Sucky Redhead
2007-03-27 14:59:29 UTC
Yes, they do. The right to "edit articles" means the right to change
the meaning of the article, and that makes the From header invalid.
Moderators have forever edited articles, and it has never had thethe meaning of the article, and that makes the From header invalid.
effect of making the From header invalid.
pereverts.
Live with it now.
You keep using the fact that they HAVE done it as proof that it is
ethical, and now you use it as proof that it hasn't changed the meaning
of the From header.
WHO is there to define the meaning on the first place?ethical, and now you use it as proof that it hasn't changed the meaning
of the From header.
Well...
The AUTHOR, as he is the only one, who even has a remote
chance to say what he meant when he did such and such.
I'd refer you to the comments of someone else who
pointed out the invalidity of "done it forever"
They are just bunch of ass lickers of the power hungry; maniacs,pointed out the invalidity of "done it forever"
and, feeling they themselves are nobodies, they think the best
thing there is is to lick somebody's ass, as long as that ass is big
and fat, which gives them this illusion of safety.
Chicken shit of that grade.
as a proof of ethicality,
but you've denied that they were made.
Yup. It is like saying in court "i was stealing all my life and it was ok uptobut you've denied that they were made.
now, so, gimme a break".
And I'll note here that the "policy under discussion" is a lot more than
simply changing the Newsgroups header. It is your claim that a moderator
can change articles in any way he sees fit. (And yes, since "moderation
policy" is set by the moderator, saying "in accordance with moderation
policy" is saying "in any way he sees fit.")
I have never said that the moderation policy is set by the moderator.simply changing the Newsgroups header. It is your claim that a moderator
can change articles in any way he sees fit. (And yes, since "moderation
policy" is set by the moderator, saying "in accordance with moderation
policy" is saying "in any way he sees fit.")
and i know you well enough.
You are just a bookworm,
looking up sombody's output hole,
counting all the molecules in their shit,
and then creating the statistical reports,
huffing and puffing,
thinking that you are about the ONLY one
that does the "real" job around here.
Git it?
Or we need to chew more on this?
I know you haven't. But the fact is that the moderation policy IS set
by the moderator. It's been done that way forever. I'm sure you have
noticed this, but I guess you didn't connect the two until now. "According
to moderation policy" really means "as the moderators wishes" because
moderation policy is the whim of the moderator.
But when that sucky "moderator" was taking over some group,by the moderator. It's been done that way forever. I'm sure you have
noticed this, but I guess you didn't connect the two until now. "According
to moderation policy" really means "as the moderators wishes" because
moderation policy is the whim of the moderator.
what was he telling all those "clueless"?
Well, the chances are nearly 100 percent,
he was telling them he is an angel, sent by God,
to protect all the innocent soles (yup),
and give them all the freedome they dremt about.
But...
Once he took over the group, he come blatantly and arrogantly
straight and tell all those "clueless" that realities are changed now
and from now on, there will be black lists and white lists.
Crap like that.
I just don't understand, why are these sickos so obscessed
with trying to grab as much "virtulal real estate" as possible?
While the (draft) RFC notes that the manner in which a moderation
policy is defined is outside the scope of the RFC,
policy is defined is outside the scope of the RFC,
Well, they mean jackshit.
And you are taking them as a word of god,
being the ass licker you are.
Maaan.
You are so wastefuly boring and a such a hopeless case,
I just can't see why am I bothering with the dead of your kind.
The draft RFC is a draft. And yes, it's outside the scope of the RFC
because it is not a technical issue of the protocol. That doesn't mean
"anything goes", it's just that ethics aren't a technical issue.
Blah, blah, blah.because it is not a technical issue of the protocol. That doesn't mean
"anything goes", it's just that ethics aren't a technical issue.
this in no way
implies that a moderation policy may be set "in any way he sees fit".
implies that a moderation policy may be set "in any way he sees fit".
Enough of this crap.
I didn't say the RFC says he can set it as he sees fit. It's one
of those historical facts. (Notice that I didn't say that it was
ETHICAL for him to do it because he always has been able to, just
that he has always been able to do it.)
authorship.
