problem. The servers I use, rent
from or own have spam-clean feeds anyway.


Of the huge number of Usenet groups I read and post to (I Have No
Life), rec.woodworking is just about the least broken. Why fix it ?

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:58:47 -0700, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:

>
>--snip--
>
>Just to be OT: Relax, breathe, and read this:
>
>
>Jewish Zen
>----------
>
<snip>

Love it!

It's strange, 'though....I never knew before that I'm Jewish.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

>Moderator: Susan Welchel <[email protected]>
>Moderator: Vito Kuhn <[email protected]>

Did I miss a memo?


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:01:41 +0100, LRod
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated
>
>Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Ditto.

Every moderated NG I've seen either stunk or died when the moderator
lost interest. They were all slow to post, reminding me of the old
Fidonet groups.

Has this "Vito" ever posted here about woodworking?

I also don't see how eBay and For Sale posts for tools or equipment
are hurting this group. Maybe Vito can be the king of his own Yahoo
group.

I prefer self-moderation. Filters and proxies are available for free
if someone wants them. Heck, Robert B. even graciously writes proxy
rules for those who can't or don't want to! <G>

Barry

There are numerous ways to filter out the junk. Many applications
are very effective. Personally, I dislike moderated groups although
they might be of value to some people. A moderator may omit posts
which are actually related to woodworking, and I tend to read
"slightly off" topic posts (remember the shop dog that passed away?)
Plus, moderated groups delay posts and I occasionally I appreciate
quick responses.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:00:04 -0700, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com>
wrote:

>Dave Hinz <[email protected]> says...
>
>>The .moderated group was brought up by a non-participant of the
>>rec.woodworking newsgroup for unknown reasons. As such, discussing
>>that person's non-participation in the group is relevant to the
>>discussion.
>
>Actually, the proposed moderator's non-participation in the group is
>relevant to the discussion, but the proponent's non-participation
>is irrelevant. Iit shouldn't matter who makes the proposal; the
>proposal stands or falls on it's own merits. The moderator, on the
>other hand, will have total control over the group, and thus discussing
>his character, abilities, and commitment is very much on-topic.

If you will check the proposal, the proposed moderator and the proponent
are one and the same entity; thus the discussion of both is equivalent and
thus germaine to the topic at hand.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:13:53 +0000, B a r r y wrote:

> Has this "Vito" ever posted here about woodworking?

According to Google Groups, our pal Vito posted fairly regularly
throughout the first half of '02, then disappeared. Mysteriously on Sept 4
a handful of utterly contentless posts (much like this one) appeared with
his name.

As far as I can tell, Susan Welchel has never posted here.

Good luck, Vito, old boy. I'll be staying right here if you don't mind.

--
Joe Wells

--snip--

Just to be OT: Relax, breathe, and read this:


Jewish Zen
----------

Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated,
already?

Wherever you go, there you are. Your luggage, another story.

Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then
what
do you have? Bupkes!

Be patient and achieve all things. Be impatient and achieve all
things
faster.

There is no escaping karma. In a previous life, you never called, you
never wrote, you never visited. And whose fault was that?

The Buddha taught that one should practice loving kindness to all
sentient beings. Still, would it kill you to find a nice sentient
being
who happens to be Jewish?

Let your mind be as a floating cloud. Let your stillness be as the
wooded glen. And sit up straight. You'll never meet the Buddha with
such round shoulders!

To practice Zen and the art of Jewish motorcycle maintenance, do the
following: Get rid of the motorcycle. What were you thinking??

Drink tea and nourish life. With the first sip, joy. With the
second,
satisfaction. With the third, Danish.

If there is no self, whose arthritis is this?

Be aware of your perceptions. Be aware of your body. But not every
physical sensation is a symptom of a terminal illness.

To find the Buddha, look within. Deep inside you are ten thousand
flowers. Each flower blossoms ten thousand times. Each blossom has
ten
thousand petals. You might want to see a specialist.

The Tao has no expectations. The Tao demands nothing of others. The
Tao does not speak. The Tao does not blame. The Tao does not take
sides. The Tao is not Jewish.

Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this and
attaining Enlightenment will be the least of your problems.

--
Guns don't kill people. Rappers do!
-----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Rap-free Website Development

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message

>
> Thanks in advance for helping.
>


OK, I'll help. If someone wants to have a moderated woodworking
newsgroup,.let them. There are thousands of useless (IMO) groups that I
don't participate in. I would not participate in a moderated newsgroup of
any subject. Moderation ranks right up there with book burning. I don't
like censorship in my conversations.

I'll just continue using rec.woodworking as in the past.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:06:50 GMT, dave in Fairfax <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Strikes me like a lousey idea.
>
<snip>
>
>But yes, it's a lousy idea. I also _really_ don't like the idea of two
>self-appointed moderators who don't even have real email address. One
>is a lurker who has barely posted and the other is completely unknown.
>Why not just call it rec.woodworking.me.me.me ?

Barely posted is right. DAGS of Groups and Web shows nothing except
the current proposal.

I too think the idea is a non-starter.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wgoffeney/Woodworking/Woodworking.htm

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

> If you will check the proposal, the proposed moderator and the proponent
>>are one and the same entity; thus the discussion of both is equivalent and
>>thus germaine to the topic at hand.
>
> I realize that they are the same person in this case.  I was
> encouraging the woodworkers to use the correct "this moderator
> stinks! vote no!" instead of the incorrect "this proponemt stinks!
> vote no!."  (note: I have no opinion as to whether the proponent/
> moderator actually stinks.  I am just advising those wh think he
> does.)

OTOH, most of the woodworkers are unlikely to be interested in the
exact workings of newsgroup creation. In this case, it is likely
to confuse matters by adding a irrelevant point (ie that the
proponant's character is unimportant), when the proponant's character
does matter because he is a proposed moderator.

Don't forget, Guy, that people who hang round news.groups are much
more interested in the process of creating groups then the people
who don't. Those other people aren't going to be tested on their
knowledge of the exact format of newsgroup creation.

PS I'm posting from news.groups.

--
Penny Gaines
Usenetting since 1993

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:55:17 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:


>>>Having said all that, I would still oppose a moderated group... there are
>>>plenty of web forums for people who want that sort of stuff.

Sorry I missed the original posting. However, I have major problems
with a moderated group. The moderator sits on a very high horse.
Having no other choice, I'd rather put up with the B.S. that is easily
filtered out as the alternative. A good newsreader allows you to list
according to headers in the same thread, so they are all lumped
together, and readily deleted.

That said, the OT posters are still the most ignorant people I have
ever had the displeasure to meet. They are totally arrogant and
self-serving, and common courtesy is not in their vocabulary. There
is no need for them to post completely OT, even if labelled as such.
They do it, like little children and spammers, simply to show that
they can. It shows clearly their mentality. If they had more than
one brain cell between them they'd be able to form their own
discussion group elsewhere. That done, there'd be a lot more decent
people posting relevant topics for discussion, making this newsgroup
what it should be; informative about woodworking.

So, no moderation, but those responsible for the OT crap should know
that they are seen to be as stupid and ignorant as they make
themselves out to be. Now watch for their intelligent replies.

Bill.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I agree.

>But yes, it's a lousy idea. I also _really_ don't like the idea of two
>self-appointed moderators who don't even have real email address. One
>is a lurker who has barely posted and the other is completely unknown.
>Why not just call it rec.woodworking.me.me.me ?

*****************************************************
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:
> >>There are 4 computers and a WebTV on the property.
> > Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.
> Yup. Hell, I've got more computers than that in my workshop.

Heck, I have more computers than that on my DESK.