"Zëbulon" wrote in message
.. .

"Thomas Lee" wrote in message
...
In message , Jayne
Kulikauskas writes
She will be very welcome to post within charter on the proposed group.

I can't help but wonder if anyone with an "opposing view" will be welcome
on a moderated group should it be created.

I think you're missing an important point. You appear
to assume that all moderators will think alike about
everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. I
don't agree with Jan or Snooze or Derek or Tristan or
Jim or Gill or you or (fill in the blank) about everything,
and they certainly don't agree with me about everything.
Anyone can check our posting history to see that.

Already I'm seeing things I've said
being taken the wrong way.

Welcome to USENET. And you're no newbie!
You should know that there's always room for
misinterpretation and disagreement in human
communcation, whether it's face to face or in more
limited contexts, like this one.

Things I've said have been taken the wrong way
plenty of times, including by people who have no
beef with me.

Is this to discourage me from posting at all?

*WHO* do you think is trying to discourage you
from posting!!?? Jan? Derek? Me? Jim? Who??
And why should it matter? If RPM flies, the
moderation policy will be based on content, not
posting history. As we have all said hundreds of times.

My words are being turned into words I never said, given meaning I didn't
mean.

Welcome to USENET ... whoops, already said that.

It's almost like (?) only a few select people on rec.ponds are
allowed to express an opinion without what they say being used against
them in some way.

You haven't noticed I've been attacked here for
speaking up in favor of a moderated group? You're
not the only one being attacked. So has Jan. So has
Gill. So has Derek. Etc. Etc. And what is our crime?
Speaking out in favor of rec.ponds.moderated;
expressing opinions about how a new group should
function. Reasonable opinions, I will add.

I can see why so few regulars dare speak up about how they
feel about a moderated group.

"so few regulars"?? Most of the regulars I've known
in rec.ponds have not only spoken up here but are in
process of doing the real work of trying to set up a
moderated group. Or they're here getting involved in
the discussion, even though it opens them up to attack.

Then I'm told to ignore and not reply to the
trolls and the very people who told me that are replying to them every
day.

It's good advice. The only reason - let me repeat
that - THE ONLY REASON I've engaged some of
the people I've engaged recently on rec.ponds is
because I believe strongly that creating
rec.ponds.moderated is the way to go. I'm
interested in the process, I'm involved in the process,
and I think I have an obligation to participate in the
process publicly, as I have been, despite that it
leaves me open to unfair attacks.

Trust me when I tell you that some of the people I've
responded to in the past several weeks I would have
totally ignored, even killfiled, if the discussion at hand
weren't about creating a new group.

Therefore, unless there is a good reason to respond
to trolls, or trollish posts, you shouldn't. Of if you
respond, try to stay focussed on the topic at hand,
not past ills. If you take my advice as suggesting you
should stop posting, you're just not reading what
I've written.

Assuming the group is created you mean. Personally, I'm not convinced
yet.

I can see no reason it wouldn't be created.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

Gail

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:52:38 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

snip lots of good and lots of trashy unsubstantiated junk


My words are being turned into words I never said, given meaning I didn't
mean.

No one is changing anyhting yu said, but your choice of words in most
cases is a lot to be desired. Perhaps its that aragance or vindictive
style that reverberates through your posts thats doing you in Carol.
Welcome to USENET ... whoops, already said that.

It's almost like (?) only a few select people on rec.ponds are
allowed to express an opinion without what they say being used against
them in some way.

I guess if something has credence or a remote possibility to truth
then perhaps posts or statements you make may also be view in a
different manner, CArol.

You haven't noticed I've been attacked here for
speaking up in favor of a moderated group? You're
not the only one being attacked. So has Jan. So has
Gill. So has Derek. Etc. Etc. And what is our crime?
Speaking out in favor of rec.ponds.moderated;
expressing opinions about how a new group should
function. Reasonable opinions, I will add.


Well what you call an attack is not what others form the looks of it
anyhow view as an attack, Its more of a dissagreement with you that yu
perceive to be a personal attack....BIG BIG Difference between view
and attack. Or is it yur asking to be attacked since it has not
happened and you just crave being viloated and attacked. I do belive
that may be the problem, especially since your such an attention whore
Carol.
I can see why so few regulars dare speak up about how they
feel about a moderated group.

Maybe they are just content to get what can be gottenwith the hopes it
will put a heavy duty set of binders / restraints on yuy CArol.

"so few regulars"?? Most of the regulars I've known
in rec.ponds have not only spoken up here but are in
process of doing the real work of trying to set up a
moderated group. Or they're here getting involved in
the discussion, even though it opens them up to attack.

No one gets attacked here or any other place unless of course they
decide like a few of your fireind to toss their dog opff the porch and
into the fight.

Then I'm told to ignore and not reply to the
trolls and the very people who told me that are replying to them every
day.

You also ignored the plea to appologize and this would not have got
to where its at now Carol.

It's good advice. The only reason - let me repeat
that - THE ONLY REASON I've engaged some of
the people I've engaged recently on rec.ponds is
because I believe strongly that creating
rec.ponds.moderated is the way to go. I'm
interested in the process, I'm involved in the process,
and I think I have an obligation to participate in the
process publicly, as I have been, despite that it
leaves me open to unfair attacks.

