Moderated group thought.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:22:09 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>>
>> 1) Because moderation isn't a good idea
>>
>
>I'm seeing about 50/50 on that opinion.

if you're seeing as high as 50% for moderation, it's because those who
feel it's their mission in life to control others are vocal WAAAAAAAY
beyond true percentage.



> I can see the pros and cons. This
>isn't a group I'll probably be on for a long time, so it really isn't my
>place. I was just making a suggestion.
>
>
>> 2) Because of a _huge_ bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
>> America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
>> from ourselves. There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
>> mostly over the way he went about it. It's a very touchy subject now.
>>
>
>I'm sorry to hear that. It figures I would put my foot in my mouth the first
>time here. I was just trying to be helpful.
>
>> If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
>> "fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals. Not
>> a thing in it.
>
>Obviously his idea was not something that had a lot of support. In fact I
>don't see why he went ahead with it knowing no one would follow him.

I guess he figured GOD would force all of us to do things Vito's way.
after all, Vito is god's chosen one....



>
>The best intentions pave the road to hell and all.
>
>Wanda
>

I'd have to agree with Robatoy on the crunchy/smooth debate. Tom

Unmoderated crunchy for me. Archived, too. Tom

Wanda Pangborn wrote:

......a buncha net nanny horse shit.

I SAY:

Moderation is for pussies. Learn how to use a fucking killfile.

Advice for the day.

Boy am I in trouble.... I like smooth & salty peanut butter!


Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
> > So is Jif. Q: WTF do you need sugar in a jar of crushed peanuts?
> > A: To make kids want it, make dentists rich, and to piss off parents
> > and anyone else who is health-minded.
>
> Then there is my other all-time favourite. Take out the peanut oil (more
> valuable), put vegetable oil back in. Read the label on Kraft peanut
> butter..... and gobs of salt too.

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> 1) Because moderation isn't a good idea
> >
> >With all due respect Andy,
>
> You've never shown any respect for anyone else in any of this fiasco.
> You are a nasty little egotist, trying to carve out some piece of a
> community that's already working fine, just so that you can lord it over
> your own personal dominion. Worst of all, you don't even contribute to
> the group - your interest is that of the control freak, not the
> woodworker.
>
> > that's just YOUR OPINION.
>
> Of course - that's why I sign the posts. I usually write far too
> verbosely, so if I drop the matter in a single line, then you might well
> assume that I see it as an issue that's really not useful to discuss
> further. There are arguments both for and against, you can guess which I
> support. I respect the views of anyone who thinks differently, I just
> happen to despise you and your methods.
>
> >I never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated.
>
> Yes you did. Repeatedly. When that little dose of megalomania was
> slapped down you then switched to creating new moderated groups, then
> finally your pathetic little attempt at building your own private troll
> reserve.

Andy's correct, though a little harsh (only a little) in expression.

I hope you're pleased with yourself Wanda. There we were, all quiet and
peaceful, and then YOU pipe up and whisper "Psst. Moderate?" and then
all freakin hell breaks loose.

I just hope you're satisfied with all the damage you've caused. Just
LOOK what you've done. My, my, MY. Your friends over at plus-sized
communist agitators must be pret-ty proud of you.

E. Allen's ghost wrote:
.
> >
>
> If you wanted to try and get a moderated woodworking group started
> again, I'd certainly read it. I'm sure other people would too. I
> don't see why you have to go along with consensus on this since it
> doesn't directly affect this group.

He doesn't, but...there are, and have been for some time, other
woodworking newsgroups that are moderated. They do quite well. I'm most
familiar with woodcentral.com, and Ellis Walentine has both the
experience and talent to do a good job there. He was also smart enough
to get together with a bunch of capable people at the outset some years
ago.

Vito simply tried to entice as many people here into a moderated NG run
by him and his girlfriend, emphasizing Christianity more than
woodworking, after he was unable to turn this NG into a moderated unit.

That pissed numerous people off, so he's out there by himself now,
which may be what he deserves. Or not. It is what he's got, possibly as
a lesson on why not to jerk other people around too much.

Communists! All of you! You all hate america! You kids get the hell
outta my yard! I'm callin the cops, right now!

I mean, it, I'm dialing RIGHT NOW! See? Here I am, dialing. Now you're
gonna get it, you commie agitators. You and your plus-size moderations.
In MY day we didn't have any moderation, and we all got mad and every
discussion turned into chaos and we LIKED it. What's wrong with you
kids today.

else24 wrote: I hope you're pleased with yourself Wanda. There we were,
all quiet and
peaceful, and then YOU pipe up and whisper "Psst. Moderate?" and then
all freakin hell breaks loose.
"All freakin
hell?" I'll admit, this thread is huge, but spirited. Perhaps even
cathartic. Tom

There is one simple rule to follow to clean up usenet via moderation.

Ban personal attacks.

I would go with a warning system. First offense is a warning. Second
offense is 24-hour timeout. Third offense is a one-week timeout.
Beyond that, we look at permanent bans.

Personal attacks are what drag down any forum. If you ban the
practice, you force people to respect each other and engage on an
intellectual level. You can say what you want, but a personal attack
is out of bounds.

As it is, I block/killfile/ignore people who use them on my own. They
aren't worth my time.

Daedalus wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:32:20 -0700, [email protected], wrote:
>
> >On 18 Nov 2005 05:38:16 -0800, "BGP" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>There is one simple rule to follow to clean up usenet via moderation.
> >>
> >>Ban personal attacks.
> >>
> >>I would go with a warning system. First offense is a warning. Second
> >>offense is 24-hour timeout. Third offense is a one-week timeout.
> >>Beyond that, we look at permanent bans.
> >>
> >>Personal attacks are what drag down any forum. If you ban the
> >>practice, you force people to respect each other and engage on an
> >>intellectual level. You can say what you want, but a personal attack
> >>is out of bounds.
> >>
> >>As it is, I block/killfile/ignore people who use them on my own. They
> >>aren't worth my time.
> >
> >
> >so who decides what constitutes a personal attack?
>
> The usenet council of cultural revolution.
Consult with Dr. Flonkerstein, AUK's very own 'tight-assed' circle
jerker.

Sincerely, the Raving Loonie ( Flonken's self-admitted {{{Wank}}} toi )
---
Always a pleasure to jerk around the idiotic, Dr. Flonkenstein.
Wank, wank, flonk, flonk ..

>
> Jade

The idea is not to force any one person to show respect. The idea is
to get rid of people that launch personal attacks.

The definition of a personal attack is simple.

1. Anything that attacks someone on a personal level. This includes
dragging someone's personal life, habits, mannerisms, level of
intelligence etc. into the conversation. Do that and you are gone.
Period. The goal is to force people to engage on an INTELLECTUAL
level.

2. Continuing to attack an opinion on a personal level without backing
it up. "That idea is stupid" is just as bad as "you are stupid".

Without this rule in place, People flame, stop listening, stop sharing
ideas, and it becomes a total waste of time. You drive people who want
a serious discussion away, and every thread, newsgroup and forum is
reduced to "comedy hour" where the goal is to be the biggest jackarse.

Facism is when you ban specific viewpoints altogether. I'm only saying
to ban a specific style of expressing your viewpoint - a childish one.
The content of one's arguement is not under attack at all here. If
anything, I'm saying ban those who attack without -any- content in
their arguements whatsoever.

Wanda Pangborn wrote in rec.woodworking:

> Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned
> earlier. Why don't you guys moderate your group?

Piss off. We don't need no stinkin' moderator.

Dave Hinz wrote in rec.woodworking:

> True, we don't, but no reason to be rude to the lady. It's not like
> she's in cahoots with Vito and wazzername, far as we know. No reason
> to assume the worst, she had an honest question and asked it.

The least she could have done would have been to begin the subject line
with "OT".

Howdy!

In article <151120051631526498%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Wanda Pangborn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>
>It is not possible to change the moderation status of a news group in
>the "Big 8", which rec.woodworking is part of.
>
Just as important, there was a detailed post in news.groups just the
other day that spoke of the many issues involved in establishing a
moderated newsgroup.

The executive summary is "it's a bucket load of work for you and your
team, and it isn't necessarily a good idea, either".

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
[email protected] | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://whitewolfandphoenix.com

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:22:12 +0000, Loco-Motiv <[email protected]> wrote:

Moderated is good, only neo-con can post whatever
pleases them.

>Wanda Pangborn wrote:
>
>......a buncha net nanny horse shit.
>
>I SAY:
>
>Moderation is for pussies. Learn how to use a fucking killfile.
>
>Advice for the day.

William D wrote in rec.woodworking:

> Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > On 15 Nov 2005 23:12:09 GMT, William D <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > *But* Russ Allbery recently announced his intention to resign from
> > > Big 8 administration by next October. He will be replaced by a new
> > > committee of ordinary Usenet posters.
> >
> > I wonder if Vito will apply ?
> >
> > <shudder>
>
> You mean Vito Kuhn? He did.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/a3bf2ba22c2c42db
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/78f59a941c51fbed

Vito might actually become one of the people to make the rules for rec
groups? DEATH OF USENET - FILM AT 11 if a censorious creep like him
gets in there.

In article <[email protected]>,
Wanda Pangborn <[email protected]> wrote:

> Why don't you guys moderate your group?

It is not possible to change the moderation status of a news group in
the "Big 8", which rec.woodworking is part of.

djb

--
"I'm a man, but I can change... If I have to... I guess." -- Red Green

In article <[email protected]>,
William D <[email protected]> wrote:

> But* Russ Allbery recently announced his intention to resign from
> Big 8 administration by next October. He will be replaced by a new
> committee of ordinary Usenet posters.

Nobody knows what will replace the nan mods.

The scene in news.groups is a mess right now, and personally I have no
faith things will get sorted out to *anybody's* satisfaction the way in
any foreseeable future.

