Re: [socmen] How about if *we* propose our own moderated group?
- From: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 05:03:51 GMT
"Jill" <perspicacious@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:60koe1tshaq5mt794la73bpkhbmnk5r4j9@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:00:11 GMT, "Michael Snyder"
> <msnyder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jill" <perspicacious@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:7iioe1l5c4ki5je0oboij2786p0bjqond6@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:48:25 GMT, "Michael Snyder"
> >> <msnyder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Mark Ferguson" <admin@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >news:q8vne1du0vvmc0gubk0f15hrhd1lipapqk@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> >> All it will take is a little effort on those you are screwing to
screw
> >> >> back and AUK becomes unusable until they decide to stop screwing
back.
> >> >> Your guns mean nothing because you just do not have enough bullets.
> >> >
> >> >I was going to stay out of this, but look, folks, this is a really
> >> >bad idea. These kookers have nothing to do all day but spew
> >> >garbage all over the net. They also have tons of experience
> >> >at it. Trying to beat them at their own game is PLAYING
> >> >their game, and that's a losing strategy. I just can't see them
> >> >waving a white flag because they can't stand all the traffic
> >> >in their own group... what do they care? Traffic to their
> >> >group is a win for them.
> >>
> >> I agree with you on this point, Michael. Stirring up loosely hinged
> >> people is never a good idea. OTOH I do not find the idea of a
> >> moderated soc.men (even as a mirror site) to be a good idea either.
> >> Moderation is one step away (if that) from censorship and soc.men has
> >> always been a place where opinions could be freely voiced.
> >
> >And always will be. For the sake of discussion, Jill,
> >and considering that no change to the existing group
> >is contemplated, what would be your objection to the
> >existance of a second, moderated group?
>
> Some have suggested that what is censored in the moderated group would
> automatically be kept from appearing on the unmoderated group. That
> (if true) would in effect be a form of censorship on soc.men. While I
> have no problems with individual censorship (use of killfiles), I
> don't believe in blanket censorship even if it is unintended in
> nature.
OK. Well, set your mind at ease, then, I don't think
that can happen. The big boys from news.groups seem
unanimous on the point that no change to soc.men itself
is in the cards.
One of my suggestions (just for discussion) was that perhaps
whatever was *not* censored (ie. was posted) to the moderated
group might be echoed to the regular group -- maybe that's what
you're thinking of -- but that idea didn't seem to fly. My thinking
was that then folks wouldn't have to choose which one to post to,
and real content on this group wouldn't diminish if folks started
moving to the new one.
A better suggestion might be that cross-posts wouldn't be
accepted to the other group *except* if they came *only*
from this one.
.
- References:
- Re: [socmen] How about if *we* propose our own moderated group?
- From: Michael Snyder
- Re: [socmen] How about if *we* propose our own moderated group?
- Prev by Date: Re: VAWA: MAKING DIVORCE EASY, PROFITABLE, AND FUN
- Next by Date: Re: Tampering with juries should be illegal.
- Previous by thread: Re: [socmen] How about if *we* propose our own moderated group?
- Next by thread: Re: [socmen] How about if *we* propose our own moderated group?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