I really have not seen anyhtng that would really qualify as an attack
on yopu gail......just did not happen, or on anyone else either. If it
makes yu feel left out sayt so, I believe we can somehow oblige an
attack or two without even raising much of a sweat......

Trust me when I tell you that some of the people I've
responded to in the past several weeks I would have
totally ignored, even killfiled, if the discussion at hand
weren't about creating a new group.

And I just bet I am among those few select individuals ;-) Makes me
proud to be a memeber here! ROFLMAO

Therefore, unless there is a good reason to respond
to trolls, or trollish posts, you shouldn't. Of if you
respond, try to stay focussed on the topic at hand,
not past ills. If you take my advice as suggesting you
should stop posting, you're just not reading what
I've written.


Carol is not capable of staying focused especially when the expected
reply does not fit in the the view of what she has or thought it would
be. If yu say red and she expected blue, its an all out accusation of
fueding with her and attacking her. LOL what a hoot CArol is. I bet
doctors would give a bunch of money to get the opportiunity to disect
her brain, and try and cypher what made her function. LOL
Assuming the group is created you mean. Personally, I'm not convinced
yet.

Oh its more than likely gong to happen, why do yu think carol is
acting as she is acting with all the resent ment of it bening created.
Read between the lines she is an unhappy camper for sure.......she
knows up front she is not capable of having her reins get shortened
up, it wold crimp her style / habits.

I can see no reason it wouldn't be created.
--
ZB....
Creating problems on USENET Since it was open to the public
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

Gail





-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:52:38 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

snip lots of good and lots of trashy unsubstantiated junk


My words are being turned into words I never said, given meaning I didn't
mean.

No one is changing anyhting yu said, but your choice of words in most
cases is a lot to be desired. Perhaps its that aragance or vindictive
style that reverberates through your posts thats doing you in Carol.
Welcome to USENET ... whoops, already said that.

It's almost like (?) only a few select people on rec.ponds are
allowed to express an opinion without what they say being used against
them in some way.

I guess if something has credence or a remote possibility to truth
then perhaps posts or statements you make may also be view in a
different manner, CArol.

You haven't noticed I've been attacked here for
speaking up in favor of a moderated group? You're
not the only one being attacked. So has Jan. So has
Gill. So has Derek. Etc. Etc. And what is our crime?
Speaking out in favor of rec.ponds.moderated;
expressing opinions about how a new group should
function. Reasonable opinions, I will add.


Well what you call an attack is not what others form the looks of it
anyhow view as an attack, Its more of a dissagreement with you that yu
perceive to be a personal attack....BIG BIG Difference between view
and attack. Or is it yur asking to be attacked since it has not
happened and you just crave being viloated and attacked. I do belive
that may be the problem, especially since your such an attention whore
Carol.
I can see why so few regulars dare speak up about how they
feel about a moderated group.

Maybe they are just content to get what can be gottenwith the hopes it
will put a heavy duty set of binders / restraints on yuy CArol.

"so few regulars"?? Most of the regulars I've known
in rec.ponds have not only spoken up here but are in
process of doing the real work of trying to set up a
moderated group. Or they're here getting involved in
the discussion, even though it opens them up to attack.

No one gets attacked here or any other place unless of course they
decide like a few of your fireind to toss their dog opff the porch and
into the fight.

Then I'm told to ignore and not reply to the
trolls and the very people who told me that are replying to them every
day.

You also ignored the plea to appologize and this would not have got
to where its at now Carol.

It's good advice. The only reason - let me repeat
that - THE ONLY REASON I've engaged some of
the people I've engaged recently on rec.ponds is
because I believe strongly that creating
rec.ponds.moderated is the way to go. I'm
interested in the process, I'm involved in the process,
and I think I have an obligation to participate in the
process publicly, as I have been, despite that it
leaves me open to unfair attacks.

I really have not seen anyhtng that would really qualify as an attack
on yopu gail......just did not happen, or on anyone else either. If it
makes yu feel left out sayt so, I believe we can somehow oblige an
attack or two without even raising much of a sweat......

Trust me when I tell you that some of the people I've
responded to in the past several weeks I would have
totally ignored, even killfiled, if the discussion at hand
weren't about creating a new group.

And I just bet I am among those few select individuals ;-) Makes me
proud to be a memeber here! ROFLMAO

Therefore, unless there is a good reason to respond
to trolls, or trollish posts, you shouldn't. Of if you
respond, try to stay focussed on the topic at hand,
not past ills. If you take my advice as suggesting you
should stop posting, you're just not reading what
I've written.


Carol is not capable of staying focused especially when the expected
reply does not fit in the the view of what she has or thought it would
be. If yu say red and she expected blue, its an all out accusation of
fueding with her and attacking her. LOL what a hoot CArol is. I bet
doctors would give a bunch of money to get the opportiunity to disect
her brain, and try and cypher what made her function. LOL
Assuming the group is created you mean. Personally, I'm not convinced
yet.

