Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

I'm not sure what you are basing these ideas on - a moderated newsgroup is
not going to be a closed shop or a mutual admiration society.

Questions will be necessary to start most discussions. Answers, as here,
will be given only if someone knows what is being sought and has time or
interest to discuss this. Sometimes questions are ignored because the matter
is covered in the archive, or the answer is so readily available elsewhere
that it is not worth the trouble of repeating. Otherwise, maybe no-one
happens to know or care about it enough to move the discussion forward, or
expects someone else can do this better anyway. This isn't a help-desk with
attendants on duty to answer the next question that comes along.

Professionalism has nothing to do with it as far as I can see. Like most
people here, I am not engaged in genealogy professionally, and this has not
affected the courtesy or help I have received in the newsgroup.

The point of moderation is to keep discussions on track and within the
bounds of commonsense & decent manners. Dishonesty, self-promotion and
personal insults ought to be rejected as outside the scope & purpose of the
forum, but this is not "censorship" in the sense of suppressing information
or opinion of the kind that people have joined the newsgroup to obtain.

Peter Stewart


"Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125723489.461279.139850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The semi-regularly scheduled flamefests aside, I find this idea a
> little worrisome.
>
> For example, I have posted questions that not infrequently have not
> received an answer (not to say that I think I am entitled to one,
> incidentally), and so I am left to wonder whether my query was (a)
> waaayyy too incredibly dumb, (b) waaayyyyy too incredibly obvious, or
> (c) ...? I don't know what. But at least my question was never
> censored, and some kind individuals have on more than one occasion
> responded either on-group or privately, for which I have been
> especially grateful. If I had been censored, I would have been left
> wandering blind and dumb, with no avenue for remedying my deficiencies.
>
> What happens to non-professionals like me (okay, I'm worried about
> self)? I'm quite certain I don't always cite chapter and verse, but can
> when required; oftentimes it's some bigger question rather than a
> particular source that I don't understand.
>
> And, of course, consenting adults can always choose to use either the
> 'delete' button or choose not to read posts from individuals whom they
> already know they will not appreciate his/her/their contributions.
>
> Individuals from _both_ sides of whatever divide that exists have been
> kind enough to me that I would hate to see a world that exists with
> only one camp or the other... especially inasmuch as I can always
> choose not to read further those flamefests that I find burdonsome.
>
> FWIW...
>
> Judy
> www.katherineswynford.net
>


.

Loading