RFD: talk.origins/moderation removal-total crosspost ban

[Jabriol]

RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal

First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins I've
been ban, due to content of material, as it has been
demonstrated by other T.O participators.

That being said, there seems to be a misunderstanding.
Therefore the following is extending my original RFD.

1- the moderator must be removed because he bans material and
crosspost to certain groups based on content, beyond the
charter of the group.

2- the current and on going dilemma on Talk.Origins seems to
be Crossposting to other groups, therefore with the removal of
a bias and prejudice moderator, all crossposting should be
eliminated via robot moderation, and no one should be able to
crosspost. This should be fair for all, and return credibility
to the group, and it will reduce traffic. Many on T.O have
agreed with this in the past. The group will then run
Scott-free of biased moderation based on content. and those
who do not wish to read the threads can effectively killfile
any poster, they do not like.

Even Philip diekhead should agree to this, since his gripe is
crossposting.

in resume

1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.

sound fair?

[Omphalos]

On Wed 16 Jul 2003 05:49:22a, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
wrote in news:3f151fcf$0$24894$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:

> RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal
>
> First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins I've
> been ban, due to content of material, as it has been
> demonstrated by other T.O participators.
>
> That being said, there seems to be a misunderstanding.
> Therefore the following is extending my original RFD.
>
> 1- the moderator must be removed because he bans material
> and crosspost to certain groups based on content, beyond the
> charter of the group.
>
> 2- the current and on going dilemma on Talk.Origins seems to
> be Crossposting to other groups, therefore with the removal
> of a bias and prejudice moderator, all crossposting should
> be eliminated via robot moderation, and no one should be
> able to crosspost. This should be fair for all, and return
> credibility to the group, and it will reduce traffic. Many
> on T.O have agreed with this in the past. The group will
> then run Scott-free of biased moderation based on content.
> and those who do not wish to read the threads can
> effectively killfile any poster, they do not like.
>
>
> Even Philip diekhead should agree to this, since his gripe
> is crossposting.
>
> in resume
>
> 1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.
>
> sound fair?

Moderated newsgroups are among the most bland in content.

--
__________
==\ /================================
===\ /==You know how dumb the average==
====\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
=====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
======\/====================================

http://31337.pl

[Ru Igarash]

In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal

Would you please stop using the term "RFD" and then
crossposting your proposal to news.groups? That term has a
specific meaning as part of the process of creating new
newsgroups. Documents labelled RFD are supposed to follow
certain guidelines in news.groups, and its a bit misleading at
the news.groups end to see this document labelled as one.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant: Quality, usefulness, merit, or
non-newsgroups popularity of a topic is more or less
irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. Usenet
popularity is the primary consideration.

[Brian F. K]

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal
>
> First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins I've
> been ban, due to content of material, as it has been
> demonstrated by other T.O participators.
>
> That being said, there seems to be a misunderstanding.
>
> Therefore the following is extending my original RFD.
>
> 1- the moderator must be removed because he bans material
> and crosspost to certain groups based on content, beyond the
> charter of the group.

You want to "fire" a piece of software?

> 2- the current and on going dilemma on Talk.Origins seems to
> be Crossposting to other groups, therefore with the removal
> of a bias and prejudice moderator, all crossposting should
> be eliminated via robot moderation, and no one should be
> able to crosspost. This should be fair for all, and return
> credibility to the group, and it will reduce traffic. Many
> on T.O have agreed with this in the past. The group will
> then run Scott-free of biased moderation based on content.
> and those who do not wish to read the threads can
> effectively killfile any poster, they do not like.

If you replace "all crossposting" with "all crossposting to
more than four newsgroups total", that is what occurs
*now*, afaics.

Here's the source code, even:

http://www.ediacara.org/~to/automod.c

Hrm... no hint of "Jabriol", "Jabby", or even "Jab" in it.

So what, exactly, is the basis for your complaint? A lack of
self-discipline in refraining from cross-posting?

> Even Philip diekhead should agree to this, since his gripe
> is crossposting.
>
> in resume
>
> 1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.
>
> sound fair?

Sure. That's probably why it's what's occuring now, eh?

[Andrewr]

jabriol wrote:

> 1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.
>
> sound fair?
>
>
>
How exactly do you propose to enforce a ban on cross-posting
if the group is unmoderated?

Andrew

[Mark K. Bi]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:49:22 -0400, jabriol wrote:

> First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins I've
> been ban, due to...

...being a total ass.
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_____________________________________________________________-
___
"Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of
eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor
their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the
common good."

- Michael Ledeen, neo-con leader

[Lane Lewis]

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f151fcf$0$24894$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... snip

>
> 1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.
>
> sound fair?
>

Start your own group why bother T.O. From what I understand
there are lots of groups that don't have any traffic. Why tear
down a group that does so well.

Vote for alt.talk.jabriole for a really good idea in
newsgroups.

Lane

[Tom]

"Omphalos" <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote in message
news:5e188ac50397c2266a491547df870a66@free.teranews.com...
> On Wed 16 Jul 2003 05:49:22a, "jabriol"
> <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:3f151fcf$0$24894$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:
>
> > RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal
> >
> > First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins
> > I've been ban, due to content of material, as it has been
> > demonstrated by other T.O participators.
> >
> > That being said, there seems to be a misunderstanding.
> > Therefore the following is extending my original RFD.
> >
> > 1- the moderator must be removed because he bans material
> > and crosspost to certain groups based on content, beyond
> > the charter of the group.
> >
> > 2- the current and on going dilemma on Talk.Origins seems
> > to be Crossposting to other groups, therefore with the
> > removal of a bias and prejudice moderator, all
> > crossposting should be eliminated via robot moderation,
> > and no one should be able to crosspost. This should be
> > fair for all, and return credibility to the group, and it
> > will reduce traffic. Many on T.O have agreed with this in
> > the past. The group will then run Scott-free of biased
> > moderation based on content. and those who do not wish to
> > read the threads can effectively killfile any poster, they
> > do not like.
> >
> >
> > Even Philip diekhead should agree to this, since his gripe
> > is crossposting.
> >
> > in resume
> >
> > 1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.
> >
> > sound fair?

>Omphalos: Moderated newsgroups are among the most bland
>in content.

Tom: Any group that moderates Jabbers can't be all bad :-). I
don't think you can rightfully call TO "bland".

[Rogue]

ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote in message
news:<bf4782$16d$3@tribune.usask.ca>...
> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal
>
> Would you please stop using the term "RFD" and then
> crossposting your proposal to news.groups? That term has a
> specific meaning as part of the process of creating new
> newsgroups. Documents labelled RFD are supposed to follow
> certain guidelines in news.groups, and its a bit misleading
> at the news.groups end to see this document labelled as one.
>
> ru

JERRY and that, Jabs, is just ONE of the reasons you are
banned.

[Christophe]

On 16 Jul 2003 18:58:10 GMT, ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote:

>In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal
>
>Would you please stop using the term "RFD" and then
>crossposting your proposal to news.groups? That term has a
>specific meaning as part of the process of creating new
>newsgroups. Documents labelled RFD are supposed to follow
>certain guidelines in news.groups, and its a bit misleading
>at the news.groups end to see this document labelled as one.

He knows that. But common sense, courtesy and honesty have
never meant anything to Jabbers.

[Wbarwell]

Lane Lewis wrote:

>
> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f151fcf$0$24894$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... snip
>
>>
>> 1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.
>>
>> sound fair?
>>
>
> Start your own group why bother T.O. From what I understand
> there are lots of groups that don't have any traffic. Why
> tear down a group that does so well.
>
> Vote for alt.talk.jabriole for a really good idea in
> newsgroups.
>
> Lane

Almost dead newsgroups up for grabs. Alt.bullshit. Alt.shit.
Alt.fan.newt-gingrich alt.fan.ronald-reagan

--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie

[Jabriol]

"Brian F. King" <brianfking@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6215668a.0307161120.6f973219@posting.google.com...
> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal
> >
> > First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins
> > I've been ban, due to content of material, as it has been
> > demonstrated
by
> > other T.O participators.
> >
> > That being said, there seems to be a misunderstanding.
> >
> > Therefore the following is extending my original RFD.
> >
> > 1- the moderator must be removed because he bans material
> > and crosspost
to
> > certain groups based on content, beyond the charter of the
> > group.
>
> You want to "fire" a piece of software?

No, just the removal of the human counterpart, because he is
biased, and will ban and censor, at will, which is beyond his
perview of the charter, content material that he may deemed
hurtful to the theory of evolution.

what debate can you have in a debate NG, if opinions and
comments are censored?

the complaints seem to be more about crossposting, but that
just a smokescreen. to cover that, the robomoderation can be
enhanced to remove crossposting all together. this would
remove philips pretentions that I will crosspost to all of
cyberspace, without ng human moderation.

>
> > 2- the current and on going dilemma on Talk.Origins
> > seems to be
Crossposting
> > to other groups, therefore with the removal of a bias and
> > prejudice moderator, all crossposting should be eliminated
> > via robot moderation,
and
> > no one should be able to crosspost. This should be fair
> > for all, and
return
> > credibility to the group, and it will reduce traffic. Many
> > on T.O have agreed with this in the past. The group will
> > then run Scott-free of biased moderation based on content.
> > and those who do not wish to read
the
> > threads can effectively killfile any poster, they do
> > not like.
>
> If you replace "all crossposting" with "all crossposting to
> more than four newsgroups total", that is what occurs
> *now*, afaics.
>
> Here's the source code, even:
>
> http://www.ediacara.org/~to/automod.c
>
> Hrm... no hint of "Jabriol", "Jabby", or even "Jab" in it.

here today gone tommorrow, I pull the same stunt on users in
other network enviroment.