Oh its more than likely gong to happen, why do yu think carol is
acting as she is acting with all the resent ment of it bening created.
Read between the lines she is an unhappy camper for sure.......she
knows up front she is not capable of having her reins get shortened
up, it wold crimp her style / habits.

I can see no reason it wouldn't be created.
--
ZB....
Creating problems on USENET Since it was open to the public
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

Gail





-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:52:38 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

snip lots of good and lots of trashy unsubstantiated junk mostly lots
of junk by Carol


My words are being turned into words I never said, given meaning I didn't
mean.

No one is changing anyhting yu said, but your choice of words in most
cases is a lot to be desired. Perhaps its that aragance or vindictive
style that reverberates through your posts thats doing you in Carol.
Welcome to USENET ... whoops, already said that.

It's almost like (?) only a few select people on rec.ponds are
allowed to express an opinion without what they say being used against
them in some way.

I guess if something has credence or a remote possibility to truth
then perhaps posts or statements you make may also be view in a
different manner, CArol.

You haven't noticed I've been attacked here for
speaking up in favor of a moderated group? You're
not the only one being attacked. So has Jan. So has
Gill. So has Derek. Etc. Etc. And what is our crime?
Speaking out in favor of rec.ponds.moderated;
expressing opinions about how a new group should
function. Reasonable opinions, I will add.


Well what you call an attack is not what others form the looks of it
anyhow view as an attack, Its more of a dissagreement with you that yu
perceive to be a personal attack....BIG BIG Difference between view
and attack. Or is it yur asking to be attacked since it has not
happened and you just crave being viloated and attacked. I do belive
that may be the problem, especially since your such an attention whore
Carol.
I can see why so few regulars dare speak up about how they
feel about a moderated group.

Maybe they are just content to get what can be gottenwith the hopes it
will put a heavy duty set of binders / restraints on yuy CArol.

"so few regulars"?? Most of the regulars I've known
in rec.ponds have not only spoken up here but are in
process of doing the real work of trying to set up a
moderated group. Or they're here getting involved in
the discussion, even though it opens them up to attack.

No one gets attacked here or any other place unless of course they
decide like a few of your fireind to toss their dog opff the porch and
into the fight.

Then I'm told to ignore and not reply to the
trolls and the very people who told me that are replying to them every
day.

You also ignored the plea to appologize and this would not have got
to where its at now Carol.

It's good advice. The only reason - let me repeat
that - THE ONLY REASON I've engaged some of
the people I've engaged recently on rec.ponds is
because I believe strongly that creating
rec.ponds.moderated is the way to go. I'm
interested in the process, I'm involved in the process,
and I think I have an obligation to participate in the
process publicly, as I have been, despite that it
leaves me open to unfair attacks.

I really have not seen anyhtng that would really qualify as an attack
on yopu gail......just did not happen, or on anyone else either. If it
makes yu feel left out sayt so, I believe we can somehow oblige an
attack or two without even raising much of a sweat......

Trust me when I tell you that some of the people I've
responded to in the past several weeks I would have
totally ignored, even killfiled, if the discussion at hand
weren't about creating a new group.

And I just bet I am among those few select individuals ;-) Makes me
proud to be a memeber here! ROFLMAO

Therefore, unless there is a good reason to respond
to trolls, or trollish posts, you shouldn't. Of if you
respond, try to stay focussed on the topic at hand,
not past ills. If you take my advice as suggesting you
should stop posting, you're just not reading what
I've written.


Carol is not capable of staying focused especially when the expected
reply does not fit in the the view of what she has or thought it would
be. If yu say red and she expected blue, its an all out accusation of
fueding with her and attacking her. LOL what a hoot CArol is. I bet
doctors would give a bunch of money to get the opportiunity to disect
her brain, and try and cypher what made her function. LOL
Assuming the group is created you mean. Personally, I'm not convinced
yet.

Oh its more than likely gong to happen, why do yu think carol is
acting as she is acting with all the resent ment of it bening created.
Read between the lines she is an unhappy camper for sure.......she
knows up front she is not capable of having her reins get shortened
up, it wold crimp her style / habits.

I can see no reason it wouldn't be created.
--
ZB....
Creating problems on USENET Since it was open to the public
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

Gail





-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

"Gail Futoran" wrote in message
...
"Zëbulon" wrote in message
.. .

"Thomas Lee" wrote in message
...
In message , Jayne
Kulikauskas writes
She will be very welcome to post within charter on the proposed group.

I can't help but wonder if anyone with an "opposing view" will be welcome
on a moderated group should it be created.

I think you're missing an important point. You appear
to assume that all moderators will think alike about
everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. I
don't agree with Jan or Snooze or Derek or Tristan or
Jim or Gill or you or (fill in the blank) about everything,
and they certainly don't agree with me about everything.
Anyone can check our posting history to see that.

Already I'm seeing things I've said
being taken the wrong way.

Welcome to USENET. And you're no newbie!
You should know that there's always room for
misinterpretation and disagreement in human
communcation, whether it's face to face or in more
limited contexts, like this one.

This is true.

Things I've said have been taken the wrong way
plenty of times, including by people who have no
beef with me.

Is this to discourage me from posting at all?

