Preliminary Discussion of RFD ( Revised ) for news.services.moderated

[nukleus]

What makes you say that? I believe that if a group is moderated, it
should have that information in its name. It makes it easier for posters
to decide IF they wish to send articles to the newsgroup or not based on
their preference to have others moderate their comments or not.

Why wouldn't they make that choice based on whether the group is moderated,
rather than the name?
How much other metadata are we supposed to overload the name with?

Yeah,
Yeah,
Yeah.

OVERLOADING!!!!!!!!!!!!
SUFFOCATING!!!!!!!!

Btw, can you estimate how much of an overhead
on the overall system does it represent?

You mean all 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent?

[nukleus]

Removing .moderated makes it clearer that it's moderated? Simply
fucking amazing.

Apparently. Don't look at what the magician is doing with his *other*
hand.

Just looking at the list of moderated groups that were considered
"Active' as was posted here by Jim Riley;
Only 17 (If I counted correctly) have .moderated as part of their name.
That's roughly 19% of the total number of groups listed there A small
percentage. Less than 1 in 5.

Because the previous nazis did quite a job on it
with their "moderate democracy" agenda.

Not only that, but they even had enough arrogance
to "moderate" some of the oldest open public forums,
the roots of the entire hierarchies, such as comp.ai,
giving them away to become a "private property" of some
of the most blatant, blood boling nazi's there are,
such as that "moderator" of comp.ai, David Kinny.

One could draw the conclusion from that figure, that adding .moderated
to the end of a group's name to indicate it was moderated, is far from
the norm indeed

You can "draw conclusions" out of merely looking
down the dead cockroaches ass.

It all depends on how corrupt your biorobotic mind
is, filled with all sorts of one liners.

Also, how many of all these 'stealth moderated' groups were created
prior to the B8MB came to pass? Obviously this has been a policy that
has been in place for quite a while?
===BEGIN QUOTE===
GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS - APPROVALS LAST MONTH
There are 166 groups that had approvals last month.
********************************************************************
ACTIVE: The group has had 5 or more approvals for each of the past
6 months. There are 95 Active groups.

Oh, that bookworm doing his "statistical studies"?

You mean 5 or more "approvals" per MONTH
is considered to be ACITVE?

Is it a madhouse?

Mr. bookworm, can't you find anything better to do in your life?
Or do you think enumerating someone elses shit
is DA most important thing in the world.

Finally, I can produce "evidence" by generating
a report that will show just about anything i want.

comp.ai
comp.answers
comp.archives.msdos.announce
comp.compilers
comp.dcom.telecom
comp.lang.asm.x86
comp.lang.c.moderated
comp.lang.c++.moderated
comp.lang.java.announce
comp.lang.ml
comp.lang.perl.announce
comp.lang.perl.moderated
comp.lang.python.announce
comp.os.linux.announce
comp.os.plan9
comp.parallel
comp.protocols.dns.bind
comp.protocols.dns.std
comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica
comp.software.shareware.announce
comp.software.shareware.authors
comp.std.announce
comp.std.c++
comp.sys.acorn.announce
humanities.philosophy.objectivism
misc.activism.militia
misc.activism.progressive
misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated
misc.entrepreneurs.moderated
misc.invest.financial-plan
misc.kids.moderated
misc.legal.moderated
misc.taxes.moderated
misc.transport.air-industry
misc.writing.screenplays.moderated
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
news.admin.net-abuse.sightings
news.announce.newgroups
news.answers
news.newusers.questions
rec.answers
rec.arts.comics.creative
rec.arts.comics.reviews
rec.arts.drwho.moderated
rec.arts.movies.erotica
rec.arts.movies.reviews
rec.arts.sf.announce
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
rec.audio.high-end
rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated
rec.autos.sport.info
rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated
rec.boats.marketplace
rec.crafts.jewelry
rec.food.cuisine.jewish
rec.food.recipes
rec.games.mud.announce
rec.games.roguelike.announce
rec.guns
rec.humor.funny
rec.humor.funny.reruns
rec.humor.jewish
rec.hunting
rec.radio.broadcasting
rec.sport.pro-wrestling.moderated
sci.astro.hubble
sci.astro.research
sci.bio.evolution
sci.math.research
sci.med.orthopedics
sci.nanotech
sci.physics.research
sci.space.news
sci.techniques.mass-spec
soc.atheism
soc.culture.hawaii
soc.culture.indian.goa
soc.culture.jewish.moderated
soc.genealogy.jewish
soc.genealogy.methods
soc.history.war.world-war-ii
soc.org.freemasonry
soc.politics
soc.religion.asatru
soc.religion.bahai
soc.religion.christian
soc.religion.christian.bible-study
soc.religion.islam
soc.religion.mormon
soc.religion.paganism
soc.sexuality.general
soc.sexuality.spanking
soc.singles.moderated
talk.origins
===END QUOTE===

[nukleus]

I suspect many of those listed as stealth moderated groups were not
originally moderated groups. You would have to do some
research/homework on your own.

Yep, they were simply taken over by these power freaks
and assorted sadists.

That's a good point and one that I hadn't considered.
Thanks

[nukleus]

What the fuck are you talking about? It was board members and
supporters that were whining about how usenet has to cater to OE and
Google, not the other way 'round.

It wasn't me. I said the different-Approved-header thing probably
wouldn't be very useful,

The whole idea of Approved header as outlined
in various RFCs is but a delusion.
First of all, any poster can put anything into approved header.

Secondly, usenet is not a private corporate information system.
So who is there to "approve" what on the first place?

If someone wants to have their own private information system,
then it is applicable, if they want to.

What is this, some CIA style operation?

What is there to approve on the first place?
By whom?
Where?
For what?

but I never said *that*. But the converse
of your statement is that it was the opposition who said we shouldn't
cater to them, and now are suddenly saying we must.

[nukleus]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:03:05 -0600, Dave Balderstone

Of course you're not. Your newsreader can tell you whether a group is
moderated. If it doesn't, it's broken; get a new one.

I'm sorry. I thought I was reading John Stanley for a minute. :)

So you remember, a week or two ago, when we weren't supposed to be catering
to every broken newsreader someone might be using? What happened to that?
I guess we're only supposed to do it when it fits the agenda of the
anti-Board.

What the fuck are you talking about? It was board members and
supporters that were whining about how usenet has to cater to OE and
Google, not the other way 'round.

I was clearly told, in no uncertain terms, by members of the
"Anti-Board' and it's supporters, that John Stanley's suggestion that I
should consider moderating a group based on the Approved Header even
though OE and Outlook (and several other News Clients and methods or
reading news) cannot filter on that field. I was told that we should
not cater to the masses and if OE and Outlook are 'broken' or 'not fully
featured' News Clients that cannot filter on that field then so be it
and that is not the fault of Usenet.
I am then told by the 'Anti-Board' and it's supporters, when I suggested
that there was no need for the use of .moderated to be added to the name
of the group I am proposing, because some News Clients can identify if a
group is moderated without the need for .moderated in the title, that I
should add .moderated because some News Clients cannot display whether
or not a group is moderated and that I *should* cater to 'broken' or
'not-fully featured' news clients!

Sire, i am using a perfectly good news reader
and would not exchange it for anything even
if you give to me for free.

That news reader, to my opinion, is one of the best
gadgets imaginable, at least from my standpoint,
and i have seen just about all the gadgets out there.

And my perfectly functioning news reader
does not even bother about such concepts as "moderation".

If you can not comprehend what people are telling you,
and DELIBERATELY avoid addressing about the MAJOR
issue and that is preventing other users, just like
yourself, from creating non "moderated" group on that
subject, then you belong to that puppet club.

Why do you even bother to post to news.groups?

Didn't those puppets tell you that the "official"
place to discuss groups is their "private property",
called the ngp masturbation club?

When I said "A" the 'Anti-Board' says "B"
When I said "B" the 'Anti-Board' says "A"

What anti-board?

If you have your mind already molded,
then what are you doing here on news.groups?

Plainly the truth is

You can not possibly say what Truth is.
You simply use words without realizing their
meaning and significance
as it looks like that CPU between your ears
has been programmed with all sorts of garbage.

Enough.

that no matter what I might say, the "Anti-Board'
is going to say the opposite simply because they feel I am a supporter
of the "Board"
Either I should cater to those who have "broken' or 'not fully featured'
News Clients or I shouldn't (and I have already made my mind up as to
which it will be) but the "Anti-Board" needs to make up it's mind
because at the moment it appears to be a simply case of 'Kindergarten
Politics' that they are playing at.

[nukleus]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:53:59 -0600, Dave Balderstone

There is no organization called the "anti-Board", fuckwit.

I would agree with that statement.
However, there is a 'disorganization made up of the same group of people
that I am calling the "Anti-Board" rather than having to name them each
and every time..

I wish I could say the fact that some individuals made one argument and
DIFFERENT individuals made a DIFFERENT argument is now some how license
for Board members (an identifiable organization) to whinge again amazes
me, but I can't say that.

Exactly, because if you did, it wouldn't be true.

Hopeless case.

