"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

"Gail Futoran" wrote:
"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).

In another moderated NG, soc.religion.islam, I have had posts returned. In
the first instance, it was because I used my above e-mail addy instead of
me true one. In that instance, two of the moderators went out of their way
to return my post, with a clear explanation of why. When I corrected my
e-mail addy, my message was posted as written. In the second instance, my
post was returned because it contained an excessive amount of quoted text
compared to new text. Again, after judicious snipping on my part, my
message was posted as written.

I appreciate the efforts of moderators, who all seem to be volunteers, in
the other moderated groups where I post, and anticipate that the same will
be the case with rec,ponds,moderated.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

wrote in message
...
"Gail Futoran" wrote:
[snip]

In another moderated NG, soc.religion.islam, I have had posts returned. In
the first instance, it was because I used my above e-mail addy instead of
me true one. In that instance, two of the moderators went out of their way
to return my post, with a clear explanation of why. When I corrected my
e-mail addy, my message was posted as written. In the second instance, my
post was returned because it contained an excessive amount of quoted text
compared to new text. Again, after judicious snipping on my part, my
message was posted as written.

Several years ago I added a modest spam block to my email addy. It never
occurred to me that would result in my posts to a moderated newsgroup being
blocked. Thanks for your example. It helps me better understand the
process of moderation.

I appreciate the efforts of moderators, who all seem to be volunteers, in
the other moderated groups where I post, and anticipate that the same will
be the case with rec,ponds,moderated.

I sincerely hope so.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! !
!
~Semper Fi~

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

"Gail Futoran" wrote in message
news
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.
======================
Just getting rid of the constant boring off-topic personal attack messages
alone would get this a working group once again. So no matter what happens
in the end, *I am* for a moderated rec.ponds.

Gill please take notice. *I AM* for a moderated rec.ponds no matter that
anyone else may claim I want. If you think "this message" was written by a
troll, I will gladly e-mail you a copy using my ISP provided e-mail account.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*