🚀 go-pugleaf

Keith A. Glass wrote:
> 
> klaatu wrote:

> > > 4.  Upon formation of dc.general.moderated, we will ask for the
> > > dissolution of dc.general at a date "X" days after dc.g.mod is
> > > created.  Dc.general will have a daily post notifying users of 
> > > the change.
> 
> > Absolutely out of the question. This last paragraph reads like a 
> > friggin hijacking. Even Stanley Kalisch III would call this an 
> > out-and-out usurpation.  The news-admin community frowns on this 
> > sort of thing, it's just another ploy towards retromoderation. 
> > What would you do then, in maybe six months agitate for a renaming
> >  of the group to dc.general, and in a roundabout way achieve
> > retromoderation, where nobody is likely to approve it directly?
> 
> The news-admin community isn't an issue here, it's the admin of the
> dc.hierarchy
> that comes into play here.  I had merely suggested it, to conserve
> bandwidth:
> when you effectively take a group moderated, you wipe the original. . .

In the past, when news groups got too unmanageable, they created a
moderated version and left the unmoderated version, e.g. misc.legal and
misc.legal.moderated.  I have also seen groups do the reverse.  When
they
felt that the moderater was being too arbitrary, they created an
unmoderated version of the same group.

Your insistance on removing the unmoderated version of dc.general makes
it seem that since you don't like some of the views expressed, you want
to take away the format.  Again, what harm does having an unmoderated
and moderated version of dc. general at the same time?  The unmoderated
version won't inconvience you if you unsubscribe to it.

> > Contrarily, I propose that any post in dc.general.moderated be automatically
> > crossposted to dc.general (where it actually belongs), and that thus, people
> > who _want_ to limit their readable postings to only what someone else has
> > decided they should read, should read dc.general.moderated - and those who
> > like the freewheeling uncontrolled nature (even taking the bad with the good)
> > of the UseNet as it stands, should continue to read dc.general.

This is done with misc.legal and misc.legal.moderated.

> 
> The future is moderated groups, if for nothing else than to cut down the
> noise
> level from spams. . .

Perhaps for you.  90% of the newsgroups I follow are unmoderated.

> As far as this goes, I get flamed a few more times, I might just drop
> this too, and
> let dc.general get what it deserves. . .

You seem to equate disagreement with flaming.  Most of the responses I
have seen were disagreements with your proposal for removing dc.general.
They have not been abusive.

--
And I feel like picking a fight, with everyone who thinks they are
right.
All the preacher men, the politicians, all the critics, and the things
they write.       -Rainmakers-