[nukleus]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:53:59 -0600, Dave Balderstone

There is no organization called the "anti-Board", fuckwit.

I would agree with that statement.
However, there is a 'disorganization made up of the same group of people
that I am calling the "Anti-Board" rather than having to name them each
and every time..

I wish I could say the fact that some individuals made one argument and
DIFFERENT individuals made a DIFFERENT argument is now some how license
for Board members (an identifiable organization) to whinge again amazes
me, but I can't say that.

Exactly, because if you did, it wouldn't be true.

How do you know what amazes me? Are you a physic too?
Cite the messages where anyone other than a board member or supporter
has contradicted themselves regarding newsreader functionality.

These fools seem to have an idea
that unless you drive Rolls Royce
and unless it gives you an audio cue
or a picture on your monitor
saying "Attention: you are about to enter
into someone's private property.
Whatever you post there, regardless of its value
and content, can and WILL be "moderated" out of existence
by the owner of that private property,
calling himself a moderator".

I wonder what news reader tells you all this.

I await your response.

[nukleus]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:09:03 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<snip>

Cite the messages where anyone other than a board member or supporter
has contradicted themselves regarding newsreader functionality.

<snip>
You would appear to be correct and I was mistaken.
Sorry Dave.
I do feel though that 'I am damned if I do and damned if I don't" at
times however, based upon the conflicting arguments given here by people
who oppose the "board"!

There will forever be people that oppose
all sorts of things.
Fortunately, on usenet, it is not a problem at all.
Because you can simply use the "next" button on
your favorite news reader,
which is about the ONLY "law" there is on usenet.

All other "laws" and "regulations"
are nothing more than a pipe dream.

They have never been voted for in a democratic process.
They have never been authorized by ANY legal authority,
and there is no such authority that can possibly
cancel that which is signed into Internetional Convention
on BASIC Human Rights.

You understand what BASIC means?

One of those BASIC RIGHTS, you understand RIGHTS,
is the right to freedom of speech.

Nothing less.
Nothing more.

This convention was signed by vast majority
of world governments, except of USA, of course.

Anything else?

[nukleus]

When I said "A" the 'Anti-Board' says "B"
When I said "B" the 'Anti-Board' says "A"
Plainly the truth is that no matter what I might say, the "Anti-Board'
is going to say the opposite simply because they feel I am a supporter
of the "Board"

Yes, now you're starting to get it. This isn't the first time, nor will
it be the last.
We have a massive outcry telling us we must do "A". It goes on and on,
with people saying what evil Nazi scum we are if we don't do "A". The
outcry is unanimous from the opposition. Now, there are two things we
can do: we can do "A", or we can not do "A".
If we do "A", then all of those people completely disappear, and are
replaced by another vicious, massive attack

Wut?

telling us how completely
and utterly wrong we were for doing "A", and how could we ever have
considered such a thing, as only evil Nazi scum

Isn't it EXACTLY your picture?
Have you seen your own archives on Google?

would ever do it.
The outcry is unanimous from the opposition; not a single one of those
"you *must* do 'A'" people will say even a single word about how, mere
weeks ago, they were demanding that we do "A".

Who is telling you "you must do A"?
And who are you on the first place
to even bother telling it to you?

If we

Who is we?
Do you have some sort of conspiracy going on there?

You know who is "we" on usenet?

Well, it is the USERS of usenet,
and not some nazi blood boiling and mouth foaming
puppet theatre.

Enough.

don't do "A", then the attack about "you must do 'A'" continues,
until someone comes along and demands that we do "B", which happens to
be directly opposite "A". At that point, the "A" people disappear, and
not one of them ever says a word about how they were demanding the exact
opposite of "B" mere weeks ago and that they had just declared anyone
who would ever think of "B" to be evil Nazi scum.
This back-and-forth, damned-if-we-do-or-don't nonsense goes on in
perpetuity. That's what this newsgroup is *for*, now, it seems.
It makes it somewhat difficult to listen to people who demand that we
must do "C", then, because we know that, a bit later, we will be told
that "C" is evil and we must do "D".
Then they complain that we're not listening to them, and the cycle
begins anew.

[nukleus]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:09:03 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<snip>

Cite the messages where anyone other than a board member or supporter
has contradicted themselves regarding newsreader functionality.

<snip>
You would appear to be correct and I was mistaken.
Sorry Dave.
I do feel though that 'I am damned if I do and damned if I don't" at
times however, based upon the conflicting arguments given here by people
who oppose the "board"!

Stop lumping people who oppose the board into some sort of organized
movement, and recognize that the board has pissed a lot of people off
who actually give a damn about usenet and the Big 8.
There's no "movement" here. The board has fucked up big time, and
refuses to admit it. There are a lot of people of varying dispositions
and demeanors who feel strongly about that.

