🚀 go-pugleaf

There is a fine line between free speech and anarchy,and our challenge
is to draw that line carefully.

I believe that usenet is about like-minded people discussing matters of
mutual interest. Outsiders are always welcome, but only on condition
that they respect the charter of the group and the sensibilities of the
the participants. Cross postings and others that don't relate to the DC
area are, to me, an insult and totally out of keeping with the spirit of
usenet.

For those who wish to speak, go for it as long as your topic relates to
this group. If it doesn't, you are an unwelcome intruder, so don't
expect much respect or sympathy.

klaatu wrote:

> Outside of his attribution of causality to liberalism, he absolutely
> has a
> point.
>
> Retromoderation is anathematic to free speech, and that's what UseNet
> is all
> about.
>
> If people _want_ a moderated dc.general.moderated, then they _want_ to
> have
> someone moderate it. Of course that person has to _want_ to moderate
> the
> newsgroup, and I can only say: "does it really make good moral sense
> to vote
> for someone who _wants_ to be a politician?"
>
> As for you "Tracey", you might try being just a little-bit less
> foaming-at-the-mouth and try to restrict your posts to five or less
> newsgroups, ideally ones where your postings are even-remotely
> on-topic.
>
> Tracey*Levin wrote:
> >
> > Dear Conservatives,
> >
> >    Liberals are attempting to gain control of all popular newsgroups
> by
> > calling for them to become moderated.  And, as you know, it will be
> > liberals who will control, or moderate these groups.
>
> Hardly. I've seen rabid conservatives trying to get ahold of these
> newsgroups.
> Note that, for instance, news:misc.activism.militia is 'bot moderated.
> And
> it's hardly a hotbed of liberalism. Their rationale was to prevent
> excessive
> crossposting, and also to prevent SPAM. It works pretty well. But then
> again,
> it's moderated by a 'bot and not by an individual - though of course
> whoever
> programs the 'bot is essentially in control.
>
> >
> >    Liberals know that the Democratic party is dead, and that
> Republicans
> > are discussing its death around the country in these general groups.
>
> >    These same liberals do not want you to change the minds of
> Americans
> > by having access to large audiences via these groups, therefore,
> they
> > are not going to "allow" you to speak your mind in the very near
> future
> > if they get their way.
>
> The degree and profundity of your misattribution of intent is
> dismaying.
> However, your foreshadowing of events is IMHO essentially correct.
>
> >
> >    STAND UP AND BE COUNTED!  Do Not allow these *.general newsgroups
> to
> > become controlled, or moderated.  However, if liberals wish to
> create a
> > seperate moderated general newsgroup, that is fine, but so far, that
> is
> > not what they are planning.
>
> A moderated dc.general maingroup just isn't going to happen. Or if it
> does,
> censorship will happen and I somehow see this group losing credibility
> as
> rapidly as did Pravda, should censorship here ever be proven.
>
> >   PLEASE PLEASE remember this: LIBERALS ARE NOT HAPPY UNLESS THEY
> ARE IN
> > COMPLETE CONTROL OF EVERYTHING AROUND THEM!!!
>
> Tracey, that's not just liberals, that's _any_ control freaks.
>
> >
> >    DO NOT ALLOW LIBERALS TO SET THE AGENDA, NOR CONTROL YOUR SPEECH!
>
> --
>     Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic
> chimerae.
>           Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited.
>   Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of
> US
>  Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are
> $250,000.00
> Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow.
> http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/