--
"I'm a man, but I can change... If I have to... I guess." -- Red Green

In article <[email protected]>, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:

> If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
> "fam.woodworking"

It's not moderated...

--
"I'm a man, but I can change... If I have to... I guess." -- Red Green

In article <[email protected]>, Vito Kuhn
<[email protected]> wrote:

> My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
> invasion.

Bullshit. There was never any serious traffic from the start. I know. I
peeked.

--
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a
well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy
free health care and 100 percent literacy." -- John Derbyshire

In article <[email protected]>, Vito Kuhn
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Supernews did the right thing and blocked the cross posts to the fam.*
> hierarchy from your view. I have over 600 abusive messages archived. 600
> messages spread out over weeks is not high traffic by wreck standards,
> but IT IS enough to put off new posters if that's THE ONLY TRAFFIC. The
> invasion was planned long before the newsgroup creation messages were
> sent. The exact words in the threat was that they were going to turn my
> hierarchy into "FLUFFY'S LITTER BOX".

So your incompetence managing your hierarchy is what killed it? I
thought crossposts weren't allowed.

--
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a
well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy
free health care and 100 percent literacy." -- John Derbyshire

In article <[email protected]>,
Wanda Pangborn <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks, Morris! I'll be watching the group for a while to see if I spot any
> more ideas.

There are lots of very helpful people here. Take your time, use to use
a killfile judiciously, don't post when you're PO'd and you'll fit in
fine and get the maximum benefit with minimum stress and frustration.

;-)

--
"I'm a man, but I can change... If I have to... I guess." -- Red Green

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

> If this group were moderated, it would lose only some of its ugliness
> and ALL of its functionality, charm, and interest. Once that happened,
> all the users would bail and it would die.
>
> Let's hope there is never -any- support whatsoever.

Amen.

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

In article <[email protected]>, George Max
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Yeah. I didn't ask for moderation, Wanda did.

No, she didn't.

She asked *about* moderation, not *for* it.

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

In article <[email protected]>, Jason Powell
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I Vote NO for moderation.

That's nice. Be sure to remember it when anyone issues the RFV. (Which
can't happen, since we can't retro-mod.)

Kevin

Vito Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Chadwick Stone©" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> X-No-Archive: YES
>> Frito Kuhnt proposed the following SATANIC hallucination:
>> [email protected]
>>
>> >>> I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated
>>
>> Liar, you support censorship ergo the keyword "moderated." Your
>> infernal master has trvly possessed that toilet you call a soul, hasn't
>> he?
>>
>> >> So your motivation in volunteering for the new NAN committee is so
>> >> that you can empower ordinary Usenet posters to have their favorite
>> >> unmoderated Big 8 groups become moderated?
>> >
>> > Can't you understand what you read? I said that's ONE reason, but
>> > "THAT ISN'T THE ONLY REASON".
>>
>> What would Jesus say, oh blustering hypocrite? Other than, "membership
>> denied" oh judgmental sinner.
>>
>> >> So your candidacy for the committee isn't about helping out the Big
>> >> 8...it's really about control and censorship.
>> >
>> > "CONTROL" and "CENSORSHIP"
>>
>> Everything that a phony shepherd like yourself represents.
>>
>> > I'm one of those people, that's all.
>>
>>
>> You no doubt refer to "mentally ill" do you not?
>
>Look at this. The swine gang decided it was time to show up.

Hi, Vito!

*oink*

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy

"The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with
both male and female genitalia."

"Human beings CAN NOT live in a solar system without a sun
with a ferrite core and a planet without a solid iron core."

-- Alexa Cameron, Kook of the Year 2004

"I am a sean being from another planet."
-- Darla aka Dr. Why aka Dr. Yubiwan aka ...

In article <[email protected]>, Bob Officer
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Actually I and Dan Baldwin were the "massive and highly organized troll
> invasion... Two people. Count the actual number of posted articles and
> you'll see no one was interested in the hierarchy of the groups. It was a
> ghost town

Personally, I quite enjoyed your posts. You even made an effort to be
on-topic, IIRC.

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

<[email protected]> wrote:

>Daedalus wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:32:20 -0700, [email protected], wrote:
>>
>> >On 18 Nov 2005 05:38:16 -0800, "BGP" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>There is one simple rule to follow to clean up usenet via moderation.
>> >>
>> >>Ban personal attacks.
>> >>
>> >>I would go with a warning system. First offense is a warning. Second
>> >>offense is 24-hour timeout. Third offense is a one-week timeout.
>> >>Beyond that, we look at permanent bans.
>> >>
>> >>Personal attacks are what drag down any forum. If you ban the
>> >>practice, you force people to respect each other and engage on an
>> >>intellectual level. You can say what you want, but a personal attack
>> >>is out of bounds.
>> >>
>> >>As it is, I block/killfile/ignore people who use them on my own. They
>> >>aren't worth my time.
>> >
>> >
>> >so who decides what constitutes a personal attack?
>>
>> The usenet council of cultural revolution.
>Consult with Dr. Flonkerstein, AUK's very own 'tight-assed' circle
>jerker.
>
>Sincerely, the Raving Loonie ( Flonken's self-admitted {{{Wank}}} toi )
>---
>Always a pleasure to jerk around the idiotic, Dr. Flonkenstein.
>Wank, wank, flonk, flonk ..

I see you've let your obsessions out of the bag, fanboi.
>
>>
>> Jade
>

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy

"The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with
both male and female genitalia."

"Human beings CAN NOT live in a solar system without a sun
with a ferrite core and a planet without a solid iron core."

-- Alexa Cameron, Kook of the Year 2004

"I am a sean being from another planet."
-- Darla aka Dr. Why aka Dr. Yubiwan aka ...

"Paul H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Hinz wrote in rec.woodworking:
>
> > True, we don't, but no reason to be rude to the lady. It's not like
> > she's in cahoots with Vito and wazzername, far as we know. No reason
> > to assume the worst, she had an honest question and asked it.
>
> The least she could have done would have been to begin the subject line
> with "OT".

LOL, yea, pretty hard to discern the topic from the subject line.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:49:26 -0800, Bob Officer
<[email protected]>, wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, in rec.woodworking, "Wanda Pangborn"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>HA!
>
>Wanda do you have a little brother named Kenny?
>
>Well everyone that knows him calls him a little prick...
>
>But then BW like you everyone else would be little...

That wasn't a very nice thing to say to my sockpuppet.

*wink*

Jade

>Respect cannot be forced. Any attempt to do so is doomed to
>spectacular failure.


- Darth Vader

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:37:58 -0500, in rec.woodworking, "Wanda Pangborn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Wanda Pangborn (in
>> [email protected]) said:
>>
>> | Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned
>> | earlier. Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>> |
>> | I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
>> | godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was
>> | attempted. You just need a really fair and dedicated moderator,
>> | which I know is easier said than done. Moderators have to be level
>> | headed and leave their egos at the door.
>> |
>> | Anyway, just a thought. Thanks again for all your help.
>>
>> Wanda...
>>
>> Moderating the wreck would be a full-time job because of the number of
>> posts and would lengthen response times for legitimate questions.
>>
>> The trade-off, as you noted, is the number of off-topic, troll, and
>> occasional venemous posts. Moderating the wreck as been considered a
>> number of times; and each time the issue arose, most of the
>> subscribers elected to keep the newsgroup as is, warts and all.
>>
>
>I completely understand your position. Just an idea I had. There are real
>cons to it, I suppose.

There nothing good about a moderated discussion group.

Censorship is always the ugliest of the category of repression.

>> I'm glad you got the helpful information.
>>
>
>Thanks, Morris! I'll be watching the group for a while to see if I spot any
>more ideas.

<ouch>

Lots of ideas, some good and others are better... Even bad ideas are still
called ideas.


--
Ak'toh'di

On 19 Nov 2005 20:00:01 -0800, "BGP" <[email protected]> wrote in
alt.fan.art-bell in message
<[email protected]>:

> The idea is not to force any one person to show respect. The idea is
> to get rid of people that launch personal attacks.

What part of "you force people to respect each other" did you not say?
--
V.G.

"i would blame them it they went on a holy jhiad and killed off all the infidels, would you?"
- AssLexa's "200+" alien-implanted IQ jumps the rails and crashes into a grade school, killing all inside.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:54:37 -0000, Paul H <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wanda Pangborn wrote in rec.woodworking:
>
>> Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned
>> earlier. Why don't you guys moderate your group?

> Piss off. We don't need no stinkin' moderator.

True, we don't, but no reason to be rude to the lady. It's not like
she's in cahoots with Vito and wazzername, far as we know. No reason to
assume the worst, she had an honest question and asked it.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:09:23 -0500, Javier Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> What I do wish is that rec.woodworking was split thus:

> rec.woodworking.powertoolchat
> rec.woodworking.everythingelse
> With no crossposting allowed.

How do you propose to enforce "no crossposting allowed"? Why not just
filter client-side?

> But asking for that is like asking for 100 bd ft of free bubinga with
> any purchase at every woodworker's supply store.

Well, anyone can follow the process to create groups. But what problem
would you actually be solving?

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:54:29 -0000, Paul H <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote in rec.woodworking:
>
>> True, we don't, but no reason to be rude to the lady. It's not like
>> she's in cahoots with Vito and wazzername, far as we know. No reason
>> to assume the worst, she had an honest question and asked it.
>
> The least she could have done would have been to begin the subject line
> with "OT".

Funny, seems like she's new here, and probably doesn't know about the
convention. Why the attitude, Paul?

On 15 Nov 2005 10:54:18 -0800, tom <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd have to agree with Robatoy on the crunchy/smooth debate. Tom

Oh, yeah, absolutely. No point in eating peanut butter if it's not
crunchy.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:15:10 +0000, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:57:17 -0500, [email protected] (J T)
> wrote:
>
>>...often lack basic spelling and grammer skills...
>
> Physician, heal thyself. "grammar."