>
> So what, exactly, is the basis for your complaint? A lack of
> self-discipline in refraining from cross-posting?

my basis is the following, I crosspost to groups I believe to
be relevant to the subject at hand. And I remain on topic, and
within the 4 group limit set by robomoderation and the TO
charter. my opinion and comment on the matter is
controversial, I do not deny this. I do not curse nor write
obscenities. However many believe that I am politically
incorrect. If the T.O moderators receives complaints on the
issue, it throws a bad light on the theory itself. He believes
it justify the banning of the groups I crosspost to, even if
it on topic for both groups, he believes that the people who
complain are not savvy to create a killfile on my name or
thread, and justify the cutting off of the NG. This is not in
the T.O original Charter. As he increases the banned groups,
he includes in the TO Faqs, which give the impression that the
Charter infect allow this. This is incorrect and misleading.
And in fact, moderates other NG, by deciding what is correct
or incorrect, or what material is proper or not for the banned
crosspost group, which in most cases are not moderated..

uh.. forgive my poor grammar and dictation English is not my
first language.

>
> > Even Philip diekhead should agree to this, since his
> > gripe is
crossposting.
> >
> > in resume
> >
> > 1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.
> >
> > sound fair?
>
> Sure. That's probably why it's what's occuring now, eh?

uh.. no, unless he institues full ban on all crossposting.

[Jabriol]

"AndrewR" <andrew@uk.co.andrewr.REVERSEME> wrote in message
news:bf4a9i$e1s$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> jabriol wrote:
>
> > 1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.
> >
> > sound fair?
> >
> >
> >
> How exactly do you propose to enforce a ban on cross-posting
> if the group is unmoderated?
>
> Andrew
>

actually I was asking for his removal as moderator. and
tweaking the robomoderation to eliminate all crosspost.

[Jabriol]

And Therefore Mark provide proof of content moderation..

thanks mark

"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.16.20.52.26.579777@eac.org...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:49:22 -0400, jabriol wrote:
>
> > First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins
> > I've been ban,
due
> > to...
>
> ...being a total ass.
> --
> Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
> ________________________________________________________-
> ________
> "Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread
> of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor
> their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for
> the common good."
>
> - Michael Ledeen, neo-con leader

[Jabriol]

"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2jRa.1717$d47.171403@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f151fcf$0$24894$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... snip
>
> >
> > 1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.
> >
> > sound fair?
> >
>
> Start your own group why bother T.O. From what I understand
> there are lots of groups that don't have any traffic. Why
> tear down a group that does so well.
>

does it?

and who is asking to tear down the group?

[Matt Silbe]

In news.groups I read this message from brianfking@yahoo.com
(Brian F. King):

>"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal
>>
>> First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins I've
>> been ban, due to content of material, as it has been
>> demonstrated by other T.O participators.
>>
>> That being said, there seems to be a misunderstanding.
>>
>> Therefore the following is extending my original RFD.
>>
>> 1- the moderator must be removed because he bans material
>> and crosspost to certain groups based on content, beyond
>> the charter of the group.
>
>You want to "fire" a piece of software?

DIG is the moderator (one of them, actually, the other does
not actually do anything), the software is just how DIG
does his job.

[snip]

[Jabriol]

Whay thanks Chris,

the following shows that the ban is in place due to complaint
based on content of material, something that is not in TO
charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for his decision.

"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0307161621.3959be17@posting.google.com...
> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f151fcf$0$24894$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
>
> (OT newsgroups snipped)
>
> > RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal
>
> Nope, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
>
> > First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins
> > I've been ban, due to content of material, as it has been
> > demonstrated
by
> > other T.O participators.
>
> Your ability to repeat this nonsense is astounding.
>
> You are *not* banned from t.o. You're merely barred from
> making crossposts to suspicious newsgroups such as mentioned
> below in a post by David Iain Greig on the subject back in
> July of 2000:
>
> >>From: greig@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig) Subject: Re:
> >>MODERATORS NOTE Re: Jabriol: Missing Link(tm) or just
Net.Kook?
> >>Date: 2000/07/04 Message-ID:
> >><slrn8m2r5k.n7g.greig@darwin.ediacara.org>#1/1 Newsgroups:
> >>talk.origins,alt.religion.jehovahs-witn
>
> (Remainder of headers snipped for brevity's sake)
>
> >>Mr. Santana is free to post anything he likes to
> >> talk.origins.
>
> >>Crossposting to alt.survivors.* is, for everyone, blocked.
> >>This is due
to
> >>complaints I received after Mr. Santana made repeated
> >>posts encouraging and promoting rape, incest, and
> >>child-abuse. His novel denials of these posts is
> >>interesting.
>
> >>Posters are free to post to those groups, but no
> >>crossposts to
talk.origins
> >>are allowed. Again, I filter on Newsgroups: only.
>
> >>I could remove the 'jabfilter', in which case Mr.
> >>Santana's posts will largely be quietly dropped by the
> >>alt.survivors.* crosspost filters.
Instead,
> >>I thought it was more important to see what he wrote on
> >>talk.origins;
thus
> >>I removed all other crosspost groups from his posts. If he
> >>prefers the alternative, he is free to ask to have the
> >>'jabfilter' removed.
>
> > That being said, there seems to be a misunderstanding.
> > Therefore the following is extending my original RFD.
>
> ...which was not a legitimate RFD. Try again, if you wish.
>
> > 1- the moderator must be removed because he bans material
> > and crosspost
to
> > certain groups based on content, beyond the charter of the
> > group.
>
> Are you familiar with the concept of "unclean hands", Mr.
> Santana?
>
> People may find such a charge being levelled at a moderator
> by a notoriously abusive crossposter more than a bit
> disingenuous.
>
> > 2- the current and on going dilemma on Talk.Origins
> > seems to be
Crossposting
> > to other groups, therefore with the removal of a bias and
> > prejudice moderator, all crossposting should be eliminated
> > via robot moderation,
and
> > no one should be able to crosspost.
>
> Uh, no. Crossposting is not necessarily a bad thing in all
> cases. As usual, you completely misunderstand why your posts
> (which *had* been getting through to t.o if you're weren't
> crossposting to, say, alt.survivors.*) were getting
> Robomoderated in the first place.
>
> > This should be fair for all, and return credibility to the
> > group, and it will reduce traffic. Many on T.O have agreed
> > with this in the past. The group will then run Scott-free
> > of biased moderation based on content. and those who do
> > not wish to read
the
> > threads can effectively killfile any poster, they do
> > not like.
>
> Are you willing to hold to such terms? Past evidence
> indicates you're not.

If ban all crossposting I will abide for those rules, this
would be fair.

>
> > Even Philip diekhead should agree to this, since his
> > gripe is
crossposting.
>
> Use of a lame epithet noted.
>
> You're not helping your case when you pull things like this.

I dont have a case, but you just validated my reason to call
for his removal as moderator.
>
> > in resume
> >
> > 1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.
> >
> > sound fair?
>
> Hardly.
>
> -Chris Krolczyk

[Philip Dei]

On 16 Jul 2003 18:58:10 GMT, ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote:

>Would you please stop using the term "RFD" and then
>crossposting your proposal to news.groups?

I forgot to add, Jab, PLEASE do not crosspost this to s.a.p.
[And to settle Igarashi, noone takes Jabs seriously, anyway]

[Mark K. Bi]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:57:42 -0400, jabriol wrote:

> And Therefore Mark provide proof of content moderation..
>

Oh? Proof? Hm... let's see... I don't participate in t.o.
and wouldn't even know who the moderators are... so that
proves what?
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_____________________________________________________________-
___
"...lying is central to the survival of nations and to the
success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count
on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability
is enormously increased."

- Michael Ledeen, neo-con leader

[Arthur L.]

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:49:22 -0400, jabriol wrote:
>
> > First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins
> > I've been ban, due to...
>
> ...being a total ass.

If that was against the rules, Usenet traffic would be reduced
by half. Maybe more.

[Brian F. K]

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Brian F. King" <brianfking@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal
> > >
> > > First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins
> > > I've been ban, due to content of material, as it has
> > > been demonstrated by other T.O participators.

<whack>

> > If you replace "all crossposting" with "all crossposting
> > to more than four newsgroups total", that is what occurs
> > *now*, afaics.
> >
> > Here's the source code, even:
> >
> > http://www.ediacara.org/~to/automod.c
> >
> > Hrm... no hint of "Jabriol", "Jabby", or even "Jab" in it.
>
> here today gone tommorrow, I pull the same stunt on users in
> other network enviroment.

... and you expect sympathy for your current situation?

Idiot.

<whack

[Arthur L.]

jabriol wrote:
>
> Whay thanks Chris,

> "Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:c743abb.0307161621.3959be17@posting.google.com...
> > "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<3f151fcf$0$24894$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...

> > You're not helping your case when you pull things
> > like this.
>
> I dont have a case, but you just validated my reason to call
> for his removal as moderator.

Only in your (and GG's) dreams.

