Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


"John Brandon" <starbuck95@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125726270.475326.306940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> A group you called censored would skim out
>> those nasty or stupid replies, it would remove
>> those that are insulting and, as a result, many
>> more
>
> But who's going to be willing to volunteer for all the (boring) work
> involved in moderating? I personally would rather read through a
> message that contains ten curse words and three insults than be
> responsible for vetoing or altering what a grown person feels he or she
> wants to say.
>
> People really do need to stop being wimps, develop a slightly thicker
> skin, and ignore what they find unpleasant. At any given time, there
> is usually only one flame-prone thread going. Dear Peter himself
> announced that people reading his postings would have to be prepared to
> "take the rough with the smooth" (a lot of rough, little smooth). But
> of course he was right in this one instance.

The "rough" in this case is only necessary because SGM is not moderated.

The trouble with this is that people can easily impose views that may be
poisonous, like Akrogiali's inane "Greek" chauvinism recently, on readers
who are not necessarily attuned to pick up on the personal agenda or dumb
prejudice involved.

Equally, there are some who expend a good deal of time and effort before
finally seeing through the sham of Richardson's posturings about a king's
kinsman or some other similarly empty ploy to keep his name before the
public. The Vernon rubbish of the past few days is a typical example of his
stupid & subversive work - it was never more than a piece of nonsense to
impress the unwary, but it took a lot of patience from Todd, Rosie, Luke and
others to unravel the tangled mess that developed & that was stubbornly
maintained after the originator must have seen he had failed dismally.

A moderated newsgroup would have given up only a fraction of the bandwidth,
if any, to these and other such threads. They clog the SGM archive, making
searches time-consuming & often unprofitable.

The idea of SGM deserves a better outcome, but experience has shown that it
can be hijacked by people who are determined on aggrandising themselves
before readers new to the field of medieval genealogy, abetted by a few
blindly loyal followers.

In a moderated newsgroup, there is almost nothing that Richardson and I
could have to say to or about each other, since our interests are different
and he would not get away with deceits and specious logic needing to be
sharply corrected in the first place.

Peter Stewart


.