"Tristan" wrote in message
...

Oh so now Gail proposes to modify a post a person makes to make it
more acceptable.

Nope, I never said that.

As I understand the process, moderators would:
(1) let a submission be posted
OR
(2) return a submission to its author with an explanation of why the
submission is being rejected
OR
(3) return a submission to its author with a recommendation that, e.g.,
objectionable language be removed (by the author) and the submission be
returned revised (by the author) to be posted. I.e., that the poster follow
published guidelines about posting to rec.ponds.moderated (RPM).

Obviously (2) and (3) are much the same thing, at a practical level. The
person submitting a post has the choice to follow published guidelines, or
post somewhere else. Else why bother with moderation in the first place?

At no time EVER have I said moderators should have the power to edit someone
else's post. I wouldn't do it nor would I ever post to a newgroup that did
that to posts.

Then this is really all about control in this forum
isn;'t it.

Of course it's about control, but not of *this* forum - rec.ponds - since no
one is proposing changing rec.ponds, rather people are proposing a brand new
USENET newsgroup called, mostly likely, rec.ponds.moderated. rec.ponds will
continue to exist, AFAIK. No one I know of is proposing uncreating (or
whatever the term is) rec.ponds.

That really isn't that hard to comprehend, is it?

or replied to separately. So now mods are also
gonna start to edit and change them.

Again, I never ever once suggested moderators of rec.ponds.moderated or any
other USENET newsgroup should be allowed to edit a post. Nor has any other
responsible (i.e. non troll) person here.

To correct what might be another misconception on your part, I will respond
to something you wrote above:

"A post should be placed as made by original poster or
deleted inits entirety"

My response to that would be, as I understand the proposed process, a
moderator can either post a submitted post to RPM, or RETURN the submission
to the original author with an explanation of why the moderator(s) will not
post the submission as it currently reads. I.e., I expect in many cases an
author will be directed to published guidelines about acceptable posts. The
original author is then within his/her rights to delete the post, or revise
and resubmit.

Clear?

It is up to everyone who responds to the RFD to make sure these issues are
made clear.

Rather than engage in personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentations of
what other people (like me) have written in posts, if you are sincerely
interested in facilitating the process of creating RPM, you might

(1) raise reasonable questions (without personal attack or insult)
(2) propose solutions and revisions to published RFD(s) (withough resorting
to personal attack or insult).

That really isn't that hard to grasp, is it?

Yea right, ..I think yuu all have
been taking lessons 0n forum manipulation from Koiphen memebers.

Personal attack. Would not be allowed in RPM as I understand the moderation
guidelines under discussion.

If editiing a persons posts was made in a nonmoderated group it would
be called forgeries.........That alone should make Carol feel right at
home.....

No one is suggesting editing anyone's post other than one's own post(s).
I.e., I edit my posts because I type fast and make frequent typos. I try to
catch and correct them. I also reread my posts before sending them for
clarity and often will edit them. But those are MY very own posts.

You keep repeating your charge that RPM moderators will edit other people's
posts as though writing it often enough will make it true.
Anyone reading your post will understand that your assertion does NOT
represent the position of any of the responsible rec.ponders who have been
involved in this discussion.

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003