[Mark K. Bi]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:28:15 +0000, Arthur L. Rubin wrote:

> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:49:22 -0400, jabriol wrote:
>>
>> > First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins
>> > I've been ban, due to...
>>
>> ...being a total ass.
>
> If that was against the rules, Usenet traffic would be
> reduced by half. Maybe more.

Hm... come to think, would there be a Usenet left at all???
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_____________________________________________________________-
___
"...lying is central to the survival of nations and to the
success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count
on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability
is enormously increased."

- Michael Ledeen, neo-con leader

[Jabriol]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f1928d4.6729489@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On 16 Jul 2003 18:58:10 GMT, ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote:
>
> >Would you please stop using the term "RFD" and then
> >crossposting your proposal to news.groups?
>
> I forgot to add, Jab, PLEASE do not crosspost this to s.a.p.
> [And to settle Igarashi, noone takes Jabs seriously, anyway]
>

are you sure? yet I am banned due to content on TO, if nobody
took me seriously, there would be no need to ban certain NG's
and ultimately moi.

[Jabriol]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f182890.6660803@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:56:14 -0400, "jabriol"
> <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >actually I was asking for his removal as moderator. and
> >tweaking the robomoderation to eliminate all crosspost.
>
> ROFL

you are against this now?

[Jabriol]

"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.17.03.22.06.653073@eac.org...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:57:42 -0400, jabriol wrote:
>
> > And Therefore Mark provide proof of content moderation..
> >
>
> Oh? Proof? Hm... let's see... I don't participate in t.o.
> and wouldn't even know who the moderators are... so that
> proves what?
>

that you put your 2 cents, without having all the facts?

[Jabriol]

"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0307170729.72444fca@posting.google.com...
> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f1612db$0$68509$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
>
> (Original newsgroup restored)
>
> > Whay thanks Chris,
>
> For what?
>
> > the following shows that the ban is in place due to
> > complaint based on content of material, something that is
> > not in TO charter.
>
> Prove why a moderator can't change his policies when an
> obnoxious poster chooses to abuse his posting privileges,
> charter or no.

Because in the T.O charter it specifies his duties as a
moderator... have you read it lately?

is your opinion, that I am ,obnoxious. feel free to provide an
example of any post that I am. I've only posted what I belive
to be true, under the T.O Charter . I've even posted Material
from other legit sources to back up my claim, which, I believe
is the model to follow to prove a point.

beside you will never find a post, where I have cursed, used
obscenities... I just state an opinion or comment. Nobody is
obligated in any NG to read it, nor reply to it. Nor per
Charter is it the Moderator duties to determine what is an
objectionable;a comment.

>
> > there was never and RFD or CFV for his decision.
>
> There didn't have to be one.

specified..where in the T.O charter.

[Ru Igarash]

In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Whay thanks Chris,

>the following shows that the ban is in place due to complaint
>based on content of material, something that is not in TO
>charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for his decision.

I'd like to point out that any newsgroup's charter is subject
to change. Often it isn't even documented, particularly since
there is currently no means of maintaining charters. As such,
charters written and recorded as part of successful group
creation proposals are not necessarily definitive, if even
official. Certainly, they are useful for a starting point.
However, if a group, or even a moderator wishes to change a
policy found in a charter, they are free to do so at their
convenience, even if it simply by accepting the behaviour in
question (e.g. not complaining about certain kinds of
postings). If the readers wish to formalize a charter and any
subsequent changes, the current recommendation is simply to
write an FAQ with the necessary policies and changes. It then
depends on the readers to support or disclaim the FAQ.

Similarly, if the readers support undocumented changes to
moderation policy, it is unnecessary to subsequently
document them to ratify them. A concensus in informal
discussion would suffice if some sort of ratification is
felt to be necessary. A readership vote would be more
helpful, but not necessary. However, note that the
news.groups/news.announce.newgroups RFD/CFV process is not
capable of dealing with changes in Charters alone. As I
said, there isn't any formal process for changing charters
in this way. It's up to the readers of their group to make
their own process if they so collectively desire.

The bottom line is: (setting aside that there is little one
can do about it) the moderator is allowed to change policies
from those found in the charter (unless there is a policy
there that says he shouldn't).

So, Jabriol, from my perspective as a news.groups reader (i.e.
an outsider) it looks to me like you have little or no
support, thus you have no recourse for your problem, except
giving up. However, as I wrote earlier, if you do continue,
please stop using the term "RFD" in your Subject: line if you
are going to post to news.groups. You are using the term
improperly there.

Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried posting
just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in Newsgroups: line)?

ru

--
My standard proposals rant: Quality, usefulness, merit, or
non-newsgroups popularity of a topic is more or less
irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. Usenet
popularity is the primary consideration.

[John Wilki]

In article <bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca>,
ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote:

> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Whay thanks Chris,
>
> >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
> >complaint based on content of material, something that is
> >not in TO charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for his
> >decision.
>
...
> So, Jabriol, from my perspective as a news.groups reader
> (i.e. an outsider) it looks to me like you have little or no
> support, thus you have no recourse for your problem, except
> giving up. However, as I wrote earlier, if you do continue,
> please stop using the term "RFD" in your Subject: line if
> you are going to post to news.groups. You are using the term
> improperly there.
>
> Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried posting
> just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in Newsgroups: line)?
>
> ru

He is not restricted from posting just in talk.origins. He is
restricted from crossposting to specific groups and including
talk.origins in the groups line.

As a long-time talk.origins regular, and one of those who
voted in favour of moderation, let me note that it was due to
jabriol's abuse of newsgroups that forced the issue in the
first place. We regulars got very tired of his abusive posting
behavior. He can still post his tripe, and we can use our
killfiles, but he chooses not to. This suggests that he only
wants to be able to crosspost massive diatribes against
evolution from talk.origins as he did when we voted for
moderation.

Let me also note here as a long time regular, that DIG has my
total confidence as the moderator, and I have no complaints
about his behavior or management of the filtering. Even though
at one point he (gently) implied that *I* would be temporarily
banned for inappropriate crossposting. He was right.

--
John Wilkins It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen
to have failed. Truman Capote

[Mark K. Bi]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:55:59 -0400, jabriol wrote:

>
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.07.17.03.22.06.653073@eac.org...
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:57:42 -0400, jabriol wrote:
>>
>> > And Therefore Mark provide proof of content moderation..
>> >
>> >
>> Oh? Proof? Hm... let's see... I don't participate in t.o.
>> and wouldn't even know who the moderators are... so that
>> proves what?
>>
>>
>
> that you put your 2 cents, without having all the facts?

I've got plenty of facts given your track record over here...
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_____________________________________________________________-
___
"...peace increases our peril by making discipline less
urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving
us of some of our best leaders."

- Michael Ledeen, neoconservative leader & full time foreign
policy adviser to Karl Rove

[Jabriol]

<ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
news:bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca...
> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Whay thanks Chris,
>
> >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
> >complaint based on content of material, something that is
> >not in TO charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for his
> >decision.
>
> I'd like to point out that any newsgroup's charter is
> subject to change. Often it isn't even documented,
> particularly since there is currently no means of
> maintaining charters. As such, charters written and recorded
> as part of successful group creation proposals are not
> necessarily definitive, if even official. Certainly, they
> are useful for a starting point. However, if a group, or
> even a moderator wishes to change a policy found in a
> charter, they are free to do so at their convenience, even
> if it simply by accepting the behaviour in question (e.g.
> not complaining about certain kinds of postings). If the
> readers wish to formalize a charter and any subsequent
> changes, the current recommendation is simply to write an
> FAQ with the necessary policies and changes. It then depends
> on the readers to support or disclaim the FAQ.

which really doesnt matter in the end.. correct?

>
> Similarly, if the readers support undocumented changes to
> moderation policy, it is unnecessary to subsequently
> document them to ratify them. A concensus in informal
> discussion would suffice if some sort of ratification is
> felt to be necessary. A readership vote would be more
> helpful, but not necessary. However, note that the
> news.groups/news.announce.newgroups RFD/CFV process is not
> capable of dealing with changes in Charters alone. As I
> said, there isn't any formal process for changing charters
> in this way. It's up to the readers of their group to make
> their own process if they so collectively desire.

which really does't matter in the end.. correct?

>
> The bottom line is: (setting aside that there is little one
> can do about it) the moderator is allowed to change policies
> from those found in the charter (unless there is a policy
> there that says he shouldn't).
>
> So, Jabriol, from my perspective as a news.groups reader
> (i.e. an outsider) it looks to me like you have little or no
> support, thus you have no recourse for your problem, except
> giving up.

Oh... I know. But normally is that not the case of the
minority?

>However, as I wrote earlier, if you do continue, please
>stop using the term "RFD" in your Subject: line if you are
>going to post to news.groups. You are using the term
>improperly there.

noted... but since I am not allow to create a real RFD and
post it in Talk.Origins, by bring up the subject here, I
expect that, those who wish to create a group, more so a
moderated group would learn that once they pick a moderator...
it is like picking a dictator to run the country... more so in
a debate group like Talk.Origins. You would expect that any
argument against or pro, would be accepted, and the moderator
would be neutral, or in T.O case somebody who adhere to the
Charter. Your reply on the subject indicates this is not the
case, and there is no mechanism in fact that can remove a
moderator, except natural death, or by contacting the owner of
the server where the group is hosted. Maybe I should have chat
with owners of the Host machine.. maybe not.