He's talking about an ancestor.

On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, Vito Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>>
>> 1) Because moderation isn't a good idea
>
> With all due respect Andy, that's just YOUR OPINION. There are hundreds
> of moderated newsgroups in various hierarchies and many of them are
> thriving.

How the FUCK did you get out of the killfile?
<plonked again, with prejudice)

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:41:38 -0500, Wanda Pangborn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "William D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> We'll see.

> Moderating unmoderated groups would be great for usenet if you ask me. So
> much unnecessary noise here these days.

Killfiles work very well. It's not like the trolls and idiots are hard
to spot.

> But it's up to the people who post here. (Even the cranky ones who insulted
> me for no reason)

There's a reason, but you don't understand the history to know that Vito
is that reason. Putting up a sock-puppet isn't beyond his tactics, so
when a relatively unknown poster came in and posted on a touchy subject
(that would be you), you're immediately associated with Vito and his
vote-fraud history on that same tactic. Unfair, perhaps, but not "for
no reason".

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:08:48 -0700, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Moderating unmoderated groups would be great for usenet if you ask me. So
>>much unnecessary noise here these days.
>>But it's up to the people who post here. (Even the cranky ones who insulted
>>me for no reason)

> That's the scariest post to date. Don't stop with the newsgroups. Lets
> moderate the internet. Then the newspapers, then books. I think
> there's precedent for moderating the written word for the greater good
> of society. Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia, China, Iran.
> I find your noise unnecessary and worse.

Um. Ed? She isn't pushing anything, she's expressing her opinion.
Naiive and misguided, perhaps, but she even says "It's up to the people
who post here", which to me indicates that she's not pushing _anything_.

> I'm adding you to my killfile. Your kind is dangerous.

I think you have jumped several conclusions to get from where she is to
where you are.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:49:25 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>
>> I think you have jumped several conclusions to get from where she is to
>> where you are.

> He is expressing that everyone should have free speech, except those that
> don't agree with him.

Yup, and throwing in comparison to nazis in the process. Always a good
mind-changer, that.

On 16 Nov 2005 12:49:30 -0800, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> I hope you're pleased with yourself Wanda. There we were, all quiet and
> peaceful, and then YOU pipe up and whisper "Psst. Moderate?" and then
> all freakin hell breaks loose.
>
> I just hope you're satisfied with all the damage you've caused. Just
> LOOK what you've done. My, my, MY. Your friends over at plus-sized
> communist agitators must be pret-ty proud of you.

See what I mean about it being easy to spot the ones who are safe to
ignore?

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:57:33 -0500, Wanda Pangborn <[email protected]> wrote:

> There's no need to threaten anyone. This is all my fault for bringing up the
> idea. I proposed moderating the group. You are being completely irrational.

Yes, he is. You're wasting your time trying to (a) care about what he
says, and especially to (b) explain anything to him.

> It's only a newsgroup for heaven's sake! If you want to be mad at someone be
> mad at me, but don't call people liars.

He can't help it, it's what he's like. (don't bother, Vito, you're
wedged firmly in the killfile with the rest of your type).

> Obviously you harbor a lot of animosity because your ideas were not well
> received at all. Neither was it well received when I brought it up to the
> people here.

The reaction you got was because of his tactics, not so much your
message in itself.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:27:13 -0500, E Allen's ghost <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2005 00:40:28 +0800, "JLD"
><[email protected]>, wrote:
>
>>Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and it
>>failed.

> So you don't want to be censored, but you don't mind censoring her?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:41:31 -0500, E Allen's ghost <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2005 20:42:43 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]>, wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:27:13 -0500, E Allen's ghost <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 17 Nov 2005 00:40:28 +0800, "JLD"
>>><[email protected]>, wrote:
>>>
>>>>Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and it
>>>>failed.
>>
>>> So you don't want to be censored, but you don't mind censoring her?
>>
>>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
>>means.
>
> I don't think moderating this or any other group is censoring anyone,
> if that's what you mean.

Then your bringing up of the term in this context is confusing to me.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:59:38 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you're not familiar with Godwin's Law, you can learn about it by
> doing a Google search. It's hardly enforcable; but continuing to post
> to a thread in which Godwin's Law has been properly invoked is
> generally regarded as (at best) the behavior of an emotionally
> out-of-control troll.

Well, the question was asked if the thread had been godwin'd, and unless
the definition has changed, I don't think it has. I may have missed a
post or ten, because my killfiles are robust and well-rounded...

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>
> 1) Because moderation isn't a good idea

With all due respect Andy, that's just YOUR OPINION. There are hundreds
of moderated newsgroups in various hierarchies and many of them are
thriving.

> 2) Because of a huge bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
> America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
> from ourselves.

That's not BY ANY MEANS an accurate account of what happened. I proposed
a SEPARATE GROUP for PEOPLE INTERESTED in a SEPARATE MODERATED GROUP. I
never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated. If the
group passed, reading it and posting to it would have been VOLUNTARY.
Staying in the unmoderated wreck would have been voluntary too if the
group passed, this option would NOT have been taken away from wreckers
and I NEVER proposed anything like that.

> There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
> mostly over the way he went about it.

Once again, I proposed a SEPARATE GROUP, and I went through all the
proper hoops and channels. It was not my fault that a sociopath from Ohio
named Steve Young flooded the ballot box with forged and "FROGGED" votes.
Later when the vote fraud was detected, Susan and I VOLUNTARILY declined
the revote that was offered to us by the NAN Team.

> It's a very touchy subject now.

I see that the subject will never be allowed to rest.

> If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
> "fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals. Not
> a thing in it.

More hog wash. First of all, the fam.* hierarchy is INACTIVE now.
http://www.family-usenet.com
Second of all, fam.* woodworking was NEVER moderated. Third of all,
current usenet protocols are not advanced enough to keep ANY newsgroup
100% "SAFE". My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
invasion. You use Supernews, and they were the only news service provider
to respect our charters so you probably didn't see any of the cross
posted drivel. But most people DID see all the junk from the swines, and
that kept decent folks from wanting to participate. If you're gonna bad
mouth me, Andy, at least get your details straight.


VK

Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and it
failed.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Vito Kuhn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
> > invasion.
>
> Bullsh**. There was never any serious traffic from the start. I know. I
> peeked.

Supernews did the right thing and blocked the cross posts to the fam.*
hierarchy from your view. I have over 600 abusive messages archived. 600
messages spread out over weeks is not high traffic by wreck standards,
but IT IS enough to put off new posters if that's THE ONLY TRAFFIC. The
invasion was planned long before the newsgroup creation messages were
sent. The exact words in the threat was that they were going to turn my
hierarchy into "FLUFFY'S LITTER BOX".

VK

"JLD" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and it
> failed.

That's an outright LIE. I NEVER "TRIED TO MODERATE THIS GROUP". I
proposed a SEPARATE group and it never failed. The result of the vote was
inconclusive because of vote fraud. WE VOLUNTARILY declined the option to
have a revote. At that time, it wasn't even POSSIBLE to "MODERATE THIS
GROUP".

VK

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>
> 1) Because moderation isn't a good idea
>

I'm seeing about 50/50 on that opinion. I can see the pros and cons. This
isn't a group I'll probably be on for a long time, so it really isn't my
place. I was just making a suggestion.


> 2) Because of a _huge_ bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
> America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
> from ourselves. There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
> mostly over the way he went about it. It's a very touchy subject now.
>

I'm sorry to hear that. It figures I would put my foot in my mouth the first
time here. I was just trying to be helpful.

> If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
> "fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals. Not
> a thing in it.

Obviously his idea was not something that had a lot of support. In fact I
don't see why he went ahead with it knowing no one would follow him.

The best intentions pave the road to hell and all.

Wanda

"E. Allen's ghost" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
> <[email protected]>, wrote:
>
> >"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Why don't you guys moderate your group?
> >>
> >> 1) Because moderation isn't a good idea
> >
> >With all due respect Andy, that's just YOUR OPINION. There are hundreds
> >of moderated newsgroups in various hierarchies and many of them are
> >thriving.
>
> They work very well if they have the support and a good moderator. I
> agree. I don't understand all the venom in here against moderation.
>
> It makes no sense why you guys have always been so scared of it.
>
> >
> >> 2) Because of a huge bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
> >> America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
> >> from ourselves.
> >
> >That's not BY ANY MEANS an accurate account of what happened. I proposed
> >a SEPARATE GROUP for PEOPLE INTERESTED in a SEPARATE MODERATED GROUP. I
> >never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated. If the
> >group passed, reading it and posting to it would have been VOLUNTARY.
> >Staying in the unmoderated wreck would have been voluntary too if the
> >group passed, this option would NOT have been taken away from wreckers
> >and I NEVER proposed anything like that.
>
> But why try to create a whole new hierarchy? Wouldn't a moderated
> group work just as well?
>
> >
> >> There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
> >> mostly over the way he went about it.
> >
> >Once again, I proposed a SEPARATE GROUP, and I went through all the
> >proper hoops and channels. It was not my fault that a sociopath from Ohio
> >named Steve Young flooded the ballot box with forged and "FROGGED" votes.
> >Later when the vote fraud was detected, Susan and I VOLUNTARILY declined
> >the revote that was offered to us by the NAN Team.
> >
>
> Why on earth wouldn't you want a revote?
>
> >> It's a very touchy subject now.
> >
> >I see that the subject will never be allowed to rest.
> >
>
> It's one of the more interesting stories I've heard in a while.
>
> >> If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
> >> "fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals. Not
> >> a thing in it.
> >
> >More hog wash. First of all, the fam.* hierarchy is INACTIVE now.
> >http://www.family-usenet.com
> >Second of all, fam.* woodworking was NEVER moderated. Third of all,
> >current usenet protocols are not advanced enough to keep ANY newsgroup
> >100% "SAFE". My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
> >invasion. You use Supernews, and they were the only news service provider
> >to respect our charters so you probably didn't see any of the cross
> >posted drivel. But most people DID see all the junk from the swines, and
> >that kept decent folks from wanting to participate. If you're gonna bad
> >mouth me, Andy, at least get your details straight.
> >
>
> If you wanted to try and get a moderated woodworking group started
> again, I'd certainly read it. I'm sure other people would too. I
> don't see why you have to go along with consensus on this since it
> doesn't directly affect this group.
>
> JMO
>
> Eric

In my plus sized moderated group, there was a non moderated group too. It
got lots of spam and trolls, but people read and posted to both groups. I
think if anything it made a better atmosphere for both groups because people
had a choice.

