Gail Futoran wrote, On 06/12/2006 18:10:
This is a public service announcement:

Anyone who is interested in rec.ponds.moderated would
be well advised to do an advanced search on Google
groups and review the posts of those involved in the
rec.ponds discussion over the past two weeks or so to
decide for themselves the veracity of statements made.

Once you done an advanced search a couple of
times, you'll get the hang of it and can revise your
search based on criteria that interest you.

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

Hello, thanks for the reply, I'm not sure why my post required a public
service announcement.
I've been following the r.p.m discussions over the last few weeks so
know what is going on, I don't really want to google for every word
written on it because it is 90% nonsense and argument. What part of my
post requires a google advanced search, and is the veracity of my
statements in question?

David
rec.ponder since Feb 2002 (I pop back now and then to see if the trolls
have left)


--
DavidM
www.djmorgan.org.uk

David
rec.ponder since Feb 2002 (I pop back now and then to see if the trolls
have left)

Keeping popping in, the trolls may still be with us, but they'll have to
curb their tongues/typing in RPM. ;-)

~ jan, RPer since 1997

~ janj wrote, On 07/12/2006 15:36:
David
rec.ponder since Feb 2002 (I pop back now and then to see if the trolls
have left)

Keeping popping in, the trolls may still be with us, but they'll have to
curb their tongues/typing in RPM. ;-)

~ jan, RPer since 1997

I really do hope it works, r.p used to be such a lively and friendly
place to browse. Frankly it amazes me that people like you have the
perseverance to stay here, filtering out the rubbish, and posting
sensible replies.
r.p.mod can't arrive soon enough, and I'm all for for a zero tolerance
policy towards the trouble makers who have destroyed r.p.

--
DavidM
www.djmorgan.org.uk

"DavidM" wrote in message
...
r.p.mod can't arrive soon enough, and I'm all for for a zero tolerance
policy towards the trouble makers who have destroyed r.p.
==================
I believe the messages will be filtered on content, not what the person
posted in the past. So they may still be around but they won't be allowed to
troll, post obscene messages or insult and degrade others. Or at least
that's my understanding of it.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

Carol would you mind explaining the "THEY" part. You are they, they
would not exist if you did not exist.........Little miss perfect
......who has never done any wrong huh!
Degrade others as yu do in the relgious groups, insult others like
you do all over the other groups, post obscenities you you do and
blame it on others whose headers you forge, troll and post with
remailers so yur able to remian hidden form the ignorant......You do
not have an understanding of anything.

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:14:51 -0600, Köi-Lö wrote:


"DavidM" wrote in message
...
r.p.mod can't arrive soon enough, and I'm all for for a zero tolerance
policy towards the trouble makers who have destroyed r.p.
==================
I believe the messages will be filtered on content, not what the person
posted in the past. So they may still be around but they won't be allowed to
troll, post obscene messages or insult and degrade others. Or at least
that's my understanding of it.

"DavidM" wrote in message
...
Gail Futoran wrote, On 06/12/2006 18:10:
This is a public service announcement:

Anyone who is interested in rec.ponds.moderated would
be well advised to do an advanced search on Google
groups and review the posts of those involved in the
rec.ponds discussion over the past two weeks or so to
decide for themselves the veracity of statements made.

Once you done an advanced search a couple of
times, you'll get the hang of it and can revise your
search based on criteria that interest you.

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

Hello, thanks for the reply, I'm not sure why my post required a public
service announcement.
I've been following the r.p.m discussions over the last few weeks so know
what is going on, I don't really want to google for every word written on
it because it is 90% nonsense and argument. What part of my post requires
a google advanced search, and is the veracity of my statements in
question?

David
rec.ponder since Feb 2002 (I pop back now and then to see if the trolls
have left)


--
DavidM
www.djmorgan.org.uk

My PSA *followed* your post in the thread, but was not in *response* to your
post. If you look at my "PSA" post, the only thing in there is my stuff,
nothing of yours, or anyone else's.

When someone responds to another person, they include what the OP (original
poster) wrote or some part of it and author identification, as above. But
anyone can post something "new" to an existing thread without specifically
responding to anyone else. That's how USENET
works.

Now, the reason I posted my "PSA" was to provide information for anyone new
to USENET or posting online who might not know there's an archive where
anyone can look up the previous posts, e.g., if someone missed an earlier
post and wants to look something up. Or check the veracity of statements.

For example, if I assert that you, DavidM, posted on rec.ponds that you
think rec.ponds should be removed from USENET, you would naturally disagree
that you ever said that, and anyone who wanted to know who was telling the
truth could go to Google groups archives to see if you ever said that or if
I'm blowing smoke.

There have been a fair amount of accusations made during the discussion in
the past two weeks where one person asserts another person posted something,
and the assertion was not true. Checking the Google archives is one way of
sorting out the truth.