>
> Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried posting
> just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in Newsgroups: line)?
>
>

To do so, would be like playing the lottery.

in any case, if anybody review my previous postings on the
subject of evolution and rape, you would see they are
factual and commonsense postings, yes they are not
politically correct.

I guess the problem of censorship has to do a lot with, what
an authority belives to be correct or not, presented by a
minority. I suspect, that my postings on the subject is deemed
as dangerous. many has accused me of motiving Chris Dubose to
commit suicide, yet there was never any proof nor evidence
that he in fact killed himself based on reading one sole post
writen by me.

in other words T.O Moderation is not based on facts, but on
political correctness.

[Jabriol]

"John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message news:wi-
lkins-1CEE98.10421818072003@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au...
> In article <bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca>,
> ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote:
>
> > In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Whay thanks Chris,
> >
> > >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
> > >complaint based on content of material, something that is
> > >not in TO charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for his
> > >decision.
> >
> ...
> > So, Jabriol, from my perspective as a news.groups reader
> > (i.e. an outsider) it looks to me like you have little or
> > no support, thus you have no recourse for your problem,
> > except giving up. However, as I wrote earlier, if you do
> > continue, please stop using the term "RFD" in your
> > Subject: line if you are going to post to news.groups. You
> > are using the term improperly there.
> >
> > Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried
> > posting just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in Newsgroups:
> > line)?
> >
> > ru
>
> He is not restricted from posting just in talk.origins. He
> is restricted from crossposting to specific groups and
> including talk.origins in the groups line.

the restriction are based on content of material, which is
censorship. and you havent read david seinwitz reply on this
issue either eh? (yes I got his last name mispelled)

>
> As a long-time talk.origins regular, and one of those who
> voted in favour of moderation, let me note that it was due
> to jabriol's abuse of newsgroups that forced the issue in
> the first place. We regulars got very tired of his abusive
> posting behavior.

This is not true, and you do not have any evidence of this. I
started to post to T.O way after the group was formed, and I
have always stict to the 4 group crosspost rule. Please
present your argument with facts and not lies. And I challange
you to to present any document, that the then 4 group rule was
due to myself.. any document at all.

>He can still post his tripe, and we can use our killfiles,
>but he chooses not to. This suggests that he only wants to be
>able to crosspost massive diatribes against evolution from
>talk.origins as he did when we voted for moderation.

your comment above is based on a lie.. and I bet DIG will
allow this lie to continue, because he benefits from it.

[Ru Igarash]

In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:

><ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
>news:bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca...
>> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Whay thanks Chris,
>>
>> >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
>> >complaint based on content of material, something that is
>> >not in TO charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for his
>> >decision.
>>
>> I'd like to point out that any newsgroup's charter is
>> subject to change.
[snip]
>> If the readers wish to formalize a charter and any
>> subsequent changes, the current recommendation is simply to
>> write an FAQ with the necessary policies and changes. It
>> then depends on the readers to support or disclaim the FAQ.

>which really doesnt matter in the end.. correct?

No, it can matter a lot. Reader support of an FAQ means the
content generally is agreed upon by the readers. Any newcomer
that is refered to the FAQ by those readers generally should
be getting better information than the original charter. In
that sense, it is the original charter that doesn't matter in
the end. We in news.groups would like the charters as archived
in the RFD/CFV archives to NOT be the living charters, or the
charters that "matter in the end", of existing newsgroups.
Until news.groups conceives of a viable way of maintaining
charters, if we can steer folks away from CFV-based charters,
to some practice of their own for maintaining their own
charters, we do so. FAQs are one way. In moderated groups, the
mod policy (written or not) takes care of it.

>> Similarly, if the readers support undocumented changes to
>> moderation policy, it is unnecessary to subsequently
>> document them to ratify them. A concensus in informal
>> discussion would suffice if some sort of ratification is
>> felt to be necessary. A readership vote would be more
>> helpful, but not necessary. However, note that the
>> news.groups/news.announce.newgroups RFD/CFV process is not
>> capable of dealing with changes in Charters alone. As I
>> said, there isn't any formal process for changing charters
>> in this way. It's up to the readers of their group to make
>> their own process if they so collectively desire.

>which really does't matter in the end.. correct?

No, it matters a lot. Given that there is no "official"
process for changing charters, readers are free to handle it
on their own. If we in news.groups put a charter maintainance
process in place, we will (attempt) to take that power away
from the readers. In the moderation context, this would also
need the approval of the moderator, and of course he would
only be volunteering to readership demands. However, there are
moderated groups that have some aspect of operations
determined by readers, so it is not impossible, or even
improbable.

>>However, as I wrote earlier, if you do continue, please
>>stop using the term "RFD" in your Subject: line if you are
>>going to post to news.groups. You are using the term
>>improperly there.

>noted...

>but since I am not allow to create a real RFD and post it in
>Talk.Origins, by bring up the subject here, I expect that,
>those who wish to create a group, more so a moderated group
>would learn that once they pick a moderator... it is like
>picking a dictator to run the country... more so in a debate
>group like Talk.Origins.
[snip]

If that is what you are trying to do, you are failing to make
an impact in news.groups. We already know about the pitfalls
of moderation, and even have an FAQ on the subject. If that is
all you want to acheive, then I suggest you not post to
news.groups anymore because it's nothing new.

>> Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried posting
>> just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in Newsgroups: line)?

>To do so, would be like playing the lottery.

In that case, as an outsider I will not believe your
statements that you are being prevented from posting in T.O.
Until you have tried to post ONLY to T.O. a few times and
presented the results, I will consider your reasons for some
of your actions invalid.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant: Quality, usefulness, merit, or
non-newsgroups popularity of a topic is more or less
irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. Usenet
popularity is the primary consideration.

[Wayne Brow]

In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:c743abb.0307170729.72444fca@posting.google.com...
>>
>> Prove why a moderator can't change his policies when an
>> obnoxious poster chooses to abuse his posting privileges,
>> charter or no.

> Because in the T.O charter it specifies his duties as a
> moderator... have you read it lately?

I don't know about Chris, but I've never read the charter.
(I'm following this thread in news.groups and have never
visited talk.origins.) But it doesn't matter what the charter
says; a moderator is free to change (or ignore) the charter at
will. Moderators aren't bound by charters.

--
Wayne Brown | "When your tail's in a crack, you
improvise fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough.
Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

[Thomas McD]

"John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message news:wi-
lkins-1CEE98.10421818072003@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au...
> In article <bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca>,
> ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote:
>
> > In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Whay thanks Chris,
> >
> > >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
> > >complaint based on content of material, something that is
> > >not in TO charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for his
> > >decision.
> >
> ...
> > So, Jabriol, from my perspective as a news.groups reader
> > (i.e. an outsider) it looks to me like you have little or
> > no support, thus you have no recourse for your problem,
> > except giving up. However, as I wrote earlier, if you do
> > continue, please stop using the term "RFD" in your
> > Subject: line if you are going to post to news.groups. You
> > are using the term improperly there.
> >
> > Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried
> > posting just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in Newsgroups:
> > line)?
> >
> > ru
>
> He is not restricted from posting just in talk.origins. He
> is restricted from crossposting to specific groups and
> including talk.origins in the groups line.
>
> As a long-time talk.origins regular, and one of those who
> voted in favour of moderation, let me note that it was due
> to jabriol's abuse of newsgroups that forced the issue in
> the first place. We regulars got very tired of his abusive
> posting behavior. He can still post his tripe, and we can
> use our killfiles, but he chooses not to. This suggests that
> he only wants to be able to crosspost massive diatribes
> against evolution from talk.origins as he did when we voted
> for moderation.
>
> Let me also note here as a long time regular, that DIG has
> my total confidence as the moderator, and I have no
> complaints about his behavior or management of the
> filtering. Even though at one point he (gently) implied that
> *I* would be temporarily banned for inappropriate
> crossposting. He was right.
>

I subscribe to everything Wilkins says here (except about
voting for moderation; I'm not that old). If a real
proposal to un-moderate T.O. came up, I'd be very strongly
against it. Most of my opposition to such a change would
be because of the actions of Jabbers, and some others when
their behavior is such as to disrupt T.O., or whose
purpose is to cause havoc in other newsgroups.

Tom McDonald

[Doug Welle]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:02:40 -0400, in sci.anthropology.paleo,
jabriol wrote:

>
>"John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message news:w-
>ilkins-1CEE98.10421818072003@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au...
>> In article <bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca>,
>> ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote:
>>
>> > In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >Whay thanks Chris,
>> >
>> > >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
>> > >complaint based on content of material, something that
>> > >is not in TO charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for
>> > >his decision.
>> >
>> ...
>> > So, Jabriol, from my perspective as a news.groups reader
>> > (i.e. an outsider) it looks to me like you have little or
>> > no support, thus you have no recourse for your problem,
>> > except giving up. However, as I wrote earlier, if you do
>> > continue, please stop using the term "RFD" in your
>> > Subject: line if you are going to post to news.groups.
>> > You are using the term improperly there.
>> >
>> > Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried
>> > posting just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in Newsgroups:
>> > line)?
>> >
>> > ru
>>
>> He is not restricted from posting just in talk.origins. He
>> is restricted from crossposting to specific groups and
>> including talk.origins in the groups line.
>
>the restriction are based on content of material, which is
>censorship. and you havent read david seinwitz reply on this
>issue either eh? (yes I got his last name mispelled)
>
>
>>
>> As a long-time talk.origins regular, and one of those who
>> voted in favour of moderation, let me note that it was due
>> to jabriol's abuse of newsgroups that forced the issue in
>> the first place. We regulars got very tired of his abusive
>> posting behavior.
>
>This is not true, and you do not have any evidence of this. I
>started to post to T.O way after the group was formed, and I
>have always stict to the 4 group crosspost rule. Please
>present your argument with facts and not lies. And I
>challange you to to present any document, that the then 4
>group rule was due to myself.. any document at all.