Wanda

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wanda Pangborn (in
> [email protected]) said:
>
> | Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned
> | earlier. Why don't you guys moderate your group?
> |
> | I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
> | godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was
> | attempted. You just need a really fair and dedicated moderator,
> | which I know is easier said than done. Moderators have to be level
> | headed and leave their egos at the door.
> |
> | Anyway, just a thought. Thanks again for all your help.
>
> Wanda...
>
> Moderating the wreck would be a full-time job because of the number of
> posts and would lengthen response times for legitimate questions.
>
> The trade-off, as you noted, is the number of off-topic, troll, and
> occasional venemous posts. Moderating the wreck as been considered a
> number of times; and each time the issue arose, most of the
> subscribers elected to keep the newsgroup as is, warts and all.
>

I completely understand your position. Just an idea I had. There are real
cons to it, I suppose.

> I'm glad you got the helpful information.
>

Thanks, Morris! I'll be watching the group for a while to see if I spot any
more ideas.

Wanda


> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
>
>

"Paul H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wanda Pangborn wrote in rec.woodworking:
>
> > Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned
> > earlier. Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>
> Piss off. We don't need no stinkin' moderator.

Thanks for your intelligent and well balanced commentary.

I think moderation would do wonders by getting rid of trolls like you.

Wanda

"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greg G. said:
>
> >
> >Most wreck denizens are happy to provide a helpful response to a
> >sincere question.
>
> But do take note that I said 'most'. <g>
>
>
> Greg G.

I think I encountered someone having a bad day here. LOL!

Thanks for your encouragement!

Wanda

"William D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
> news:151120052050549002%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > William D <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> But* Russ Allbery recently announced his intention to resign from
> >> Big 8 administration by next October. He will be replaced by a
> >> new committee of ordinary Usenet posters.
> >
> > Nobody knows what will replace the nan mods.
>
> That will be decided by the soon-to-be-named committee members.
>
> From Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/78f59a941c51fbed
>
> "Russ and I will discuss the lists and decide how many people will be
> on the initial Board. The number is not yet determined, so list
> everyone, from most to least desirable. This is going to be the last
> step before we actually name a Board which will then be empowered to
> decide upon the general Big8 issues. So we are almost there."
>
> > The scene in news.groups is a mess right now, and personally I
> > have no faith things will get sorted out to *anybody's*
> > satisfaction the way in any foreseeable future.
>
> We'll see.
>

Moderating unmoderated groups would be great for usenet if you ask me. So
much unnecessary noise here these days.

But it's up to the people who post here. (Even the cranky ones who insulted
me for no reason)

Wanda

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated.
>
> Yes you did. Repeatedly.

You're a dishonest human being, Dingley. I CHALLENGE you to find a quote
where I supposedly proposed moderation to THIS GROUP. You WON'T do it and
you CAN'T do it because it never happened. Either you'll brush me off and
ignore this challenge or you'll be a man and either "PROVE ME WRONG" or
retract your lie. Character assassination won't get you anywhere in this
life. All it does is add extra miles between your soul the Kingdom of the
Lord, and I reckon a liar like you is already pretty far off the mark.

VK

"E. Allen's ghost" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
> <[email protected]>, wrote:
>
> >"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Why don't you guys moderate your group?
> >>
> >> 1) Because moderation isn't a good idea
> >
> > With all due respect Andy, that's just YOUR OPINION. There are
> > hundreds of moderated newsgroups in various hierarchies and many of
> > them are thriving.
>
> They work very well if they have the support and a good moderator. I
> agree. I don't understand all the venom in here against moderation.
>
> It makes no sense why you guys have always been so scared of it.
>
> >
> >> 2) Because of a huge bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
> >> America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
> >> from ourselves.
> >
> > That's not BY ANY MEANS an accurate account of what happened. I
> > proposed a SEPARATE GROUP for PEOPLE INTERESTED in a SEPARATE
> > MODERATED GROUP. I never once suggested that rec.woodworking should
> > be moderated. If the group passed, reading it and posting to it would
> > have been VOLUNTARY. Staying in the unmoderated wreck would have
> > been voluntary too if the group passed, this option would NOT have
> > been taken away from wreckers and I NEVER proposed anything like that.
>
> But why try to create a whole new hierarchy? Wouldn't a moderated
> group work just as well?
>
> >
> >> There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
> >> mostly over the way he went about it.
> >
> > Once again, I proposed a SEPARATE GROUP, and I went through all the
> > proper hoops and channels. It was not my fault that a sociopath from
> > Ohio named Steve Young flooded the ballot box with forged and
> > "FROGGED" votes. Later when the vote fraud was detected, Susan and I
> > VOLUNTARILY declined the revote that was offered to us by the NAN
> > Team.
> >
>
> Why on earth wouldn't you want a revote?
>
> >> It's a very touchy subject now.
> >
> > I see that the subject will never be allowed to rest.
> >
>
> It's one of the more interesting stories I've heard in a while.
>
> >> If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
> >> "fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals.
> Not >> a thing in it.
> >
> > More hog wash. First of all, the fam.* hierarchy is INACTIVE now.
> > http://www.family-usenet.com
> > Second of all, fam.* woodworking was NEVER moderated. Third of all,
> > current usenet protocols are not advanced enough to keep ANY newsgroup
> > 100% "SAFE". My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
> > invasion. You use Supernews, and they were the only news service
> > provider to respect our charters so you probably didn't see any of
> > the cross posted drivel. But most people DID see all the junk from
> > the swines, and that kept decent folks from wanting to participate.
> > If you're gonna bad mouth me, Andy, at least get your details
> > straight.
> >
>
> If you wanted to try and get a moderated woodworking group started
> again, I'd certainly read it. I'm sure other people would too. I
> don't see why you have to go along with consensus on this since it
> doesn't directly affect this group.

Try explaining that to some of the thick heads on this forum.

VK

"William D" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > "JLD" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and
> >> it failed.
> >
> > That's an outright LIE. I NEVER "TRIED TO MODERATE THIS GROUP". I
> > proposed a SEPARATE group and it never failed. The result of the
> > vote was inconclusive because of vote fraud. WE VOLUNTARILY
> > declined the option to have a revote.
>
> Do you regret that decision now?

No, not at all. The voting system was being abused by a sociopath at the
time. The problem wasn't fixed until MONTHS later.

> > At that time, it wasn't even POSSIBLE to "MODERATE THIS GROUP".
>
> You're absolutely right about that, but who knows what tomorrow will
> bring. I see that you have volunteered to serve on the committee
> which will make decisions on the future of all Big 8 newsgroups. If
> you're elected to the committee, would you support a removal of that
> ban on proposals to change the moderation status of existing
> newsgroups?

I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated newsgroup,
the people interested in using it should be the ones to decide if it is
worth creating, instead of a bunch of users in the UNMODERATED parent
group. If enough users in an unmoderated newsgroup want their group to be
moderated, that should be allowed. To answer your question, YES I think
the ban should be lifted and I intend to try and make that happen. But
that isn't the only reason I volunteered for the board. The Big Eight
group list needs a lot of cleaning up. Many dead and useless newsgroups
needs to go away. The new voting system (if there's even going to BE
voting) needs to be tested and established. Lots of stuff needs to be
fixed, and I look forward to being one of the people to make it all
happen.

VK

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote:

(SNIP HOG WASH LIES AND LINK)

I rest my case. Dingley couldn't find a quote because I NEVER proposed
moderation to rec.woodworking, so the swine started ranting in Swinese
instead. Anyone that cares about the truth can look in Google dot com for
the real story.

One day your lies will catch up with you, Dingley. Just you wait and see
what happens. Mark my words.

VK

"gw" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > One day your lies will catch up with you, Dingley. Just you wait and
> > see what happens. Mark my words.
> >
> > VK
> >
>
> Oooh, a cyber-threat!
> Do you have a waxed mustache that you twirl when you say things like
> that?

How was that a "CYBER-THREAT"? Dingley knows what I'm talking about, and
so does his soul. I'm talking about his fate in the NEXT LIFE. He's a
real swine. He thinks he pulled a fast one on me by posting a defamatory
warning to the Supernews support group so they wouldn't carry the fam.*
hierarchy newsgroups, but it didn't work and his sneaking around did him
no good. My best friend Ernie told me all about this little stunt of his.

VK

"Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> (SNIP HOG WASH LIES AND LINK)
>
> I rest my case. Dingley couldn't find a quote because I NEVER proposed
> moderation to rec.woodworking, so the swine started ranting in Swinese
> instead. Anyone that cares about the truth can look in Google dot com for
> the real story.
>
> One day your lies will catch up with you, Dingley. Just you wait and see
> what happens. Mark my words.
>
> VK
>

Vito.

There's no need to threaten anyone. This is all my fault for bringing up the
idea. I proposed moderating the group. You are being completely irrational.
It's only a newsgroup for heaven's sake! If you want to be mad at someone be
mad at me, but don't call people liars.