*WHO* do you think is trying to discourage you
from posting!!?? Jan? Derek? Me? Jim? Who??
And why should it matter? If RPM flies, the
moderation policy will be based on content, not
posting history. As we have all said hundreds of times.

Gail I wont post the information or names here..... So let's let this one go
OK? :-)

My words are being turned into words I never said, given meaning I didn't
mean.

Welcome to USENET ... whoops, already said that.

It's almost like (?) only a few select people on rec.ponds are
allowed to express an opinion without what they say being used against
them in some way.

You haven't noticed I've been attacked here for
speaking up in favor of a moderated group?

Gail.... I have mentioned several times I have to be missing messages just
by other posts I read. I switched NSs for this group and if it keeps
happening I'll switch again. If one of the 3 main instigators here
attacked you I would have ignored it anyway. I skip 90% of their messages
for obvious reasons. ;-) I too was shot down last year when I suggested
a moderated group as up know.....

You're
not the only one being attacked. So has Jan. So has
Gill. So has Derek. Etc. Etc. And what is our crime?
Speaking out in favor of rec.ponds.moderated;
expressing opinions about how a new group should
function. Reasonable opinions, I will add.

OK lady, gotcha! :-)

I can see why so few regulars dare speak up about how they
feel about a moderated group.

"so few regulars"?? Most of the regulars I've known
in rec.ponds have not only spoken up here but are in
process of doing the real work of trying to set up a
moderated group. Or they're here getting involved in
the discussion, even though it opens them up to attack.

Gail... there were a lot more people back then. Where are they all?

Then I'm told to ignore and not reply to the
trolls and the very people who told me that are replying to them every
day.

It's good advice. The only reason - let me repeat
that - THE ONLY REASON I've engaged some of
the people I've engaged recently on rec.ponds is
because I believe strongly that creating
rec.ponds.moderated is the way to go.

We're in TOTAL AGREEMENT here!!!!!!!!! :-)))

I'm
interested in the process, I'm involved in the process,
and I think I have an obligation to participate in the
process publicly, as I have been, despite that it
leaves me open to unfair attacks.
Trust me when I tell you that some of the people I've
responded to in the past several weeks I would have
totally ignored, even killfiled, if the discussion at hand
weren't about creating a new group.

Again - gotcha!

Therefore, unless there is a good reason to respond
to trolls, or trollish posts, you shouldn't. Of if you
respond, try to stay focussed on the topic at hand,
not past ills. If you take my advice as suggesting you
should stop posting, you're just not reading what
I've written.

I fully understand where you're coming from now.


--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Tristan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:52:38 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

snip lots of good and lots of trashy unsubstantiated junk

Please watch attributions. I (Gail) did NOT write what
follows immediately:

My words are being turned into words I never said, given meaning I
didn't
mean.

No one is changing anyhting yu said, but your choice of words in most
cases is a lot to be desired. Perhaps its that aragance or vindictive
style that reverberates through your posts thats doing you in Carol.
Welcome to USENET ... whoops, already said that.

It's almost like (?) only a few select people on rec.ponds are
allowed to express an opinion without what they say being used against
them in some way.

I guess if something has credence or a remote possibility to truth
then perhaps posts or statements you make may also be view in a
different manner, CArol.

I (Gail) wrote the following:
You haven't noticed I've been attacked here for
speaking up in favor of a moderated group? You're
not the only one being attacked. So has Jan. So has
Gill. So has Derek. Etc. Etc. And what is our crime?
Speaking out in favor of rec.ponds.moderated;
expressing opinions about how a new group should
function. Reasonable opinions, I will add.
[Gail's quote ends here]


Well what you call an attack is not what others form the looks of it
anyhow view as an attack, Its more of a dissagreement with you that yu
perceive to be a personal attack....BIG BIG Difference between view
and attack. Or is it yur asking to be attacked since it has not
happened and you just crave being viloated and attacked. I do belive
that may be the problem, especially since your such an attention whore
Carol.
I can see why so few regulars dare speak up about how they
feel about a moderated group.

Maybe they are just content to get what can be gottenwith the hopes it
will put a heavy duty set of binders / restraints on yuy CArol.


I (Gail) wrote the following:
"so few regulars"?? Most of the regulars I've known
in rec.ponds have not only spoken up here but are in
process of doing the real work of trying to set up a
moderated group. Or they're here getting involved in
the discussion, even though it opens them up to attack.
[Gail's quote ends here]

No one gets attacked here or any other place unless of course they
decide like a few of your fireind to toss their dog opff the porch and
into the fight.

Then I'm told to ignore and not reply to the
trolls and the very people who told me that are replying to them every
day.

You also ignored the plea to appologize and this would not have got
to where its at now Carol.

I [Gail] wrote the following:
It's good advice. The only reason - let me repeat
that - THE ONLY REASON I've engaged some of
the people I've engaged recently on rec.ponds is
because I believe strongly that creating
rec.ponds.moderated is the way to go. I'm
interested in the process, I'm involved in the process,
and I think I have an obligation to participate in the
process publicly, as I have been, despite that it
leaves me open to unfair attacks.
[Gail's quote ends here]

I really have not seen anyhtng that would really qualify as an attack
on yopu gail......just did not happen, or on anyone else either. If it
makes yu feel left out sayt so, I believe we can somehow oblige an
attack or two without even raising much of a sweat......