Of course it is true. Are you hoping people will miss your
misrepresentation of what John wrote, which was "it was due to
jabriol's abuse of newsgroups that forced the issue in the
first place." He didn't say t.o. was formed because of you. Or
that the 4-crosspost moderation came in because of you.

As for sticking to the crosspost rule, you had no choice once
moderation took place if you wanted to appear on t.o.. But
this is a typical comment, from Dec. 1997: "The person who
posts as "Jabriol" <jabriol@cris.com> seems to be a bit of a
troll - especially in the selection of the 3 newsgroups that
are always cross posted to. I wish Jabriol would wake up to
that and refrain from taking t.o. discussions into other
groups - but then it is the way of the troll to stir as best
they can."

It is because of that type of behaviour and your choice of
newsgroups to crosspost to, eg support newsgroups, that your
particular style of destructive trolling was targeted.

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply Doug & Helen's Dogs
http://www.dougandhelen.com Doug's Archaeology Site:
http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk

[Jabriol]

"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0307180736.5853f725@posting.google.com...
> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f172337$0$33370$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
>
> > "Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > message
> > news:c743abb.0307170729.72444fca@posting.google.com...
>
> > > "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3f1612db$0$68509$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
>
> > > Prove why a moderator can't change his policies when an
> > > obnoxious poster chooses to abuse his posting
> > > privileges, charter or no.
> >
> > Because in the T.O charter it specifies his duties as a
> > moderator...
have
> > you read it lately?
>
> Why, yes I *have* read it. And your statement is completely
> void of any real relevance. *Your* understanding of DIG's
> moderation responsibilities seem to be at odds with the
> charter, which is at
>
> http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html
>
> > is your opinion, that I am ,obnoxious. feel free to
> > provide an example
of
> > any post that I am.
>
> BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
>
> You *must* be kidding me. For one, anyone can google your
> more toxic attempts at inciting trouble on newsgroups. For
> another, I haven't got the time to sort through all that
> crap due to the prolific nature of your trolling.

in short.. "I can't find anything, because there is not
anything... sort of like the hunt for wmd in Iraq."

[Ru Igarash]

In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message news:w-
>ilkins-1CEE98.10421818072003@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au...
>> In article <bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca>,
>> ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote:
>>
>> > Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried
>> > posting just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in Newsgroups:
>> > line)?
>> >
>> > ru
>>
>> He is not restricted from posting just in talk.origins. He
>> is restricted from crossposting to specific groups and
>> including talk.origins in the groups line.

>the restriction are based on content of material, which is
>censorship. and you havent read david seinwitz reply on this
>issue either eh? (yes I got his last name mispelled)

Generally speaking, moderation by content is an acceptable
practice in moderated newsgroups. That's what spam and
binaries rejection
is. That's what flame rejection is. That's what
off-topic rejection
it. By definition the practice of rejecting objectionable
materials is censorship, thus by definition,
censorship is acceptable practice in a moderated
newsgroup. If you don't like this, then your problem
isn't with the moderator, it is with moderation in
general. That being the case, you have no hope of
acheiving any change because newsgroup moderation was
designed to do what you don't like. That also means
you might as well stop posting to these other
newsgroups about it because it's a moot point. About
the only thing that you can do is to try to create an
unmoderated version of the group you want.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant: Quality, usefulness, merit, or
non-newsgroups popularity of a topic is more or less
irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. Usenet
popularity is the primary consideration.

[Jabriol]

<ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
news:bf9gmo$bgr$1@tribune.usask.ca...
> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ><ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
> >news:bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca...
> >> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Whay thanks Chris,
> >>
> >> >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
> >> >complaint based on content of material, something that
> >> >is not in TO charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for
> >> >his decision.
> >>
> >> I'd like to point out that any newsgroup's charter is
> >> subject to change.
> [snip]
> >> If the readers wish to formalize a charter and any
> >> subsequent changes, the current recommendation is simply
> >> to write an FAQ with the necessary policies and changes.
> >> It then depends on the readers to support or disclaim
> >> the FAQ.

On T.O only the moderator add to the FAQ as he makes the
changes.. sorry I appreciate your explanination, but it seems
that the moderator of T.O does as he pleases. so your
explanation really does not help in this particular case.

snip..................

>
> >> Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried
> >> posting
just
> >> to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in Newsgroups: line)?
>
> >To do so, would be like playing the lottery.
>
> In that case, as an outsider I will not believe your
> statements that you are being prevented from posting in T.O.
> Until you have tried to post ONLY to T.O. a few times and
> presented the results, I will consider your reasons for some
> of your actions invalid.
>
> ru
>

I have tried, I do not recieve a bounce report or anything
else it just drops from cyberspace. No sense in trying again..
the T.O moderator will change the script, allow one or two
post go, and set up the script again.. which again would be
misleading. He has admitted to doing this in past, he can do
it again, and hence support his case.

People should understand that Moderators are God;s of thier
universe, and there is no recourse.

in anycase thank your response.

You know I can change my header, change my name etc. But I
sincerly belive in what I post. To make any change to my
headers or moniker, it like changing my personality. I am
sincere in my efforts.. I even avoid using a spellchecker, so
people know it is me.

Well, I imagine this is basiclly over at this point, and the
illusions of RFD or CFV or anything else is a basic sham in a
moderated newsgroup.

[Jabriol]

"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@wwt.net> wrote in message
news:tMYRa.687$zu1.7757@reggie.win.bright.net...
>
> "John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message news:-
> wilkins-1CEE98.10421818072003@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au...
> > In article <bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca>,
> > ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote:
> >
> > > In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >Whay thanks Chris,
> > >
> > > >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
> > > >complaint based
on
> > > >content of material, something that is not in TO
> > > >charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for his
> > > >decision.
> > >
> > ...
> > > So, Jabriol, from my perspective as a news.groups reader
> > > (i.e. an outsider) it looks to me like you have little
> > > or no support, thus you have no recourse for your
> > > problem, except giving up. However, as I wrote earlier,
> > > if you do continue, please stop using the term "RFD" in
> > > your Subject: line if you are going to post to
> > > news.groups. You are using the term improperly there.
> > >
> > > Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried
> > > posting just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in
> > > Newsgroups: line)?
> > >
> > > ru
> >
> > He is not restricted from posting just in talk.origins. He
> > is restricted from crossposting to specific groups and
> > including talk.origins in the groups line.
> >
> > As a long-time talk.origins regular, and one of those who
> > voted in favour of moderation, let me note that it was due
> > to jabriol's abuse of newsgroups that forced the issue in
> > the first place. We regulars got very tired of his abusive
> > posting behavior. He can still post his tripe, and we can
> > use our killfiles, but he chooses not to. This suggests
> > that he only wants to be able to crosspost massive
> > diatribes against evolution from talk.origins as he did
> > when we voted for moderation.
> >
> > Let me also note here as a long time regular, that DIG has
> > my total confidence as the moderator, and I have no
> > complaints about his behavior or management of the
> > filtering. Even though at one point he (gently) implied
> > that *I* would be temporarily banned for inappropriate
> > crossposting. He was right.
> >
>
> I subscribe to everything Wilkins says here (except
> about voting for moderation; I'm not that old). If a
> real proposal to un-moderate T.O.
came
> up, I'd be very strongly against it. Most of my opposition
> to such a
change
> would be because of the actions of Jabbers, and some others
> when their behavior is such as to disrupt T.O., or whose
> purpose is to cause havoc in other newsgroups.
>
> Tom McDonald
>
>

your staement about my intent is erroneous, please present
evidence, to back up your claim.

[Jabriol]

<ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
news:bf9hdk$bld$1@tribune.usask.ca...
> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message news-
> >:wilkins-1CEE98.10421818072003@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au...
> >> In article <bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca>,
> >> ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote:
> >>
> >> > Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried
> >> > posting just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in
> >> > Newsgroups: line)?
> >> >
> >> > ru
> >>
> >> He is not restricted from posting just in talk.origins.
> >> He is
restricted
> >> from crossposting to specific groups and including
> >> talk.origins in the groups line.
>
> >the restriction are based on content of material, which is
> >censorship.
and
> >you havent read david seinwitz reply on this issue either
> >eh? (yes I got
his
> >last name mispelled)
>
> Generally speaking, moderation by content is an acceptable
> practice in moderated newsgroups. That's what spam and
> binaries rejection
> is. That's what flame rejection is. That's what off-topic
> rejection
> is. By definition the practice of rejecting objectionable
> materials is censorship, thus by definition, censorship
> is acceptable practice in a moderated newsgroup. If you
> don't like this, then your problem isn't with the
> moderator, it is with moderation in general. That being
> the case, you have no hope of acheiving any change
> because newsgroup moderation was designed to do what
> you don't like. That also means you might as well stop
> posting to these other newsgroups about it because it's
> a moot point. About the only thing that you can do is
> to try to create an unmoderated version of the group
> you want.
>
> ru
>

I agree with what you just stated. If the Moderator agreed to
your staements or admit to this, I would not have a problem.
If your reply was crosspost to
T.O you would recieve a dozen replies to counter your
statement.