Obviously you harbor a lot of animosity because your ideas were not well
received at all. Neither was it well received when I brought it up to the
people here. You really shouldn't take it so personally. Sometimes in life
people don't embrace your ideas. It's something you can learn from instead
of be bitter and resentful about. Maybe, like I'm doing now, you should say
to yourself that this idea was not a good idea and the feedback I got proves
that. It's all trial and error. It doesn't mean you're a failure because
your experiment with a new heirarchy didn't work either.

I admire your chutzpa! And as we say in my spirit circle - "Mother Spirit,
Bless My Path!" All things will come to pass.

Wanda

"William D" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > "William D" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > news:[email protected]:
> > >
> > > > "JLD" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and
> > > >> it failed.
> > > >
> > > > That's an outright LIE. I NEVER "TRIED TO MODERATE THIS GROUP". I
> > > > proposed a SEPARATE group and it never failed. The result of the
> > > > vote was inconclusive because of vote fraud. WE VOLUNTARILY
> > > > declined the option to have a revote.
> > >
> > > Do you regret that decision now?
> >
> > No, not at all. The voting system was being abused by a sociopath at
> > the time. The problem wasn't fixed until MONTHS later.
> >
> > > > At that time, it wasn't even POSSIBLE to "MODERATE THIS GROUP".
> > >
> > > You're absolutely right about that, but who knows what tomorrow
> > > will bring. I see that you have volunteered to serve on the
> > > committee which will make decisions on the future of all Big 8
> > > newsgroups. If you're elected to the committee, would you support a
> > > removal of that ban on proposals to change the moderation status of
> > > existing newsgroups?
> >
> > I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated
> > newsgroup, the people interested in using it should be the ones to
> > decide if it is worth creating, instead of a bunch of users in the
> > UNMODERATED parent group. If enough users in an unmoderated newsgroup
> > want their group to be moderated, that should be allowed. To answer
> > your question, YES I think the ban should be lifted and I intend to
> > try and make that happen. But that isn't the only reason I
> > volunteered for the board. The Big Eight group list needs a lot of
> > cleaning up. Many dead and useless newsgroups needs to go away. The
> > new voting system (if there's even going to BE voting) needs to be
> > tested and established. Lots of stuff needs to be fixed, and I look
> > forward to being one of the people to make it all happen.
>
> So your motivation in volunteering for the new NAN committee is so that
> you can empower ordinary Usenet posters to have their favorite
> unmoderated Big 8 groups become moderated?

Can't you understand what you read? I said that's ONE reason, but "THAT
ISN'T THE ONLY REASON".

> So your candidacy for the committee isn't about helping out the Big
> 8...it's *really* about control and censorship.

"CONTROL" and "CENSORSHIP" have nothing to do with it. Nobody can deny
the fact that usenet needs lots of cleaning up. That just ain't gonna
happen unless PEOPLE donate their time to get it done. I'm one of those
people, that's all.

VK

"E. Allen's ghost" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 17 Nov 2005 21:31:56 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
> <[email protected]>, wrote:
>
> >"William D" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > "William D" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> > > news:[email protected]:
> >> > >
> >> > > > "JLD" wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and
> >> > > >> it failed.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > That's an outright LIE. I NEVER "TRIED TO MODERATE THIS GROUP". I
> >> > > > proposed a SEPARATE group and it never failed. The result of the
> >> > > > vote was inconclusive because of vote fraud. WE VOLUNTARILY
> >> > > > declined the option to have a revote.
> >> > >
> >> > > Do you regret that decision now?
> >> >
> >> > No, not at all. The voting system was being abused by a sociopath at
> >> > the time. The problem wasn't fixed until MONTHS later.
> >> >
> >> > > > At that time, it wasn't even POSSIBLE to "MODERATE THIS GROUP".
> >> > >
> >> > > You're absolutely right about that, but who knows what tomorrow
> >> > > will bring. I see that you have volunteered to serve on the
> >> > > committee which will make decisions on the future of all Big 8
> >> > > newsgroups. If you're elected to the committee, would you support a
> >> > > removal of that ban on proposals to change the moderation status of
> >> > > existing newsgroups?
> >> >
> >> > I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated
> >> > newsgroup, the people interested in using it should be the ones to
> >> > decide if it is worth creating, instead of a bunch of users in the
> >> > UNMODERATED parent group. If enough users in an unmoderated newsgroup
> >> > want their group to be moderated, that should be allowed. To answer
> >> > your question, YES I think the ban should be lifted and I intend to
> >> > try and make that happen. But that isn't the only reason I
> >> > volunteered for the board. The Big Eight group list needs a lot of
> >> > cleaning up. Many dead and useless newsgroups needs to go away. The
> >> > new voting system (if there's even going to BE voting) needs to be
> >> > tested and established. Lots of stuff needs to be fixed, and I look
> >> > forward to being one of the people to make it all happen.
> >>
> >> So your motivation in volunteering for the new NAN committee is so that
> >> you can empower ordinary Usenet posters to have their favorite
> >> unmoderated Big 8 groups become moderated?
> >
> >Can't you understand what you read? I said that's ONE reason, but "THAT
> >ISN'T THE ONLY REASON".
>
> I agree with most of your agenda. There is a lot of cleanup that could
> be done. So many groups no longer in use that attract only randomly
> sent dirty filth and advertising. Some of them are used as hives for
> trolls and disrupters. This is not legitimate conversation or the
> point of Usenet. take them all off I say and create space for real
> discussions.
>
> >
> >> So your candidacy for the committee isn't about helping out the Big
> >> 8...it's *really* about control and censorship.
> >
> >"CONTROL" and "CENSORSHIP" have nothing to do with it. Nobody can deny
> >the fact that usenet needs lots of cleaning up. That just ain't gonna
> >happen unless PEOPLE donate their time to get it done. I'm one of those
> >people, that's all.
>
> I think it's great that you are dedicated. Go for it. Usenet could be
> the great place of ideas it once was again. All it takes is a few
> people to lead the charge.
>
> Eric

I think that's going way too far. Moderating a group is one thing. Trying to
get rid of people because they don't fit your idea of what usenet should be
is quite another.

Wanda

"Chadwick Stone©" <[email protected]> wrote:

> X-No-Archive: YES
> Frito Kuhnt proposed the following SATANIC hallucination:
> [email protected]
>
> >>> I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated
>
> Liar, you support censorship ergo the keyword "moderated." Your
> infernal master has trvly possessed that toilet you call a soul, hasn't
> he?
>
> >> So your motivation in volunteering for the new NAN committee is so
> >> that you can empower ordinary Usenet posters to have their favorite
> >> unmoderated Big 8 groups become moderated?
> >
> > Can't you understand what you read? I said that's ONE reason, but
> > "THAT ISN'T THE ONLY REASON".
>
> What would Jesus say, oh blustering hypocrite? Other than, "membership
> denied" oh judgmental sinner.
>
> >> So your candidacy for the committee isn't about helping out the Big
> >> 8...it's really about control and censorship.
> >
> > "CONTROL" and "CENSORSHIP"
>
> Everything that a phony shepherd like yourself represents.
>
> > I'm one of those people, that's all.
>
>
> You no doubt refer to "mentally ill" do you not?

Look at this. The swine gang decided it was time to show up.

VK

On 17 Nov 2005 06:21:06 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
<[email protected]>, wrote:

>"E. Allen's ghost" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
>> <[email protected]>, wrote:
>>
>> >"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>> >>
>> >> 1) Because moderation isn't a good idea
>> >
>> > With all due respect Andy, that's just YOUR OPINION. There are
>> > hundreds of moderated newsgroups in various hierarchies and many of
>> > them are thriving.
>>
>> They work very well if they have the support and a good moderator. I
>> agree. I don't understand all the venom in here against moderation.
>>
>> It makes no sense why you guys have always been so scared of it.
>>
>> >
>> >> 2) Because of a huge bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
>> >> America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
>> >> from ourselves.
>> >
>> > That's not BY ANY MEANS an accurate account of what happened. I
>> > proposed a SEPARATE GROUP for PEOPLE INTERESTED in a SEPARATE
>> > MODERATED GROUP. I never once suggested that rec.woodworking should
>> > be moderated. If the group passed, reading it and posting to it would
>> > have been VOLUNTARY. Staying in the unmoderated wreck would have
>> > been voluntary too if the group passed, this option would NOT have
>> > been taken away from wreckers and I NEVER proposed anything like that.
>>
>> But why try to create a whole new hierarchy? Wouldn't a moderated
>> group work just as well?
>>
>> >
>> >> There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
>> >> mostly over the way he went about it.
>> >
>> > Once again, I proposed a SEPARATE GROUP, and I went through all the
>> > proper hoops and channels. It was not my fault that a sociopath from
>> > Ohio named Steve Young flooded the ballot box with forged and
>> > "FROGGED" votes. Later when the vote fraud was detected, Susan and I
>> > VOLUNTARILY declined the revote that was offered to us by the NAN
>> > Team.
>> >
>>
>> Why on earth wouldn't you want a revote?
>>
>> >> It's a very touchy subject now.
>> >
>> > I see that the subject will never be allowed to rest.
>> >
>>
>> It's one of the more interesting stories I've heard in a while.
>>
>> >> If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
>> >> "fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals.
>> Not >> a thing in it.
>> >
>> > More hog wash. First of all, the fam.* hierarchy is INACTIVE now.
>> > http://www.family-usenet.com
>> > Second of all, fam.* woodworking was NEVER moderated. Third of all,
>> > current usenet protocols are not advanced enough to keep ANY newsgroup
>> > 100% "SAFE". My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
>> > invasion. You use Supernews, and they were the only news service
>> > provider to respect our charters so you probably didn't see any of
>> > the cross posted drivel. But most people DID see all the junk from
>> > the swines, and that kept decent folks from wanting to participate.
>> > If you're gonna bad mouth me, Andy, at least get your details
>> > straight.
>> >
>>
>> If you wanted to try and get a moderated woodworking group started
>> again, I'd certainly read it. I'm sure other people would too. I
>> don't see why you have to go along with consensus on this since it
>> doesn't directly affect this group.
>
>Try explaining that to some of the thick heads on this forum.
>
>VK

Get out of the group, Vito. Take your perverted False-Christian anger
somewhere else. Like back to your FAILED fam shack.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:22:12 +0000, Loco-Motiv <[email protected]>,
wrote:

>Wanda Pangborn wrote:
>
>......a buncha net nanny horse shit.
>
>I SAY:
>
>Moderation is for pussies. Learn how to use a fucking killfile.