I [Gail] wrote the following:
Trust me when I tell you that some of the people I've
responded to in the past several weeks I would have
totally ignored, even killfiled, if the discussion at hand
weren't about creating a new group.
[Gail's quote ends here]

And I just bet I am among those few select individuals ;-) Makes me
proud to be a memeber here! ROFLMAO

I [Gail] wrote the following:
Therefore, unless there is a good reason to respond
to trolls, or trollish posts, you shouldn't. Of if you
respond, try to stay focussed on the topic at hand,
not past ills. If you take my advice as suggesting you
should stop posting, you're just not reading what
I've written.
[Gail's quote ends here]

Carol is not capable of staying focused especially when the expected
reply does not fit in the the view of what she has or thought it would
be. If yu say red and she expected blue, its an all out accusation of
fueding with her and attacking her. LOL what a hoot CArol is. I bet
doctors would give a bunch of money to get the opportiunity to disect
her brain, and try and cypher what made her function. LOL
Assuming the group is created you mean. Personally, I'm not convinced
yet.

Oh its more than likely gong to happen, why do yu think carol is
acting as she is acting with all the resent ment of it bening created.
Read between the lines she is an unhappy camper for sure.......she
knows up front she is not capable of having her reins get shortened
up, it wold crimp her style / habits.

I can see no reason it wouldn't be created.
--
ZB....
Creating problems on USENET Since it was open to the public
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

I strongly recommend, under rec.ponds.moderated
moderation policies, that any post submitted without
correct attributions be returned to sender. IMO
deliberately removing attributions, making it look as
though someone wrote something they did NOT write,
is the same as an attack, and attacks would not be
allowed under the most lenient of moderation policies.
If the sender wishes to correct the attributions and
resubmit the post, assuming content fits guidelines,
the post would be passed.

I would be interested in what others think of that idea.

Gail

Gail Futoran wrote:
"Tristan" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:52:38 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

snip lots of good and lots of trashy unsubstantiated junk


Please watch attributions. I (Gail) did NOT write what
follows immediately:


My words are being turned into words I never said, given meaning I
didn't
mean.

No one is changing anyhting yu said, but your choice of words in most
cases is a lot to be desired. Perhaps its that aragance or vindictive
style that reverberates through your posts thats doing you in Carol.

Welcome to USENET ... whoops, already said that.

It's almost like (?) only a few select people on rec.ponds are

allowed to express an opinion without what they say being used against
them in some way.

I guess if something has credence or a remote possibility to truth
then perhaps posts or statements you make may also be view in a
different manner, CArol.


I (Gail) wrote the following:

You haven't noticed I've been attacked here for
speaking up in favor of a moderated group? You're
not the only one being attacked. So has Jan. So has
Gill. So has Derek. Etc. Etc. And what is our crime?
Speaking out in favor of rec.ponds.moderated;
expressing opinions about how a new group should
function. Reasonable opinions, I will add.

[Gail's quote ends here]



Well what you call an attack is not what others form the looks of it
anyhow view as an attack, Its more of a dissagreement with you that yu
perceive to be a personal attack....BIG BIG Difference between view
and attack. Or is it yur asking to be attacked since it has not
happened and you just crave being viloated and attacked. I do belive
that may be the problem, especially since your such an attention whore
Carol.

I can see why so few regulars dare speak up about how they

feel about a moderated group.

Maybe they are just content to get what can be gottenwith the hopes it
will put a heavy duty set of binders / restraints on yuy CArol.


I (Gail) wrote the following:

"so few regulars"?? Most of the regulars I've known
in rec.ponds have not only spoken up here but are in
process of doing the real work of trying to set up a
moderated group. Or they're here getting involved in
the discussion, even though it opens them up to attack.

[Gail's quote ends here]


No one gets attacked here or any other place unless of course they
decide like a few of your fireind to toss their dog opff the porch and
into the fight.

Then I'm told to ignore and not reply to the

trolls and the very people who told me that are replying to them every
day.

You also ignored the plea to appologize and this would not have got
to where its at now Carol.


I [Gail] wrote the following:

It's good advice. The only reason - let me repeat
that - THE ONLY REASON I've engaged some of
the people I've engaged recently on rec.ponds is
because I believe strongly that creating
rec.ponds.moderated is the way to go. I'm
interested in the process, I'm involved in the process,
and I think I have an obligation to participate in the
process publicly, as I have been, despite that it
leaves me open to unfair attacks.

[Gail's quote ends here]


I really have not seen anyhtng that would really qualify as an attack
on yopu gail......just did not happen, or on anyone else either. If it
makes yu feel left out sayt so, I believe we can somehow oblige an
attack or two without even raising much of a sweat......


I [Gail] wrote the following:

Trust me when I tell you that some of the people I've
responded to in the past several weeks I would have
totally ignored, even killfiled, if the discussion at hand
weren't about creating a new group.