I posted my "PSA" to two relevant threads, once each, and I won't do it
again. Basically, because I give up. ::shrug::

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

"Gail Futoran" wrote in message
...

I posted my "PSA" to two relevant threads, once each, and I won't do it
again. Basically, because I give up. ::shrug::
=====================
No one seems to care what anyone else said or posted here in the past, but I
think what you posted was a good idea.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

Gail Futoran wrote:
My PSA *followed* your post in the thread, but was not in *response* to your
post.
...
When someone responds to another person, they include what the OP (original
poster) wrote or some part of it and author identification, as above. But
anyone can post something "new" to an existing thread without specifically
responding to anyone else. That's how USENET
works.

As far as I can see the only people here are those waiting for r.p.m,
and those that have ruined r.p over the last couple of years. We
probably all know how USENET works. The way I use USENET is that you
reply to the OP if your comment is not relevant to the current thread.
You replied to my message in the main thread, that's the reason I
questioned it's meaning.

There have been a fair amount of accusations made during the discussion in
the past two weeks where one person asserts another person posted something,
and the assertion was not true. Checking the Google archives is one way of
sorting out the truth.

Hopefully Big-8 will see through all the crap and give us r.p.mod. After
that, if it's not pond related, it does not matter.


I posted my "PSA" to two relevant threads, once each, and I won't do it
again. Basically, because I give up. ::shrug::

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

"DavidM" wrote in message
...
Gail Futoran wrote:
My PSA *followed* your post in the thread, but was not in *response* to
your
post. ... When someone responds to another person, they include what the
OP (original
poster) wrote or some part of it and author identification, as above.
But
anyone can post something "new" to an existing thread without
specifically
responding to anyone else. That's how USENET
works.

As far as I can see the only people here are those waiting for r.p.m, and
those that have ruined r.p over the last couple of years.

Few people are going to post here when they see the endless insulting
personal attacks and off-topic messages. There's the boring off-topic
anti-whatever rants they don't want to wade through. Many regulars are
gone - some for good I'm sure. Who can blame them? Once the group is
moderated the personal attacks and obscene messages will be a thing of the
past. If old timers don't come back, new people will join knowing *they*
wont have to fear being a target of mindless rambling off-topic personal
attacks.

Hopefully Big-8 will see through all the crap and give us r.p.mod. After
that, if it's not pond related, it does not matter.

If they take one look at this NG as it's been recently, they will see why it
needs to be moderated.

I posted my "PSA" to two relevant threads, once each, and I won't do it
again. Basically, because I give up. ::shrug::

And that's exactly what the trolls and MISSIONers want you to do!
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

"DavidM" wrote in message
...
Gail Futoran wrote:
My PSA *followed* your post in the thread, but was not in *response* to
your
post. ... When someone responds to another person, they include what the
OP (original
poster) wrote or some part of it and author identification, as above.
But
anyone can post something "new" to an existing thread without
specifically
responding to anyone else. That's how USENET
works.

As far as I can see the only people here are those waiting for r.p.m, and
those that have ruined r.p over the last couple of years. We probably all
know how USENET works.

I disagree. First, new people show up all the time. I've seen posters
refer to "this blog" or "this forum" or "how do I subscribe to your group?"
(for those posting from Google groups), etc. You can't assume everyone
"here" is intimately familar with USENET. Or with computers or the
Internet, for that matter.

Second, most of the USENET newsgroups I've posted to I've lurked in first,
for weeks on average, sometimes months, before posting. Many people don't
bother. They jump in feet first having no idea what's going on. Sympathetic
regulars will often try to help them learn.

The way I use USENET is that you
reply to the OP if your comment is not relevant to the current thread.

Third, by NOT including quoted material, people have no idea what you're
responding to. Netiquette suggests that if you're responding or replying to
someone else's post, you include at least some portion of their post for
reference or context. By not including any portion of anyone else's post, I
was indicating new content in an existing thread.

Fourth, my comment WAS relevant to the current thread since the current
thread is about a proposed moderated rec.ponds, and there will be a formal
discussion at some point, and as an interested party I wanted anyone new to
newsgroups or the Google archives or rec.ponds or the current discussions to
have a place they could go to do their own research, if they were
interested. Not everyone knows about Google groups archives.

I.e., I was trying to provide information that, by the way, could make me
look like an idiot (based on dumb things I've said in newsgroups) as well as
support anything I said here or elsewhere.

You replied to my message in the main thread, that's the reason I
questioned it's meaning.

See above. I did not reply to your message, I posted within a thread. If I
intended to reply to YOUR post, I would have included part of your post or
at least your email addy for reference.

There have been a fair amount of accusations made during the discussion
in the past two weeks where one person asserts another person posted
something, and the assertion was not true. Checking the Google archives
is one way of sorting out the truth.

Hopefully Big-8 will see through all the crap and give us r.p.mod. After
that, if it's not pond related, it does not matter.

Hopefully the Big-8 has more experience in USENET than you and I put
together.

[snip]

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003