You supposed to killfile the whole group since they're responding to
the undersirables?

>
>Advice for the day.

Shove it up your ass.

Eric

On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, in rec.woodworking, "Vito Kuhn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>>
>> 1) Because moderation isn't a good idea
>
>With all due respect Andy, that's just YOUR OPINION. There are hundreds
>of moderated newsgroups in various hierarchies and many of them are
>thriving.

Vito, answer just one question.

None of them are in the Family.* hierarchy, are they?

>> 2) Because of a huge bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
>> America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
>> from ourselves.
>
>That's not BY ANY MEANS an accurate account of what happened. I proposed
>a SEPARATE GROUP for PEOPLE INTERESTED in a SEPARATE MODERATED GROUP. I
>never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated. If the
>group passed, reading it and posting to it would have been VOLUNTARY.
>Staying in the unmoderated wreck would have been voluntary too if the
>group passed, this option would NOT have been taken away from wreckers
>and I NEVER proposed anything like that.

I is the way I see it. a 100% accurate opinion which reflects all the facts.
Vito wanted Komplet Kontrol...

>> There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
>> mostly over the way he went about it.
>
>Once again, I proposed a SEPARATE GROUP, and I went through all the
>proper hoops and channels. It was not my fault that a sociopath from Ohio
>named Steve Young flooded the ballot box with forged and "FROGGED" votes.
>Later when the vote fraud was detected, Susan and I VOLUNTARILY declined
>the revote that was offered to us by the NAN Team.

LOL, you would have again gone down in flames, Vito.

>> It's a very touchy subject now.
>
>I see that the subject will never be allowed to rest.

Your kkkontrol freak, background will follow you everywhere.

>> If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
>> "fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals. Not
>> a thing in it.
>
>More hog wash. First of all, the fam.* hierarchy is INACTIVE now.
>http://www.family-usenet.com

You took your KKKontrol Freak ball and went home...


>Second of all, fam.* woodworking was NEVER moderated. Third of all,
>current usenet protocols are not advanced enough to keep ANY newsgroup
>100% "SAFE". My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
>invasion. You use Supernews, and they were the only news service provider

Actually I and Dan Baldwin were the "massive and highly organized troll
invasion... Two people. Count the actual number of posted articles and
you'll see no one was interested in the hierarchy of the groups. It was a
ghost town...

>to respect our charters so you probably didn't see any of the cross
>posted drivel. But most people DID see all the junk from the swines, and
>that kept decent folks from wanting to participate. If you're gonna bad
>mouth me, Andy, at least get your details straight.

Details were nothing was posted. your charter is only of any value if the
individuals news admins agree to validate them. No one is interested in your
kkkoncept of kkkontrol.


--
Ak'toh'di

On 17 Nov 2005 21:31:56 +0100, in alt.fan.art-bell, "Vito Kuhn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"William D" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > "William D" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> > > news:[email protected]:
>> > >
>> > > > "JLD" wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and
>> > > >> it failed.
>> > > >
>> > > > That's an outright LIE. I NEVER "TRIED TO MODERATE THIS GROUP". I
>> > > > proposed a SEPARATE group and it never failed. The result of the
>> > > > vote was inconclusive because of vote fraud. WE VOLUNTARILY
>> > > > declined the option to have a revote.
>> > >
>> > > Do you regret that decision now?
>> >
>> > No, not at all. The voting system was being abused by a sociopath at
>> > the time. The problem wasn't fixed until MONTHS later.
>> >
>> > > > At that time, it wasn't even POSSIBLE to "MODERATE THIS GROUP".
>> > >
>> > > You're absolutely right about that, but who knows what tomorrow
>> > > will bring. I see that you have volunteered to serve on the
>> > > committee which will make decisions on the future of all Big 8
>> > > newsgroups. If you're elected to the committee, would you support a
>> > > removal of that ban on proposals to change the moderation status of
>> > > existing newsgroups?
>> >
>> > I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated
>> > newsgroup, the people interested in using it should be the ones to
>> > decide if it is worth creating, instead of a bunch of users in the
>> > UNMODERATED parent group. If enough users in an unmoderated newsgroup
>> > want their group to be moderated, that should be allowed. To answer
>> > your question, YES I think the ban should be lifted and I intend to
>> > try and make that happen. But that isn't the only reason I
>> > volunteered for the board. The Big Eight group list needs a lot of
>> > cleaning up. Many dead and useless newsgroups needs to go away. The
>> > new voting system (if there's even going to BE voting) needs to be
>> > tested and established. Lots of stuff needs to be fixed, and I look
>> > forward to being one of the people to make it all happen.
>>
>> So your motivation in volunteering for the new NAN committee is so that
>> you can empower ordinary Usenet posters to have their favorite
>> unmoderated Big 8 groups become moderated?
>
>Can't you understand what you read? I said that's ONE reason, but "THAT
>ISN'T THE ONLY REASON".

IT is the only motive one we [ in this case we is all of usenet] need be
concerned about. Your record as a want-to-be and failed-censor speaks
volumes. You failed attempt at running a hierarchy showed that you neither
understood what usenet was, nor how to follow through with any sort of
project until it was completed.

>> So your candidacy for the committee isn't about helping out the Big
>> 8...it's *really* about control and censorship.
>
>"CONTROL" and "CENSORSHIP" have nothing to do with it.

It is all about control with control freaks, and if you didn't know Most all
control freaks are in denial about their behavior. You are a petty control
freak...

>Nobody can deny
>the fact that usenet needs lots of cleaning up.

I will deny your so called fact. Nothing is wrong with usenet. The 'Evil' is
"in your own eye"... "pluck it out" as your religion demands of you.


>That just ain't gonna
>happen unless PEOPLE donate their time to get it done. I'm one of those
>people, that's all.

You are a Control Freak, nothing more and nothing less. USENET doesn't need
your help until you learn to use your delete key.

BTW you failed to state why you think your 'family values' are so great...
and superior to other people's family values which are different from your
own?



--
Ak'toh'di

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:57:17 -0500, [email protected] (J T)
wrote:

>...often lack basic spelling and grammer skills...

Physician, heal thyself. "grammar."

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

On 16 Nov 2005 21:15:21 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:49:25 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> I think you have jumped several conclusions to get from where she is to
>>> where you are.
>
>> He is expressing that everyone should have free speech, except those that
>> don't agree with him.
>
>Yup, and throwing in comparison to nazis in the process. Always a good
>mind-changer, that.


Godwin's Law.


Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:01:53 -0500, "gw" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> One day your lies will catch up with you, Dingley. Just you wait and see
>> what happens. Mark my words.
>>
>> VK
>>
>
>Oooh, a cyber-threat!
>Do you have a waxed mustache that you twirl when you say things like that?
>


heh. vito's own personal private god is gonna reach down and smack his
peepee.

Wanda Pangborn said:

>Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned earlier.
>Why don't you guys moderate your group?

The 'persons' you mention are Trolls, and not really participating
members of the group. They wander in, throw out a few jabs, and
eventually disappear if no one feeds them.

Don't pay'em no mind.

Most wreck denizens are happy to provide a helpful response to a
sincere question.

Hope your quest goes well for hubby. ;-)


Greg G.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:42:22 -0600, Mike O. <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>>
>>I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
>>godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was attempted. You
>>just need a really fair and dedicated moderator, which I know is easier said
>>than done. Moderators have to be level headed and leave their egos at the
>>door.
>
>Who would want to moderate it?
>It would have to be someone who cares about the wreck which would make
>him/her a woodworker who would rather make sawdust than get in the
>middle of some of the stuff that passes through here.
>IMHO one sure way to run off a contributing member of the wreck would
>be to make him/her the moderator.
>
>I vote no. ;-)
>
>
>Mike O.

This group would be a nightmare to moderate. The moderating is best
left to the individual user by using their filters. Most of the really
offensive post are by trolls and hijackers, the OT post are easily
dealt with by filters. Its really not that hard. I have more problems
trying to keep up with spam email and damn popups. In all fairness
most honest posters are just passionate on the subject. Nothing new to
active newsgroups. Its why I have been using them since 2400 days.
Just my thoughts.
No is the vote.
Ed

Wanda Pangborn wrote:

> Why don't you guys moderate your group?

Because then it wouldn't be the same group.

> I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
> godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was attempted.
> You just need a really fair and dedicated moderator, which I know is
> easier said than done. Moderators have to be level headed and leave
> their egos at the door.

Aren't there some twinkies and donuts waiting for you, fatty?

On 17 Nov 2005 21:02:02 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]>, wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:41:31 -0500, E Allen's ghost <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 17 Nov 2005 20:42:43 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]>, wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:27:13 -0500, E Allen's ghost <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 17 Nov 2005 00:40:28 +0800, "JLD"
>>>><[email protected]>, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and it
>>>>>failed.
>>>
>>>> So you don't want to be censored, but you don't mind censoring her?
>>>
>>>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
>>>means.
>>
>> I don't think moderating this or any other group is censoring anyone,
>> if that's what you mean.
>
>Then your bringing up of the term in this context is confusing to me.

You may have Vito killfiled and not have seen.

Basically, Vito Jr. Eric here has been kissing Vito's ass about what a
great plan he had to clean up the Big 8.

Other people have started rightfully calling Vito's plan censorship
and I think Eric's limited intelligence is confusing terms tragically.

HTH

HAND

Jade

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, in rec.woodworking, "Wanda Pangborn"
<[email protected]> wrote:


HA!

Wanda do you have a little brother named Kenny?

Well everyone that knows him calls him a little prick...

But then BW like you everyone else would be little...


--
Ak'toh'di

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:31:16 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
[email protected] quickly quoth:

>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:01:59 -0500, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 15 Nov 2005 19:06:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 15 Nov 2005 10:54:18 -0800, tom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I'd have to agree with Robatoy on the crunchy/smooth debate. Tom
>>>
>>>Oh, yeah, absolutely. No point in eating peanut butter if it's not
>>>crunchy.
>> If'n I wanted peanuts I'da bought peanuts. If'n I want peanut butter
>>I buy peanut butter - Creamy PB rules!!!!!
>>
>>Skippy ;-)
>
>
>man, I was with you right up to the skippy part.
>
>skippy isn't peanut butter. it's peanut flavored corn syrup.

So is Jif. Q: WTF do you need sugar in a jar of crushed peanuts?
A: To make kids want it, make dentists rich, and to piss off parents
and anyone else who is health-minded.

Luckily, several stores around town have peanut-grinders so I get to
make my own peanut and almond butters. Ingredients: nuts, and I add
about half an ounce of olive or canola oil to the pound for easier
performance straight out of the fridge.

For those of you who can't handle a real man's crunchy peanut butter,
try the BABY FOOD AISLE.

-----
= The wealth of reality, cannot be seen from your locality. =
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On 16 Nov 2005 17:27:26 GMT, "moose" <[email protected]>, wrote:

>Wanda Pangborn wrote:
>
>> Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>
>Because then it wouldn't be the same group.

It would probably be better.

>
>> I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
>> godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was attempted.
>> You just need a really fair and dedicated moderator, which I know is
>> easier said than done. Moderators have to be level headed and leave
>> their egos at the door.
>
>Aren't there some twinkies and donuts waiting for you, fatty?

Way to treat a lady, dickhead.

For instance, this stupid reply could have been refused by a good
moderator. No more jerks like you picking on others.

Eric

>so who decides what constitutes a personal attack?


That should be obvious you pathetic lame brained furball...


















(just kidding)

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:35:29 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
<[email protected]>, wrote:

>
>"E. Allen's ghost" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
>> <[email protected]>, wrote:
>>
>> >"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:11:03 -0500, "Wanda Pangborn"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>> >>
>> >> 1) Because moderation isn't a good idea
>> >
>> >With all due respect Andy, that's just YOUR OPINION. There are hundreds
>> >of moderated newsgroups in various hierarchies and many of them are
>> >thriving.
>>
>> They work very well if they have the support and a good moderator. I
>> agree. I don't understand all the venom in here against moderation.
>>
>> It makes no sense why you guys have always been so scared of it.
>>
>> >
>> >> 2) Because of a huge bunfight a few months ago. One "Vito Kuhn",
>> >> America's Best Christian Woodworker decided that we all needed saving
>> >> from ourselves.
>> >
>> >That's not BY ANY MEANS an accurate account of what happened. I proposed
>> >a SEPARATE GROUP for PEOPLE INTERESTED in a SEPARATE MODERATED GROUP. I
>> >never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated. If the
>> >group passed, reading it and posting to it would have been VOLUNTARY.
>> >Staying in the unmoderated wreck would have been voluntary too if the
>> >group passed, this option would NOT have been taken away from wreckers
>> >and I NEVER proposed anything like that.
>>
>> But why try to create a whole new hierarchy? Wouldn't a moderated
>> group work just as well?
>>
>> >
>> >> There was huge animosity, some of it over moderation but
>> >> mostly over the way he went about it.
>> >
>> >Once again, I proposed a SEPARATE GROUP, and I went through all the
>> >proper hoops and channels. It was not my fault that a sociopath from Ohio
>> >named Steve Young flooded the ballot box with forged and "FROGGED" votes.
>> >Later when the vote fraud was detected, Susan and I VOLUNTARILY declined
>> >the revote that was offered to us by the NAN Team.
>> >
>>
>> Why on earth wouldn't you want a revote?
>>
>> >> It's a very touchy subject now.
>> >
>> >I see that the subject will never be allowed to rest.
>> >
>>
>> It's one of the more interesting stories I've heard in a while.
>>
>> >> If you want to see a moderated group in action, try reading Vito's
>> >> "fam.woodworking" Safe for families, christians and small animals. Not
>> >> a thing in it.
>> >
>> >More hog wash. First of all, the fam.* hierarchy is INACTIVE now.
>> >http://www.family-usenet.com
>> >Second of all, fam.* woodworking was NEVER moderated. Third of all,
>> >current usenet protocols are not advanced enough to keep ANY newsgroup
>> >100% "SAFE". My hierarchy was destroyed by a massive, organized troll
>> >invasion. You use Supernews, and they were the only news service provider
>> >to respect our charters so you probably didn't see any of the cross
>> >posted drivel. But most people DID see all the junk from the swines, and
>> >that kept decent folks from wanting to participate. If you're gonna bad
>> >mouth me, Andy, at least get your details straight.
>> >
>>
>> If you wanted to try and get a moderated woodworking group started
>> again, I'd certainly read it. I'm sure other people would too. I
>> don't see why you have to go along with consensus on this since it
>> doesn't directly affect this group.
>>
>> JMO
>>
>> Eric
>
>In my plus sized moderated group, there was a non moderated group too. It
>got lots of spam and trolls, but people read and posted to both groups. I
>think if anything it made a better atmosphere for both groups because people
>had a choice.
>
>Wanda

Vito is a flaming kook, you dim bitch. He doesn't care about anything
but controlling usenet.

Jade

Wanda Pangborn wrote:


>
> Thanks, Morris! I'll be watching the group for a while to see if I spot any
> more ideas.
>
> Wanda
>
>


My god, troll, you haven't had ANY ideas to date. Just throwing out lures.

Dave

>Cleaning in the way *you* deem it needs cleaning.


And HERE lies the whole problem... How do people decide what's right
as a group NOT as individuals. Good luck in your quest Don Quixote...








ps watch out for the windmill blades on their way up! they hurt like
hell!!!

On 16 Nov 2005 16:30:10 +0100, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> 1) Because moderation isn't a good idea
>
>With all due respect Andy,

You've never shown any respect for anyone else in any of this fiasco.
You are a nasty little egotist, trying to carve out some piece of a
community that's already working fine, just so that you can lord it over
your own personal dominion. Worst of all, you don't even contribute to
the group - your interest is that of the control freak, not the
woodworker.

> that's just YOUR OPINION.

Of course - that's why I sign the posts. I usually write far too
verbosely, so if I drop the matter in a single line, then you might well
assume that I see it as an issue that's really not useful to discuss
further. There are arguments both for and against, you can guess which I
support. I respect the views of anyone who thinks differently, I just
happen to despise you and your methods.

>I never once suggested that rec.woodworking should be moderated.

Yes you did. Repeatedly. When that little dose of megalomania was
slapped down you then switched to creating new moderated groups, then
finally your pathetic little attempt at building your own private troll
reserve.

Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 11:11am [email protected]
(Wanda=A0Pangborn) who doth ponder:
Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned
earlier. Why don't you guys moderate your group? <snip>

Indeed yes, this group is plagued with mostly rude, crude, outright
bastards. I am one of the few exceptions. However, they are what makes
it interesting here. Most of us ae well aware that there are moderated
woodworking forums, etc., avaiable. We prefer it here.

You are obviously a bit confused. The problem is not the people
here, it is trolls, with abusive, often cross-posted, usually off-topic,
vile, profane, and pointless, postingss. They apparently have low, or
negative, self-esteem, non-existent social skills, are never
interesting, or amusing, often lack basic spelling and grammer skills
and are often totally ignorant of the subject at hand. Fortunately they
are usually easily spotted, sometimes by the subject line, other time by
the first one or two sentences. Usually not a good idea to respond to
them, because most of their drivel is cross-posted - which is why so
many threads pop up here, originated elswhere, and cross-posted here -
then everyone that response, wherever, it shows up everywhere.

Got any single plus-sized female friends (with no kids)? I'm
looking.



JOAT
If it ain't broke, don't lend it.
- Red Green

Wanda Pangborn wrote:

> Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned earlier.
> Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>
> I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
> godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was attempted. You
> just need a really fair and dedicated moderator, which I know is easier said
> than done. Moderators have to be level headed and leave their egos at the
> door.
>
> Anyway, just a thought. Thanks again for all your help.
>
> Wanda
>
>
The Wreck is what it is precisely because it ISN'T moderated. Who needs
a net cop authoritarian, control freak, messing with our Wreck?

There is no such thing as a "fair and dedicated moderator". I've seen
my fair share of their imperious actions on both Compuserve and web forums.

Dave

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:43:28 -0800, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

>I seriously attempted to read Pratchett books twice and failed both
>times. His style got under my skin before the end of the 3rd page
>and his totally schizophrenic style of bouncing between totally
>different concepts/situations/personalities 60 times per second
>truly hurts (hertz.)

It would be 50Hz given his previous occupation <g>

--

Greg G. said:

>
>Most wreck denizens are happy to provide a helpful response to a
>sincere question.

But do take note that I said 'most'. <g>


Greg G.