I don't think your statement would not be accepted on T.O.
since your statements are essentially my calim against the
Moderator.

If he admitted to this, it would raise claim, that censorship
and content censorship does exist on T.O.

my problem is not moderation. My problem is "misdirection" my
claim is that T.O moderator practice content censorship, he
claims he does not. and the T.O membership belives the same.

think about this in the case of T.O and the purpose of the
group. Would people willing participate in T.O if they were
aware that there opinions and arguments might be droped if the
moderator belives their comments to be non-appropiate?

It would show biased and prejudice against those who object to
the theory, if they are not allowed to present material to
support their case. It would cease to be a debate group, and
turn into a bashing group against those who object to
evolution.... No I do not think the moderator would accept
your definition of censorship

[Thomas McD]

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f18608d$0$68508$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
> "Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@wwt.net> wrote in message
> news:tMYRa.687$zu1.7757@reggie.win.bright.net...
> >
> > "John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:wilkins-1CEE98.10421818072003@ariel.ucs.unimelb.ed-
> > u.au...
> > > In article <bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca>,
> > > ru.igarashi@usask.ca
wrote:
> > >
> > > > In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >Whay thanks Chris,
> > > >
> > > > >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
> > > > >complaint based
> on
> > > > >content of material, something that is not in TO
> > > > >charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for his
> > > > >decision.
> > > >
> > > ...
> > > > So, Jabriol, from my perspective as a news.groups
> > > > reader (i.e. an outsider) it looks to me like you have
> > > > little or no support, thus you have no recourse for
> > > > your problem, except giving up. However, as I wrote
> > > > earlier, if you do continue, please stop using the
> > > > term "RFD" in your Subject: line if you are going to
> > > > post to news.groups. You are using the term improperly
> > > > there.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried
> > > > posting just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in
> > > > Newsgroups: line)?
> > > >
> > > > ru
> > >
> > > He is not restricted from posting just in talk.origins.
> > > He is
restricted
> > > from crossposting to specific groups and including
> > > talk.origins in the groups line.
> > >
> > > As a long-time talk.origins regular, and one of those
> > > who voted in favour of moderation, let me note that it
> > > was due to jabriol's abuse
of
> > > newsgroups that forced the issue in the first place. We
> > > regulars got very tired of his abusive posting behavior.
> > > He can still post his
tripe,
> > > and we can use our killfiles, but he chooses not to.
> > > This suggests
that
> > > he only wants to be able to crosspost massive diatribes
> > > against evolution from talk.origins as he did when we
> > > voted for moderation.
> > >
> > > Let me also note here as a long time regular, that DIG
> > > has my total confidence as the moderator, and I have no
> > > complaints about his
behavior
> > > or management of the filtering. Even though at one point
> > > he (gently) implied that *I* would be temporarily banned
> > > for inappropriate crossposting. He was right.
> > >
> >
> > I subscribe to everything Wilkins says here (except
> > about voting for moderation; I'm not that old). If a
> > real proposal to un-moderate T.O.
> came
> > up, I'd be very strongly against it. Most of my opposition
> > to such a
> change
> > would be because of the actions of Jabbers, and some
> > others when their behavior is such as to disrupt T.O., or
> > whose purpose is to cause havoc
in
> > other newsgroups.
> >
> > Tom McDonald
> >
> >
>
> your staement about my intent is erroneous, please present
> evidence, to
back
> up your claim.
>
>
fssssttt...and another irony meter fries.

[Ru Igarash]

In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:

><ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
>news:bf9gmo$bgr$1@tribune.usask.ca...
>> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca...
>> >> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Whay thanks Chris,
>> >>
>> >> >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
>> >> >complaint based on content of material, something that
>> >> >is not in TO charter. there was never and RFD or CFV
>> >> >for his decision.
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to point out that any newsgroup's charter is
>> >> subject to change.
>> [snip]
>> >> If the readers wish to formalize a charter and any
>> >> subsequent changes, the current recommendation is simply
>> >> to write an FAQ with the necessary policies and changes.
>> >> It then depends on the readers to support or disclaim
>> >> the FAQ.

>On T.O only the moderator add to the FAQ as he makes the
>changes.. sorry I appreciate your explanination, but it seems
>that the moderator of T.O does as he pleases. so your
>explanation really does not help in this particular case.

Then give up, because absolutely nothing you say will make a
difference.

> > >> Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually
> > >> tried posting
>just
>> >> to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in Newsgroups: line)?
>>
>> >To do so, would be like playing the lottery.
>>
>> In that case, as an outsider I will not believe your
>> statements that you are being prevented from posting in
>> T.O. Until you have tried to post ONLY to T.O. a few times
>> and presented the results, I will consider your reasons for
>> some of your actions invalid.
>>
>> ru
>>

>I have tried, I do not recieve a bounce report or anything
>else it just drops from cyberspace.

Then I suspect the moderator is NOT the problem, rather that
something is dropping your messages before they get to the
moderator. Also, are you sure you posted to one and ONLY ONE
group? Given that you get no response at all, I have little
reason to believe the moderator is doing anything to your
messages since there are any number of other possible reasons
your messages don't get through, and that most moderators send
rejection notices.

>No sense in trying again.. the T.O moderator will change the
>script, allow one or two post go, and set up the script
>again.. which again would be misleading. He has admitted to
>doing this in past, he can do it again, and hence support
>his case.

If that is the case, it looks like it doesn't have much
opposition, and like your complaints are being made to a group
of people that hardly care about how the moderation policy is
affecting you. If that is the case, there is no one you can
hope turn to, and I recommend you stop posting your
complaints.

>People should understand that Moderators are God;s of thier
>universe, and there is no recourse.

Well, what you are doing on that issue is pointless. It only
matters to people that are about to create a new group. It's
much too late to complain about it after the group is created.
I recommend you stop complaining about it in the existing
newsgroups.

>You know I can change my header, change my name etc. But I
>sincerly belive in what I post. To make any change to my
>headers or moniker, it like changing my personality. I am
>sincere in my efforts.. I even avoid using a spellchecker, so
>people know it is me.

That last statement is STUPID. If you even want to begin to
hope that someone in the world will take you seriously, at
least TRY to get your spelling and grammar correct.

[snip]
>and the illusions of RFD or CFV or anything else is a basic
>sham in a moderated newsgroup.

It can't be a sham if it never existed.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant: Quality, usefulness, merit, or
non-newsgroups popularity of a topic is more or less
irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. Usenet
popularity is the primary consideration.

[Ru Igarash]

In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:

>my problem is not moderation. My problem is "misdirection" my
>claim is that T.O moderator practice content censorship, he
>claims he does not. and the T.O membership belives the same.

I think it is ridiculous foryou to be bothered by this at all.
This is the way moderated newsgroups work. Forget about it.

>think about this in the case of T.O and the purpose of the
>group. Would people willing participate in T.O if they were
>aware that there opinions and arguments might be droped if
>the moderator belives their comments to be non-appropiate?

It doesn't matter. That's their choice, to be made by them
when they encounter it. Many folks have VERY LITTLE to ZERO
problem with such a notion. Votes on creating moderated
newsgroups show this; the margin is so often better than
5:1. Again, it is ridiculous to be arguing over this.
Forget about it.

>It would show biased and prejudice against those who object
>to the theory, if they are not allowed to present material to
>support their case. It would cease to be a debate group, and
>turn into a bashing group against those who object to
>evolution....

If it does, forget about it. Either the readership follows the
moderator or they abandon the group. If you don't like what
the moderator and the readership do, then either accept it, or
YOU leave and try to create YOUR OWN group. That's how this
part of usenet works.

>No I do not think the moderator would accept your definition
>of censorship

That's for the moderator to tell me, not you.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant: Quality, usefulness, merit, or
non-newsgroups popularity of a topic is more or less
irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. Usenet
popularity is the primary consideration.

[Jabriol]

<ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
news:bf9nq5$d8b$1@tribune.usask.ca...
> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:>
> >No I do not think the moderator would accept your
> >definition of censorship
>
> That's for the moderator to tell me, not you.

true enough, which he wont :-)

>
> ru
>
> --
> My standard proposals rant: Quality, usefulness, merit, or
> non-newsgroups popularity of a topic is more or less
> irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. Usenet
> popularity is the primary consideration.

[Mark K. Bi]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:54:42 -0400, jabriol wrote:

> No, just the removal of the human counterpart, because he is
> biased, and will ban and censor, at will, which is beyond
> his perview of the charter, content material that he may
> deemed hurtful to the theory of evolution.

In short, you were being a troll again.
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_____________________________________________________________-
___
"...lying is central to the survival of nations and to the
success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count
on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability
is enormously increased."

- Michael Ledeen, neo-con leader

[Mark K. Bi]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:56:14 -0400, jabriol wrote:

>
> "AndrewR" <andrew@uk.co.andrewr.REVERSEME> wrote in message
> news:bf4a9i$e1s$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> jabriol wrote:
>>
>> > 1- no moderation 2- no crosspost.
>> >
>> > sound fair?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> How exactly do you propose to enforce a ban on
>> cross-posting if the group is unmoderated?
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
> actually I was asking for his removal as moderator. and
> tweaking the robomoderation to eliminate all crosspost.

