Discussion:
RFD: moderation policy change, news.groups.proposals
(too old to reply)
Terminator
2007-03-16 04:32:34 UTC
Permalink
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.groups.proposals
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for a change in the
moderation policy of the Usenet newsgroup, news.groups.proposals.
Why are you posting it to news.groups and crossposting it
to your own trap, news.groups.proposals?

First of all, you, nazi puppets of herr fuehrer
Russ Allbery, who created your nazi puppet theatre,
stated many times on record that news.groups has
no significance to your neo-nazi takeover of nothing less
than the world's biggest information system called big-8.

In that case, why are you posting it to news.groups?

Just to insult all those who do not agree with your nazi
agenda? And, by crossposting it to your nazi ngp hole,
you know full well that if they follow up on your post
and do not mofify the followup, you will most certainly
junk any and all views that do not align with your
Stalinist agenda?

You must be perverts then.
The LOWEST grade scum
in the entire history of usenet.
As far as I'm concerned, you can discuss anything you like in a group
I don't read, and it's understandable or even praiseworthy that you
want to increase the range of acceptable topics in a group that hasn't
proved particularly popular so far, despite weeks of propaganda on its
behalf.
However, by your choice of crossposted groups you admit that this RFD
may affect the Big-8 and Usenet in general, so certain ethical issues
arise.
You're a moderator of NGP, and you've set follow-ups to the group you
moderate. This means not only that people wishing to comment on the
RFD who choose not to subscribe to NGP and continue to think that the
proper place for RFD discussions is news.groups are at a disadvantage,
but also that if one wants one's comments to appear in NGP they have
to be approved by a team of moderators that includes the proponent.
There's a conflict of interest there.
Also, any comment on this RFD is likely to be coloured by the
commentor's attitude to the self-proclaimed "Big-8 Management Board",
since NGP is the B8MB's flagship project and its very existence is a
very hot issue between supporters and opponents of that committee.
Since criticism of the B8MB is verboten in NGP (on pain of the
approving moderator being removed by the B8MB), as a moderator you'll
have to reject comments which as a proponent you might find useful.
I'm sure that you, as a sane, honorable and devastatingly good-looking
Usenet participant[1], will do your best to resolve the conflicts of
interest as honestly as possible,
There is no such concepts as conflict of interest
or honesty in dictator's mind.
but the conflicts of interest should
not exist in the first place.
It does not matter to nazis.
They can bend reality to the point of obscene.
Follow-ups should have been set to a
suitable group that you don't moderate - which in practice means
news.groups.
Why do they even bother to post this crap to news.groups?
This whole thing is just to insult the news.groups
participants.

It is simply a spit into your faces.

Nazi ALWAYS do whatever they please.
I'm leaving NAH in the crosspost because I'd like to know if other
managed hierarchies that are mostly unmoderated would allow a
moderator of a group to channel discussion of changes affecting a
whole hierarchy to his moderated group in this way.
- - -
[1]Dear NAH: Steve pretends to hate it when I compliment him. This is
a news.groups in-joke, which I couldn't resist.
Terminator
2007-03-19 13:31:28 UTC
Permalink
... A Meta
discussion about a particular group should take place in that group so its
users may participate in the discussion, not in another newsgroup.
This "law of ethical meta-discussion" has never been part of the big-8.
Meta discussions about all groups, existing, deceased, or possible, have
gone on in n.g since before it was n.g.
The informal discussion of ideas envisaged in this suggested
modification of n.g.p's charter will not abolish the obligation
to circulate RFDs to all affected newsgroups if and when the
ideas reach the RFD stage.
The official discussion of those RFDs
There can be nothing "official" on Usenet
as there exists no party
that can claim the "official" status of ANY kind.

Usenet is a global information system,
created for the purpose of facilitation of
OPEN PUBLIC forums,
just as the very idea of Democracy prescribes.

All the power hungry sickos of your kind,
claiming some delusional "official" "authority",
are just that,
the power hungry nazis
with megalomaniacal tendencies.

Why are you holding on to this imaginary "power"
on the first place?

WHO asked you for your assistance?
WHO elected you?
WHO authorized you?
Which law or international principle
allows the nazi opressors of your kind
to control nothing less than a global information system?

How long will it take for you to see the light of day,
the simpliest thing there is?
will then take place
in n.g.p, just as it used to take place in n.g, rather than
in the interested or affected newsgroups.
Marty
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) -- http://www.big-8.org
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
Terminator
2007-03-19 21:46:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <etm3b9$4n3$***@toster.te.net.ua>, Terminator
<***@you.are.next> wrote:



I wondar if this thing will fit up my tootoo?
Plaster caster Cynthia is selling her casting of dead rock singer Jimi
Hendrix's dick for $1,500, along with other celebrity dick and tit
castings.
Get out your checkbook now.
http://tinyurl.com/xpv6
Loading...