[Gail's quote ends here]


And I just bet I am among those few select individuals ;-) Makes me
proud to be a memeber here! ROFLMAO


I [Gail] wrote the following:

Therefore, unless there is a good reason to respond
to trolls, or trollish posts, you shouldn't. Of if you
respond, try to stay focussed on the topic at hand,
not past ills. If you take my advice as suggesting you
should stop posting, you're just not reading what
I've written.

[Gail's quote ends here]


Carol is not capable of staying focused especially when the expected
reply does not fit in the the view of what she has or thought it would
be. If yu say red and she expected blue, its an all out accusation of
fueding with her and attacking her. LOL what a hoot CArol is. I bet
doctors would give a bunch of money to get the opportiunity to disect
her brain, and try and cypher what made her function. LOL

Assuming the group is created you mean. Personally, I'm not convinced
yet.

Oh its more than likely gong to happen, why do yu think carol is
acting as she is acting with all the resent ment of it bening created.
Read between the lines she is an unhappy camper for sure.......she
knows up front she is not capable of having her reins get shortened
up, it wold crimp her style / habits.

I can see no reason it wouldn't be created.
--
ZB....
Creating problems on USENET Since it was open to the public
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*


I strongly recommend, under rec.ponds.moderated
moderation policies, that any post submitted without
correct attributions be returned to sender. IMO
deliberately removing attributions, making it look as
though someone wrote something they did NOT write,
is the same as an attack, and attacks would not be
allowed under the most lenient of moderation policies.
If the sender wishes to correct the attributions and
resubmit the post, assuming content fits guidelines,
the post would be passed.

I would be interested in what others think of that idea.

Gail



Ahh...but how do you pick that up using robo-moderation software??? Just
asking....methinks Tristan is playing games here to test out what degree
of moderation is possible....(and probably not with malice) - all needs
to be considered....

I think that perhaps setting up something like an open google group
(takes a couple of minutes to do so) for people to bring up moderation
issues and allow consideration of stuff that might get overlooked would
be a good idea.....as long as those who joined in with this saw it as a
way of getting the best moderation policy possible from these guys who
have volunteered....we all play games with you guys...you get to know
what nefarious stuff might try to get past you....you learn from it and
posters get faith in what you will do.....possibly you might need to
make it visible to members only but not exclude anyone wanting to join -
I say this because if it gets heavy traffic which it probably will
people will find it on a search and see it as a bona fide group on
ponds....of course if someone gets very abusive you can ban them....Jim
knows all about the magic of the wand g

thoughts please????

Gill

"Gail Futoran" wrote:
"Tristan" wrote in message
wrote:

snip lots of good and lots of trashy unsubstantiated junk

Please watch attributions. I (Gail) did NOT write what
follows immediately:
[ . . . ]
I strongly recommend, under rec.ponds.moderated
moderation policies, that any post submitted without
correct attributions be returned to sender. IMO
deliberately removing attributions, making it look as
though someone wrote something they did NOT write,
is the same as an attack, and attacks would not be
allowed under the most lenient of moderation policies.
If the sender wishes to correct the attributions and
resubmit the post, assuming content fits guidelines,
the post would be passed.

I would be interested in what others think of that idea.

There is much to be said for that. I don't keep records, so without
attribution, I don't know who said what. When I reply to a post, I
try to leave all of the prior posters intact and rely on readers being
able to read the number of indents "" to sort out the source of unsnipped
text. But I'm not too old to change.

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

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

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:52:38 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:
[big snip]
I strongly recommend, under rec.ponds.moderated
moderation policies, that any post submitted without
correct attributions be returned to sender. IMO
deliberately removing attributions, making it look as
though someone wrote something they did NOT write,
is the same as an attack, and attacks would not be
allowed under the most lenient of moderation policies.
If the sender wishes to correct the attributions and
resubmit the post, assuming content fits guidelines,
the post would be passed.

I would be interested in what others think of that idea.

Gail



Ahh...but how do you pick that up using robo-moderation software??? Just
asking....methinks Tristan is playing games here to test out what degree
of moderation is possible....(and probably not with malice) - all needs to
be considered....

As far as I know, no one is recommending 100%
robo-moderation. There are judgment calls that
need to be made by humans. AFAIK, robo-moderation
is only for the most obvious stuff, like irrelevant
cross-posting. Easy enough to specify a short list
of "relevant" newsgroups.

I think that perhaps setting up something like an open google group (takes
a couple of minutes to do so) for people to bring up moderation issues and
allow consideration of stuff that might get overlooked would be a good
idea.....

When the RFD is posted that will be a topic
of discussion. On USENET. Some of us don't
particularly like using google forums, and since
the proposed RPM is a USENET group,
most if not all discussions should be on USENET,
particularly news.groups.proposals and rec.ponds.

as long as those who joined in with this saw it as a
way of getting the best moderation policy possible from these guys who
have volunteered....we all play games with you guys...you get to know what
nefarious stuff might try to get past you....

All of us are are well aware of what has been going
on in rec.ponds in the last two years.

you learn from it and
posters get faith in what you will do.....possibly you might need to make
it visible to members only but not exclude anyone wanting to join -

Sorry to be a broken record, but again, the proposed
RPM is a USENET newsgroup and discussion should
be open to anyone - at least, anyone who can behave
themselves on the moderated news.groups.proposals.
Anyone can say anything they want in unmoderated
groups - as they have been so far.

I say this because if it gets heavy traffic which it probably will people
will find it on a search and see it as a bona fide group on ponds....of
course if someone gets very abusive you can ban them....Jim knows all
about the magic of the wand g

thoughts please????

Gill

See above.

Gail

wrote in message
...
"Gail Futoran" wrote:
[snip]
I strongly recommend, under rec.ponds.moderated
moderation policies, that any post submitted without
correct attributions be returned to sender. IMO
deliberately removing attributions, making it look as
though someone wrote something they did NOT write,
is the same as an attack, and attacks would not be
allowed under the most lenient of moderation policies.
If the sender wishes to correct the attributions and
resubmit the post, assuming content fits guidelines,
the post would be passed.

I would be interested in what others think of that idea.

There is much to be said for that. I don't keep records, so without
attribution, I don't know who said what. When I reply to a post, I
try to leave all of the prior posters intact and rely on readers being
able to read the number of indents "" to sort out the source of unsnipped
text. But I'm not too old to change.

Yes, that's what most of us do and that's all I'm
asking. Sometimes attributions will get lost, when
a lot of posters are quoted in one post. I've made
that mistake myself. But usually it isn't that hard to
keep attributions intact, or strip out all content of
one or more posters and leave the content you're
replying to, which might be another two posters.

That's what you did when you posted, and what I
have done in my reply. What's left in both our posts
is sufficient context for anyone interested to follow
the discussion.

Gail

LOL why such a panic attack folks....read between the lines, don't
stroke out! This can be more fun than a barrel of momnkeys or any
open group could think about. ;-)

Certainly a lot of bugs to work out I think....I just hope this pre
selectinof moderators are in it for the long haul and study their
books and they have not seen anything yet......not that I am trying to
screw up whats in effect, I just want to ensure things are fare across
the board, thats all. YOu all are gonna be doing a ton more reading
of posts over and over so no attributes are changed so they really
need to be bumped up against the OP's posts just to make sure nothing
has been altered. Sure is gonna be fun to be a mod...could even be
more fun to be a poster ;-) So you new mods make sure you all have a
good pair of glasses if your of age to need bi focals or tri's I
suggest getting a couple of pairs. Even check with your tax man if
eyeglasses and headache meds is able to be deducted on income tax if
your a moderator. All it takes is one little word to make things mean
a totally different meaning, and there goes what moderation is all
about. Sure yur all gun ho right now, but what about next week or next
month or when yur in need of having to fix stuff around the house,
spend time with the kids or so, and there is a ton of posts waiting to
be mod'd and folks waiting for answers and posts, and then something
slips on through without so much as an effort by a poster with a
determination, and its turmoil. But hey, I am not gonna do it, trust
me, I just want to point things out that can possibly go wrong or need
tobe addressed. I am after all 110% for moderation.
\

Just Tristan



On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:20:37 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

"Tristan" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:52:38 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

snip lots of good and lots of trashy unsubstantiated junk

Please watch attributions. I (Gail) did NOT write what
follows immediately:

My words are being turned into words I never said, given meaning I
didn't
mean.

No one is changing anyhting yu said, but your choice of words in most
cases is a lot to be desired. Perhaps its that aragance or vindictive
style that reverberates through your posts thats doing you in Carol.
Welcome to USENET ... whoops, already said that.

It's almost like (?) only a few select people on rec.ponds are
allowed to express an opinion without what they say being used against
them in some way.

I guess if something has credence or a remote possibility to truth
then perhaps posts or statements you make may also be view in a
different manner, CArol.

I (Gail) wrote the following:
You haven't noticed I've been attacked here for
speaking up in favor of a moderated group? You're
not the only one being attacked. So has Jan. So has
Gill. So has Derek. Etc. Etc. And what is our crime?
Speaking out in favor of rec.ponds.moderated;
expressing opinions about how a new group should
function. Reasonable opinions, I will add.
[Gail's quote ends here]


Well what you call an attack is not what others form the looks of it
anyhow view as an attack, Its more of a dissagreement with you that yu
perceive to be a personal attack....BIG BIG Difference between view
and attack. Or is it yur asking to be attacked since it has not
happened and you just crave being viloated and attacked. I do belive
that may be the problem, especially since your such an attention whore
Carol.
I can see why so few regulars dare speak up about how they
feel about a moderated group.

Maybe they are just content to get what can be gottenwith the hopes it
will put a heavy duty set of binders / restraints on yuy CArol.


I (Gail) wrote the following:
"so few regulars"?? Most of the regulars I've known
in rec.ponds have not only spoken up here but are in
process of doing the real work of trying to set up a
moderated group. Or they're here getting involved in
the discussion, even though it opens them up to attack.
[Gail's quote ends here]

No one gets attacked here or any other place unless of course they
decide like a few of your fireind to toss their dog opff the porch and
into the fight.

Then I'm told to ignore and not reply to the
trolls and the very people who told me that are replying to them every
day.