How about you get lost because nobody cares what a whiny
little troll thinks?
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_____________________________________________________________-
___
"...lying is central to the survival of nations and to the
success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count
on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability
is enormously increased."

- Michael Ledeen, neo-con leader

[George Wil]

jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[...] Bottom line, it has been proven here, that there is in
>fact content moderation on T.O. by a third reliable party,
>which in effect proves me right and you wrong.

There is nothing happening to you that you can fix with any
activity on news.groups or any of these other groups.

We cannot help you, even if we wanted to.

-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com

[Mark K. Bi]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:52:04 -0400, jabriol wrote:

>
> "Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> message news:3f1928d4.6729489@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>> On 16 Jul 2003 18:58:10 GMT, ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote:
>>
>> >Would you please stop using the term "RFD" and then
>> >crossposting your proposal to news.groups?
>>
>> I forgot to add, Jab, PLEASE do not crosspost this to
>> s.a.p. [And to settle Igarashi, noone takes Jabs seriously,
>> anyway]
>>
>>
> are you sure? yet I am banned due to content on TO, if
> nobody took me seriously, there would be no need to ban
> certain NG's and ultimately moi.

To the extent you were actually banned anywhere, it was
probably from being the little troll you are.

Your little "RFD" isn't going to do anything, jabbers.
Nobody cares.
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_____________________________________________________________-
___
"...lying is central to the survival of nations and to the
success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count
on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability
is enormously increased."

- Michael Ledeen, neo-con leader

[Jabriol]

"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0307181425.6a125bf5@posting.google.com...
> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f1818b0$0$59290$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
>
> > but since I am not allow to create a real RFD and post it
> > in Talk.Origins, by bring up the subject here
>
> You accomplish zilch, since it's been reiterated to you
> again and again that you are NOT BANNED from talk.origins
> and never have been.
>

yeah and wmd are found all over Iraq on a daily basis...,

[Jabriol]

"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@wwt.net> wrote in message
news:PL_Ra.700$zu1.8054@reggie.win.bright.net...
>
> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f18608d$0$68508$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> >
> > "Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@wwt.net> wrote in message
> > news:tMYRa.687$zu1.7757@reggie.win.bright.net...
> > >
> > > "John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> > > news:wilkins-1CEE98.10421818072003@ariel.ucs.unimelb.ed-
> > > u.au...
> > > > In article <bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca>,
> > > > ru.igarashi@usask.ca
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >Whay thanks Chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
> > > > > >complaint
based
> > on
> > > > > >content of material, something that is not in TO
> > > > > >charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for his
> > > > > >decision.
> > > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > > So, Jabriol, from my perspective as a news.groups
> > > > > reader (i.e. an outsider) it looks to me like you
> > > > > have little or no support, thus you have no recourse
> > > > > for your problem, except giving up. However, as I
> > > > > wrote earlier, if you do continue, please stop using
> > > > > the term "RFD" in your Subject: line if you are
> > > > > going to post to news.groups. You are using the term
> > > > > improperly there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually tried
> > > > > posting just to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in
> > > > > Newsgroups: line)?
> > > > >
> > > > > ru
> > > >
> > > > He is not restricted from posting just in
> > > > talk.origins. He is
> restricted
> > > > from crossposting to specific groups and including
> > > > talk.origins in
the
> > > > groups line.
> > > >
> > > > As a long-time talk.origins regular, and one of those
> > > > who voted in favour of moderation, let me note that it
> > > > was due to jabriol's abuse
> of
> > > > newsgroups that forced the issue in the first place.
> > > > We regulars got very tired of his abusive posting
> > > > behavior. He can still post his
> tripe,
> > > > and we can use our killfiles, but he chooses not to.
> > > > This suggests
> that
> > > > he only wants to be able to crosspost massive
> > > > diatribes against evolution from talk.origins as he
> > > > did when we voted for moderation.
> > > >
> > > > Let me also note here as a long time regular, that DIG
> > > > has my total confidence as the moderator, and I have
> > > > no complaints about his
> behavior
> > > > or management of the filtering. Even though at one
> > > > point he (gently) implied that *I* would be
> > > > temporarily banned for inappropriate crossposting. He
> > > > was right.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I subscribe to everything Wilkins says here (except
> > > about voting
for
> > > moderation; I'm not that old). If a real proposal to
> > > un-moderate T.O.
> > came
> > > up, I'd be very strongly against it. Most of my
> > > opposition to such a
> > change
> > > would be because of the actions of Jabbers, and some
> > > others when their behavior is such as to disrupt T.O.,
> > > or whose purpose is to cause
havoc
> in
> > > other newsgroups.
> > >
> > > Tom McDonald
> > >
> > >
> >
> > your staement about my intent is erroneous, please present
> > evidence, to
> back
> > up your claim.
> >
> >
> fssssttt...and another irony meter fries.
>
>

surrrre and another american dies today in Iraq... you were
saying about ironies?

[Jabriol]

<ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
news:bf9ubk$eol$1@tribune.usask.ca...
> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ><ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
> >news:bf9gmo$bgr$1@tribune.usask.ca...
> >> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><ru.igarashi@usask.ca> wrote in message
> >> >news:bf7emp$phd$1@tribune.usask.ca...
> >> >> In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >Whay thanks Chris,
> >> >>
> >> >> >the following shows that the ban is in place due to
> >> >> >complaint based
on
> >> >> >content of material, something that is not in TO
> >> >> >charter. there was never and RFD or CFV for his
> >> >> >decision.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd like to point out that any newsgroup's charter is
> >> >> subject to change.
> >> [snip]
> >> >> If the readers wish to formalize a charter and any
> >> >> subsequent changes, the current recommendation is
> >> >> simply to write an FAQ with the necessary policies and
> >> >> changes. It then depends on the readers to support or
> >> >> disclaim the FAQ.
>
> >On T.O only the moderator add to the FAQ as he makes the
> >changes.. sorry
I
> >appreciate your explanination, but it seems that the
> >moderator of T.O
does
> >as he pleases. so your explanation really does not help
> >in this
particular
> >case.
>
> Then give up, because absolutely nothing you say will make a
> difference.
>

yep, I am glad you reach the same conclusion, I arrived at it
some time ago. It does not matter. RFD or CVF in a Moderated
group is a waste of time. So gthe misdirection is allowed to
continue... and american son and daughter's will continue to
die in Iraq.

I wonder if self delusion is another human evolved trait... a
subject for
T.O. nodoubt, but then again.. it would not be allowed.

thanks...maybe I should write a group-review :-)

> > > >> Oh, I do have one question: Have you actually
> > > >> tried posting
> >just
> >> >> to T.O. (i.e. no other groups in Newsgroups: line)?
> >>
> >> >To do so, would be like playing the lottery.
> >>
> >> In that case, as an outsider I will not believe your
> >> statements that you are being prevented from posting in
> >> T.O. Until you have tried to post ONLY to T.O. a few
> >> times and presented the results, I will consider your
> >> reasons for some of your actions invalid.
> >>
> >> ru
> >>
>
> >I have tried, I do not recieve a bounce report or anything
> >else it just drops from cyberspace.
>
> Then I suspect the moderator is NOT the problem, rather that
> something is dropping your messages before they get to the
> moderator.

how convinient, yet in every other group, I get posted

> >No sense in trying again.. the T.O moderator will change
> >the script, allow one or two post go, and set up the script
again..
> >which again would be misleading. He has admitted to doing
> >this in past,
he
> >can do it again, and hence support his case.
>
> If that is the case, it looks like it doesn't have much
> opposition, and like your complaints are being made to a
> group of people that hardly care about how the moderation
> policy is affecting you. If that is the case, there is no
> one you can hope turn to, and I recommend you stop posting
> your complaints.

exactly, good job... in a moderated group where charters and
Faq's are written... as you have mentioned, are completely
bogus, since everything is subejected to ramdon change of a
moderator and nothing is binding. At least you admit that T.O
practice content moderation.. which is good enough for
TP.

>
> >People should understand that Moderators are God;s of thier
> >universe, and there is no recourse.
>
> Well, what you are doing on that issue is pointless. It only
> matters to people that are about to create a new group. It's
> much too late to complain about it after the group is
> created.

true...

[Jabriol]

"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0307181410.778dfbdb@posting.google.com...
> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f183486$0$59276$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
>
> > "Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > message
> > news:c743abb.0307180736.5853f725@posting.google.com...
>
> > > "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3f172337$0$33370$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
>
> > > > is your opinion, that I am ,obnoxious. feel free to
> > > > provide an
example
> > of
> > > > any post that I am.
> > >
> > > BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
> > >
> > > You *must* be kidding me. For one, anyone can google
> > > your more toxic attempts at inciting trouble on
> > > newsgroups. For another, I haven't got the time to sort
> > > through all that crap due to the prolific nature of your
> > > trolling.
>
> > in short.. "I can't find anything, because there is not
> > anything... sort
of
> > like the hunt for wmd in Iraq."
>
> You asked for it:
>
> <Kcur3.19$gX5.302@newreader.ukcore.bt.net>#1/1
>
> <37AB3B17.4B48@telusplanet.net>#1/1
>
> <8CUxFHAqa2q3EwTI@destherion.demon.co.uk>#1/1
>
> <3X%s3.561$1s4.5482@newreader.ukcore.bt.net>#1/1
>
> <9j6nkf.3vs7sr9.1@angelico.hamster>
>
> And these are just some of the complaints on
> alt.support.rape-survivors.
>
> Got any other smart-ass comments?

yes.. the complaints are based on content material. these
complaint could have been resolved in their own newgroups. and
the individuals can create their own killfiles. Also the
groups crossposted to are not moderated groups. there is no
need for Greig to step based on complaint from a few.