X-No-Archive: YES
Daedalus has offered into testimony
[email protected]

> On 18 Nov 2005 05:38:16 -0800, "BGP" <[email protected]>, wrote:
>
>> There is one simple rule to follow to clean up usenet via
>> moderation.
>>
>> Ban personal attacks.
>>
>> I would go with a warning system. First offense is a warning.
>> Second offense is 24-hour timeout. Third offense is a one-week
>> timeout. Beyond that, we look at permanent bans.
>>
>> Personal attacks are what drag down any forum. If you ban the
>> practice, you force people to respect each other and engage on an
>> intellectual level. You can say what you want, but a personal
>> attack is out of bounds.
>>
>> As it is, I block/killfile/ignore people who use them on my own.
>> They aren't worth my time.
>
> Look! Vito and Bowtie had a kid.

Yeah, and they had the little bastard out of wedlock, too. Frito is such a
hypocrite!

--

Skepticult® Member# 581-00504-208
ChadwickStone at Gmail dot com
Usenet's most helpful netizen
Hammer of Thor, March 2005

X-No-Archive: YES
Frito Kuhnt proposed the following SATANIC hallucination:
[email protected]

>>> I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated

Liar, you support censorship ergo the keyword "moderated." Your infernal
master has trvly possessed that toilet you call a soul, hasn't he?

>> So your motivation in volunteering for the new NAN committee is so
>> that you can empower ordinary Usenet posters to have their favorite
>> unmoderated Big 8 groups become moderated?
>
> Can't you understand what you read? I said that's ONE reason, but
> "THAT ISN'T THE ONLY REASON".

What would Jesus say, oh blustering hypocrite? Other than, "membership
denied" oh judgmental sinner.

>> So your candidacy for the committee isn't about helping out the Big
>> 8...it's *really* about control and censorship.
>
> "CONTROL" and "CENSORSHIP"

Everything that a phony shepherd like yourself represents.

> I'm one of those people, that's all.


You no doubt refer to "mentally ill" do you not?

--

Skepticult® Member# 581-00504-208
ChadwickStone at Gmail dot com
Usenet's most helpful netizen
Hammer of Thor, March 2005

Wanda Pangborn (in
[email protected]) said:

<snipped>

Wanda unknowingly struck a nerve, it would seem.

Ed ([email protected]) couldn't resist the N word and Tom Watson
([email protected]) properly invoked Godwin's Law.

If you're not familiar with Godwin's Law, you can learn about it by
doing a Google search. It's hardly enforcable; but continuing to post
to a thread in which Godwin's Law has been properly invoked is
generally regarded as (at best) the behavior of an emotionally
out-of-control troll.

G'day.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

I Vote NO for moderation.

Jason Powell


Wanda Pangborn wrote:

> Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned
> earlier. Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>
> I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
> godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was attempted. You
> just need a really fair and dedicated moderator, which I know is easier
> said than done.

X-No-Archive: YES
Vito Kuhn has offered into testimony
[email protected]

> "Chadwick Stone©" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> X-No-Archive: YES
>> Frito Kuhnt proposed the following SATANIC hallucination:
>> [email protected]
>>
>>>>> I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated
>>
>> Liar, you support censorship ergo the keyword "moderated." Your
>> infernal master has trvly possessed that toilet you call a soul,
>> hasn't he?
>>
>>>> So your motivation in volunteering for the new NAN committee is
>>>> so that you can empower ordinary Usenet posters to have their
>>>> favorite unmoderated Big 8 groups become moderated?
>>>
>>> Can't you understand what you read? I said that's ONE reason, but
>>> "THAT ISN'T THE ONLY REASON".
>>
>> What would Jesus say, oh blustering hypocrite? Other than,
>> "membership denied" oh judgmental sinner.
>>
>>>> So your candidacy for the committee isn't about helping out the
>>>> Big
>>>> 8...it's really about control and censorship.
>>>
>>> "CONTROL" and "CENSORSHIP"
>>
>> Everything that a phony shepherd like yourself represents.
>>
>>> I'm one of those people, that's all.
>>
>>
>> You no doubt refer to "mentally ill" do you not?
>
> Look at this. The swine gang decided it was time to show up.

Much to your ungawdly chagrin. Hell, isn't it, Frito?

--

Skepticult® Member# 581-00504-208
ChadwickStone at Gmail dot com
Usenet's most helpful netizen
Hammer of Thor, March 2005

X-No-Archive: YES
Art Deco has offered into testimony
171120051554173099%[email protected]

> Vito Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Chadwick Stone©" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>> Frito Kuhnt proposed the following SATANIC hallucination:
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>>>>> I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated
>>>
>>> Liar, you support censorship ergo the keyword "moderated." Your
>>> infernal master has trvly possessed that toilet you call a soul,
>>> hasn't he?
>>>
>>>>> So your motivation in volunteering for the new NAN committee is
>>>>> so that you can empower ordinary Usenet posters to have their
>>>>> favorite unmoderated Big 8 groups become moderated?
>>>>
>>>> Can't you understand what you read? I said that's ONE reason, but
>>>> "THAT ISN'T THE ONLY REASON".
>>>
>>> What would Jesus say, oh blustering hypocrite? Other than,
>>> "membership denied" oh judgmental sinner.
>>>
>>>>> So your candidacy for the committee isn't about helping out the
>>>>> Big
>>>>> 8...it's really about control and censorship.
>>>>
>>>> "CONTROL" and "CENSORSHIP"
>>>
>>> Everything that a phony shepherd like yourself represents.
>>>
>>>> I'm one of those people, that's all.
>>>
>>>
>>> You no doubt refer to "mentally ill" do you not?
>>
>> Look at this. The swine gang decided it was time to show up.
>
> Hi, Vito!
Hi, Frito!!2!!

> *oink*
*oink*

--

Skepticult® Member# 581-00504-208
ChadwickStone at Gmail dot com
Usenet's most helpful netizen
Hammer of Thor, March 2005

"Wanda Pangborn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just a thought as I was considering the rude individuals mentioned
> earlier.
> Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>
> I used to post to a moderated group for plus size women and it was a
> godsend, as you can imagine the kind of trolling that was attempted. You
> just need a really fair and dedicated moderator, which I know is easier
> said
> than done. Moderators have to be level headed and leave their egos at the
> door.
>
> Anyway, just a thought. Thanks again for all your help.
>
> Wanda

Please do not take this the wrong way Wanda but why don't you actively
participate for about 6+ years in this group and see if you still think that
the group needs to be moderated. No need in fixing something that is not
broke.

Javier Henderson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:09:23 -0500, Javier Henderson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> What I do wish is that rec.woodworking was split thus:
>>
>>> rec.woodworking.powertoolchat
>>> rec.woodworking.everythingelse
>>> With no crossposting allowed.
>>
>> How do you propose to enforce "no crossposting allowed"? Why not
>> just filter client-side?
>
> It's impossible, thus my comment about getting this to work would
> be harder than getting free wood.

Actually it is very possible to establish a robomoderated group to
filter all crossposted articles. Take for example,
news.admin.net-abuse.sightings...the group is robomoderated, by a
bot, not by a human. The group is very high volume...it trumps
rec.woodworking in terms of posting volume. Messages get past the
bot if they are not crossposted, and if they meet a few other
requirements. It would be very easy to set up two separate
woodworking groups and filter *only* crossposts...not to censor any
content.

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
news:151120051631526498%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:

> In article
> <[email protected]>, Wanda
> Pangborn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you guys moderate your group?
>
> It is not possible to change the moderation status of a news group
> in the "Big 8", which rec.woodworking is part of.

A temporary moratorium was put into place to forbid it until further
notice...

*But* Russ Allbery recently announced his intention to resign from
Big 8 administration by next October. He will be replaced by a new
committee of ordinary Usenet posters. Chances are that *it will* be
possible to convert an unmoderated Big 8 group into a moderated group,
*if* 1) the committee members can be convinced that it is a good
idea *and* 2) there is support for the moderation status change in
the target newsgroup. If enough people want this group (for example)
to be moderated, they could lobby to the new committee...which is
due to be announced within a few weeks. If not, supporters could
petition for a new moderated group (or 2, as someone else in this
thread proposed) as soon as the committee is assembled.

BOTTOM LINE: It can be done *if* there is support.

Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 15 Nov 2005 23:12:09 GMT, William D <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>*But* Russ Allbery recently announced his intention to resign from
>>Big 8 administration by next October. He will be replaced by a new
>>committee of ordinary Usenet posters.
>
> I wonder if Vito will apply ?
>
> <shudder>

You mean Vito Kuhn? He did.

http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/a3bf2ba22c2c42db

http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/78f59a941c51fbed

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
news:151120052050549002%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> William D <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But* Russ Allbery recently announced his intention to resign from
>> Big 8 administration by next October. He will be replaced by a
>> new committee of ordinary Usenet posters.
>
> Nobody knows what will replace the nan mods.

That will be decided by the soon-to-be-named committee members.

From Message-ID: <[email protected]>
http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/78f59a941c51fbed

"Russ and I will discuss the lists and decide how many people will be
on the initial Board. The number is not yet determined, so list
everyone, from most to least desirable. This is going to be the last
step before we actually name a Board which will then be empowered to
decide upon the general Big8 issues. So we are almost there."

> The scene in news.groups is a mess right now, and personally I
> have no faith things will get sorted out to *anybody's*
> satisfaction the way in any foreseeable future.

We'll see.

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I hope you're pleased with yourself Wanda. There we were, all
> quiet and peaceful, and then YOU pipe up and whisper "Psst.
> Moderate?" and then all freakin hell breaks loose.
>
> I just hope you're satisfied with all the damage you've caused.
> Just LOOK what you've done. My, my, MY. Your friends over at
> plus-sized communist agitators must be pret-ty proud of you.
>

Don't you think you're being a little hard on the gal? She's been very
polite, and only expressing her opinions...not trying to stuff them
down anyone's throats. What's wrong with a little spirited discussion?