You also ignored the plea to appologize and this would not have got
to where its at now Carol.

I [Gail] wrote the following:
It's good advice. The only reason - let me repeat
that - THE ONLY REASON I've engaged some of
the people I've engaged recently on rec.ponds is
because I believe strongly that creating
rec.ponds.moderated is the way to go. I'm
interested in the process, I'm involved in the process,
and I think I have an obligation to participate in the
process publicly, as I have been, despite that it
leaves me open to unfair attacks.
[Gail's quote ends here]

I really have not seen anyhtng that would really qualify as an attack
on yopu gail......just did not happen, or on anyone else either. If it
makes yu feel left out sayt so, I believe we can somehow oblige an
attack or two without even raising much of a sweat......

I [Gail] wrote the following:
Trust me when I tell you that some of the people I've
responded to in the past several weeks I would have
totally ignored, even killfiled, if the discussion at hand
weren't about creating a new group.
[Gail's quote ends here]

And I just bet I am among those few select individuals ;-) Makes me
proud to be a memeber here! ROFLMAO

I [Gail] wrote the following:
Therefore, unless there is a good reason to respond
to trolls, or trollish posts, you shouldn't. Of if you
respond, try to stay focussed on the topic at hand,
not past ills. If you take my advice as suggesting you
should stop posting, you're just not reading what
I've written.
[Gail's quote ends here]

Carol is not capable of staying focused especially when the expected
reply does not fit in the the view of what she has or thought it would
be. If yu say red and she expected blue, its an all out accusation of
fueding with her and attacking her. LOL what a hoot CArol is. I bet
doctors would give a bunch of money to get the opportiunity to disect
her brain, and try and cypher what made her function. LOL
Assuming the group is created you mean. Personally, I'm not convinced
yet.

Oh its more than likely gong to happen, why do yu think carol is
acting as she is acting with all the resent ment of it bening created.
Read between the lines she is an unhappy camper for sure.......she
knows up front she is not capable of having her reins get shortened
up, it wold crimp her style / habits.

I can see no reason it wouldn't be created.
--
ZB....
Creating problems on USENET Since it was open to the public
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

I strongly recommend, under rec.ponds.moderated
moderation policies, that any post submitted without
correct attributions be returned to sender. IMO
deliberately removing attributions, making it look as
though someone wrote something they did NOT write,
is the same as an attack, and attacks would not be
allowed under the most lenient of moderation policies.
If the sender wishes to correct the attributions and
resubmit the post, assuming content fits guidelines,
the post would be passed.

I would be interested in what others think of that idea.

Gail





-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

"Gail Futoran" wrote in message
...

I snipped a mishmash that's not important.

I strongly recommend, under rec.ponds.moderated
moderation policies, that any post submitted without
correct attributions be returned to sender. IMO
deliberately removing attributions,

What exactly do you mean by attributions? E-mail addresses or the name/nym?

making it look as
though someone wrote something they did NOT write,
is the same as an attack, and attacks would not be
allowed under the most lenient of moderation policies.

Thank Gawd! ;-)

If the sender wishes to correct the attributions and
resubmit the post, assuming content fits guidelines,
the post would be passed.

I would be interested in what others think of that idea.

Good idea. Even if it's a disposable e-mail account.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*







--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...
I think that perhaps setting up something like an open google group (takes
a couple of minutes to do so) for people to bring up moderation issues and
allow consideration of stuff that might get overlooked would be a good
idea.....as long as those who joined in with this saw it as a way of
getting the best moderation policy possible from these guys who have
volunteered....we all play games with you guys...you get to know what
nefarious stuff might try to get past you....you learn from it and posters
get faith in what you will do.....possibly you might need to make it
visible to members only but not exclude anyone wanting to join - I say
this because if it gets heavy traffic which it probably will people will
find it on a search and see it as a bona fide group on ponds....of course
if someone gets very abusive you can ban them....Jim knows all about the
magic of the wand g

thoughts please????
=======================
I thought it was supposed to be discussed on news.groups.proposals which is
a moderated NG? Wouldn't trying to discuss it on yet another group, a
Google group, just cause a hassle and confusion? Some people despise
posting through Goolge.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*







--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Zëbulon" wrote in message
.. .

"Gail Futoran" wrote in message
...

I snipped a mishmash that's not important.

I strongly recommend, under rec.ponds.moderated
moderation policies, that any post submitted without
correct attributions be returned to sender. IMO
deliberately removing attributions,

What exactly do you mean by attributions? E-mail addresses or the
name/nym?

When someone posts, and then someone responds
to that post, usually are put in to show who wrote
what. Like above. My post, being earlier than
yours, has two . Yours, the reply, has .

When someone replied to one of my posts where
I was replying to yours, he snipped out some stuff
that made it look like I had written things I hadn't.
I objected. Has nothing to do with email accounts.
Just basic Internet communication.

Gail

"Gail Futoran" wrote in message
...
When someone replied to one of my posts where
I was replying to yours, he snipped out some stuff
that made it look like I had written things I hadn't.
I objected. Has nothing to do with email accounts.
Just basic Internet communication.
=====================
Understood.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com