Yes, they are. If the moderator edits the article to change the meaning,
then the authorship has changed. The article conveys HIS thoughts and
not those of the poster.
restate it.
I dealt with the substance of your question, Jim, even in the typo
format it was asked. I even answered the SPECIFIC question you asked.
right to remove the unmoderated group from the list. He has the ability,
and some would argue the right, to remove HIS group from the list, as
a way of REJECTING (one of the options he has regarding the article)
it from HIS group. He has no control over any other group. He has no
right to decide that the article should not be posted to aaa.ccc. Some
have argued that the correct course of action is to simply reject the
article altogether if he rejects it from his group and allow the poster
to decide if he wants to post the article elsewhere.
response that you removed that talks about the newsgroups header being
set BY THE POSTER and that it is an EXPLICIT list of what groups an
article is posted to -- and thus an EXPLICIT list of those it is NOT
posted to.
When it changes the meaning of headers, yes, it does.
False premise. It does not change the meaning of headers.
When the content becomes the moderator's meaning instead of the poster's,
leaving the poster's data in the From header changes the meaning of
the From header from "this is the person or entity that wrote this
article" to "this is the person who's article was adapted and modified
by the moderator". When the moderator changes the newsgroups header,
the newsgroups header no longer means "the list of group to which an
article is posted", it means "the list that the moderator will post it
to." I realize that the difference may seem subtle, but that doesn't
mean there is no difference.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -of those historical facts. (Notice that I didn't say that it was
ETHICAL for him to do it because he always has been able to, just
that he has always been able to do it.)
That's why there is a problem. The contents of the From header isn't
changed, but the actual source of the article has.
The changes under discussion are not sufficient to cause a change ofchanged, but the actual source of the article has.
authorship.
then the authorship has changed. The article conveys HIS thoughts and
not those of the poster.
I'm going out on a limb here and assume that you simply didn't look at
what you posted prior to posting it, and that you got bitten by your
own choice of deliberately cutesy newsgroup names.
Since you avoided addressing the substance of my question, I willwhat you posted prior to posting it, and that you got bitten by your
own choice of deliberately cutesy newsgroup names.
restate it.
format it was asked. I even answered the SPECIFIC question you asked.
Could you explain why if the moderator of aaa.bbb changes the
Newsgroups: aaa.bbb,aaa.ccc
to
Newsgroups: aaa.bbb
It is OK.
It isn't. Stop asking me to defend things that I didn't say. He has noNewsgroups: aaa.bbb,aaa.ccc
to
Newsgroups: aaa.bbb
It is OK.
right to remove the unmoderated group from the list. He has the ability,
and some would argue the right, to remove HIS group from the list, as
a way of REJECTING (one of the options he has regarding the article)
it from HIS group. He has no control over any other group. He has no
right to decide that the article should not be posted to aaa.ccc. Some
have argued that the correct course of action is to simply reject the
article altogether if he rejects it from his group and allow the poster
to decide if he wants to post the article elsewhere.
While if the moderator of aaa.bbb changed it from
Newsgroups: aaa.bbb
to
Newsgroups: Newsgroups: aaa.bbb,aaa.ccc
It is not.
I've answered this question multiple times. Refer to the part of myNewsgroups: aaa.bbb
to
Newsgroups: Newsgroups: aaa.bbb,aaa.ccc
It is not.
response that you removed that talks about the newsgroups header being
set BY THE POSTER and that it is an EXPLICIT list of what groups an
article is posted to -- and thus an EXPLICIT list of those it is NOT
posted to.
But they may not supercede the RFC in other areas.
It doesn't.leaving the poster's data in the From header changes the meaning of
the From header from "this is the person or entity that wrote this
article" to "this is the person who's article was adapted and modified
by the moderator". When the moderator changes the newsgroups header,
the newsgroups header no longer means "the list of group to which an
article is posted", it means "the list that the moderator will post it
to." I realize that the difference may seem subtle, but that doesn't
mean there is no difference.
"The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ...
heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
--- Isreali Prime Minister
(at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers
New York Times April 1, 1988
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is just a reminder.
It is not an emergency yet.
Were it actual emergency, you wouldn't be able to read this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -