🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <yliu3y95i5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> "Russ Allbery"
(rra@stanford.edu) wrote:

> If you don't like the policies of the mailing list, rather than
> trying to work around them in the associated newsgroup,
> I strongly recommend creating an independent unmoderated
> newsgroup for the topic.  A good name may be sci.med.transplant.

Mr. Allbery, I read advice you recently offered to someone who believed a
"newsgroup that [he] read has been moderated by someone who's clearly out to
destroy it." On September 28, in message <ylogennghl.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
entitled "Re: Retrommoderation as a tool for Censorship ... " you wrote:

>  <snip>
> You call up your ISP support line on the phone. You tell them
> that this > newsgroup that you read has been moderated by
> someone who's clearly out to destroy it and ask for contact
> information for the folks who run the news server. You ask
> them not to honor the moderation. You get your friends to do
> the same. You start a conversation about it here
> [news.admin.net-abuse.usenet], in news.admin.misc, and in
> other likely places to reach news admins. You get someone
> like me or Jeremy or Andrew or the like who knows a lot of
> different news admins on your side and we start passing the
> word among the people we know that it might not be a
> good idea to honor that control message, and start putting
> back pressure on the relevant issuer of control messages 
> to make a special exception.
>
> If you get a substantial portion of influential news admins to
> agree with you on something, you can change just about
> anything about how Usenet runs. <snip>

So, I thought my post regarding caution on transferring administrative
authority over the bit.* hierarchy was, not merelyconsistent with your advice
but, "guided" by it.

Frankly, I DO believe that there should be an independent, unmoderated
newsgroup such as you suggest. However, the logistics of establishing an
effective group, in the required timeframe (the contentious issues I mentioned
currently are before Congress), make such an effort unlikely to succeed. For
that reason, I chose to begin publicizing the problems with
bit.listserv.transplant in the forums you mentioned in your Sept 28 message.

I have followed your postings and appreciate your advice. I would certainly
appreciate any help you could provide in the eventual establishment of an
independent newsgroup, perhaps "sci.med.transplant".

Karen Burton 
shuckskbee@aol.com
<URL:http://members.aol.com/shuckskbee/>