If that was the case, he would do the same for SAP, which
has a large volume of complaints ten fold of those you
presented here.

thank you for playing please try again.

Bottom line, it has been proven here, that there is in fact
content moderation on T.O. by a third reliable party, which in
effect proves me right and you wrong.

EOD

[Ru Igarash]

In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c743abb.0307181410.778dfbdb@posting.google.com...
>>
>> You asked for it:
>>
>> <Kcur3.19$gX5.302@newreader.ukcore.bt.net>#1/1
>>
>> <37AB3B17.4B48@telusplanet.net>#1/1
>>
>> <8CUxFHAqa2q3EwTI@destherion.demon.co.uk>#1/1
>>
>> <3X%s3.561$1s4.5482@newreader.ukcore.bt.net>#1/1
>>
>> <9j6nkf.3vs7sr9.1@angelico.hamster>
>>
>> And these are just some of the complaints on
>> alt.support.rape-survivors.
>>
>> Got any other smart-ass comments?

>yes.. the complaints are based on content material.

There's nothing wrong with complaints based on content. That
is, what a lot of justifiable complaints are about, because
that is often what determines whether crossposting is
inappropriate. I looked at the source postings from the above,
and it looks to me that you, Jabriol, seem to have
inappropriately posted to the groups in question in most
cases. Just because a group has keywords that your own message
contains doesn't mean you should crosspost to it. One of the
first rules usenet posters are supposed to learn is not to
post until you have learned what the group's topic space
covers (i.e. read it for a few months). I suspect you either
didn't bother, or that you have poor judgement, because I
couldn't understand how one could think some of the postings
were related to some of the affected groups. Some of it is
analogous to a person posting a rock music message in
rec.music.classical because the word music was in the group
name and he didn't know what classical music really was (i.e.
that it doesn't mean classic rock).

>these complaint could have been resolved in their own
>newgroups.

Not necessarily. Sometimes we see new group proposals because
of interference from outside sources. Moderation for reasons
such as what talk.origins did is quite acceptable. If readers
make use of other external measures, fine.

>and the individuals can create their own killfiles.

When the readership decides that no longer suffices, other
steps can be taken. Putting up crosspost blocks is not
unreasonable especially if the source of the problem turns out
to be posters from a specific group.

>Also the groups crossposted to are not moderated groups.
>there is no need for Greig to step based on complaint
>from a few.

That's for him to determine. If he feels that his readers are
impinging on the function of other groups, there is nothing
wrong with him imposing some extra control measures.

>If that was the case, he would do the same for SAP, which
>has a large volume of complaints ten fold of those you
>presented here.

That's his decision to make from the information HE gets, not
based on the information you think you have.

[snip]

>Bottom line, it has been proven here, that there is in fact
>content moderation on T.O. by a third reliable party, which
>in effect proves me right and you wrong.

But you are wrong in the sense that moderation by content is
wrong, at least in this case. The T.O. moderator doesn't seem
to be doing anything wrong as far as moderation policy is
concerned. The actual bottom line is that you exercised poor
judgement when you crossposted to some of these groups,
violating their topic space, and in some cases eventually
violated moderation policies in T.O. which are not
unreasonable. Not only is your bottom line irrelevant, but
it's meaningless. You mentioning it at all now is not only
pointless, but idiotic. Now leave these people alone.

[BTW, you other readers getting this as crosspost from
news.groups, I suspect I'm the "third party", but I don't
accept jabriol's assertions of moderator wrongdoings.]

ru

--
My standard proposals rant: Quality, usefulness, merit, or
non-newsgroups popularity of a topic is more or less
irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. Usenet
popularity is the primary consideration.

[Arthur L.]

jabriol wrote:

> yeah and wmd are found all over Iraq on a daily basis...,

Well, no, but your posts are....

[Ru Igarash]

In news.groups jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@wwt.net> wrote in message
>news:PL_Ra.700$zu1.8054@reggie.win.bright.net...
>>
>> "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3f18608d$0$68508$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> >
>> > your staement about my intent is erroneous, please
>> > present evidence, to
>> back
>> > up your claim.
>> >
>> fssssttt...and another irony meter fries.

>surrrre and another american dies today in Iraq... you were
>saying about ironies?

If this is your idea of staying on-topic, then I have to tell
you that you are wrong. I suspect it isn't on-topic in the
other groups, but it certainly isn't on topic in news.groups.
I don't care if you think the other guy was off-topic, that
doesn't mean you should do the same. We're talking about
newsgroup problems. Stick with that, though as far as I can
tell, there's nothing you can do or that anyone else should
do for you.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant: Quality, usefulness, merit, or
non-newsgroups popularity of a topic is more or less
irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. Usenet
popularity is the primary consideration.

[Chris Krol]

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f18adee$0$68533$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...

> "Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:c743abb.0307181410.778dfbdb@posting.google.com...

(snip)

> > Got any other smart-ass comments?

> yes.. the complaints are based on content material.

Ah, so now it's *complaints* based on content that are bad,
not just newsgroup limitations on them.

Let me explain how things actually work in the real world:

If you make a series of obnoxious posts to a newsgroup, people
are free to complain to your ISP about those posts. If you do
it to *several* newsgroups, people are free to complain, etc.,
en masse. This is why you've repeatedly lost ISPs and will
continue to do so. This is *also* why DIG set up the modified
crosspost ban, since they can also bitch to newsgroups -
especially moderated newsgroups - that look like the most
obvious NG where an obnoxious spammer is spending most of his
time at and sending most of his bilge from.

*Now* do you get it?

> these complaint could have been resolved in their own
> newgroups. and the individuals can create their own
> killfiles.

"People are complaining about me! MY RIGHTS ARE BEING
VIOLATED!"

Yeah. Sure.

So where did you gain the power to avoid all of the rules that
anyone *else* who posts to Usenet is subject to?

> Also the groups crossposted to are not moderated groups.

See my first paragraph.

> there is no need for Greig to step based on complaint
> from a few.

See my first paragraph.

> If that was the case, he would do the same for SAP, which
> has a large volume of complaints ten fold of those you
> presented here.

Deitiker's complaints don't count because they're weren't
presented in my last reply? How very odd.

Likewise, any *other* newsgroups don't count? That's a laugh -
all I gave you with those message IDs was a *very small*
sampling of people who've gotten fed up with you. If you can't
be bothered to do a web search for some of those past
complaints yourself, your laziness isn't my problem. And since
you were the obvious subject of those complaints, your claim
seems more than a bit disingenuous.

> Bottom line, it has been proven here, that there is in fact
> content moderation on T.O. by a third reliable party,

Wrong again. And what the hell is a "third reliable party"?
Are you referring to a third *moderator* (who doesn't seem to
exist) or a third *witness* (who doesn't, either)?

> which in effect proves me right and you wrong.

If I had a dollar for every time you've said that while being
totally wrong, I'd own every franchise in the NFL.

-Chris Krolczyk

[Brent Howa]

In alt.talk.creationism jabriol <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
> RFD: Moderation & crosspost Removal
>
> First of all, I am not allowed to post to Talk.Origins I've
> been ban, due to content of material, as it has been
> demonstrated by other T.O participators.

This is a lie. Jabbers may post to t.o, but he may post there
AND crosspost to more than three other groups OR crosspost to
a few named groups where he has been abusive.

>
> That being said, there seems to be a misunderstanding.

You are full of misunderstandings.

> Therefore the following is extending my original RFD.

> 1- the moderator must be removed because he bans material
> and crosspost to certain groups based on content, beyond the
> charter of the group.

This is a lie. Jabbers has been whining this mantra for years.
It is still a lie.

> 2- the current and on going dilemma on Talk.Origins seems to
> be Crossposting to other groups, therefore with the removal
> of a bias and prejudice moderator, all crossposting should
> be eliminated via robot moderation, and no one should be
> able to crosspost. This should be fair for all, and return
> credibility to the group, and it will reduce traffic. Many
> on T.O have agreed with this in the past. The group will
> then run Scott-free of biased moderation based on content.
> and those who do not wish to read the threads can
> effectively killfile any poster, they do not like.

The group is robomoderated to stopp crossposting to more than
four groups. It is patently obvious to all that Jabbers can't
count to four. This is not a valid reason for changing the
current robomoderation scheme.

> Even Philip diekhead should agree to this, since his gripe
> is crossposting.
>
> in resume
>
> 1- no moderation

As one who has posted to t.o for many years, and one who voted
for the current scheme, I support keeping it as is.

> 2- no crosspost.

I support the continuation of the maximum limit of
crossposting to no more than four groups. There are good
reasons to crosspost in some instances. Jabbers,
unfortunately, crossposts for all the wrong reasons.

> sound fair?

The current robomoderation is fair and supported by the vast
majority. You are not interested in fairness. You are only
interested in spamming your cult hatred and your sexist and
ra