I donnow about this "movement" thing.
Just about all I know:
Any modern society lives according to democratic
principles created by Socrates.

It is called "DA voice of people".

Even in ancient Greece, there were special places
where ANYBODY could get on podium
and speak just about ANYTHING that comes to their mind,
and NO ONE, mind you, NO ONE, had right to stop them,
not even emperor.

And that was a couple of MILLENNIUMS ago.

And what is this crock shit they call B8MB?

Well, it is EXACTLY the same thing as Stalinist
style "committees" pronouncing death sentences
to tens of millions of UTTERLY INNOCENT people.

It is the same thing as that mouth foaming
Adolph Hitler's stuff, who was nothing more but
a puppet in the hands of Illuminati and Freemasons.

Simple as that.

You want MORE info on this?

Not a problem at all.

"Just ask,
and it shalt be givenn to you".

Ever heard?

[nukleus]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:18:17 -0600, Dave Balderstone

I do feel though that 'I am damned if I do and damned if I don't" at
times however, based upon the conflicting arguments given here by people
who oppose the "board"!

Stop lumping people who oppose the board into some sort of organized
movement, and recognize that the board has pissed a lot of people off
who actually give a damn about usenet and the Big 8.
There's no "movement" here. The board has fucked up big time, and
refuses to admit it. There are a lot of people of varying dispositions
and demeanors who feel strongly about that.

I know that there are as many different opinions as there are people in
this group and so far I cannot tell who is being accurate and who is
not,

Can you get this simpliest idea of all:

Usenet is a global information system
carrying OPEN PUBLIC FORUMS
on a global scale.

There is no "authority" that has "power"
to enforce just about ANY law, dictate or guideline,
unless it is authorized by nothing less
than an INTERNATIONAL courts
and corresponds to the INTERNATIONAL conventions
on BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS,
one of which is FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

The other one is: FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.

And yet another one is:

FREEDOM TO CHOOSE YOUR OWN CONVICTIONS
and/or RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

What is not so clear?

Did you read your own CONSTITUTION?

What country are you from?
Where are you living?

In some nazi zoo,
enclosed ina cage,
by ANY chance?

Enough.

in their recanting of the 'story' because even those opposed to the
"Board' seem to have conflicting ideas as to 'what, when and who'.
...and yes, I know in reality, it's a minority of people here who are
just 'noise makers' and there are some people here, who object to the
'board' and yet are reasonable and straightforward at times, in their
arguments, but it's a hard job telling one from the other at times too.
The fact is, as I have always said, I'm here for one reason and one
reason only. I'm trying to set up a new group to replace the wasteland
that was once a.b.n-s-c.
I'm not for the board nor am I against them.
Frankly, I don't understand half the stuff that people here, are going
on about, when they try and describe what happened or whatever.. and to
be honest, I don't think I ever will understand fully or know for sure,
one way or the other because over time, it's got so convoluted a story I
don't think anyone really knows the whole truth any longer.
What I do know is that there are some people here that I would hope,
would become participants in the group I am trying to create because
they have good ideas and suggestions to make, (even if they have very
different or opposing opinions to myself)because they have a degree of
experience that could be useful to those other participants who are
lacking in those areas, and they know enough about Usenet in general, to
provide support and help to those new to Usenet and help, in a sense, to
keep the NSP's honest!
===Begin Speech===
One of the great things about n-s-c, when it was at it's peak, was that
the group attracted both users and news admins alike, and while I cannot
say that everyone 'got on like a house on fire' all or even most of the
time, the discussions and debates that took place in that group, were,
for the most part, useful, enlightening and interesting and I believe,
helped to change points of views from both the User and the NSP's
perspectives, at times too, to the benefit of all concerned.
news.groups is obviously not such a place at this moment in time. I
don't see *anyone* benefiting from the discussions going on currently,
nor do I see Usenet benefiting in any way, in the future either. If
anything, the end result of this will just be further splits and
divisions at a time when Usenet users should be working together to keep
Usenet as a viable place for useful discussion and information in the
future.
===End Speech===

[nukleus]

Removing .moderated makes it clearer that it's moderated? Simply
fucking amazing.

Apparently. Don't look at what the magician is doing with his *other*
hand.

Just looking at the list of moderated groups that were considered
"Active' as was posted here by Jim Riley;
Only 17 (If I counted correctly) have .moderated as part of their name.
That's roughly 19% of the total number of groups listed there A small
percentage. Less than 1 in 5.
One could draw the conclusion from that figure, that adding .moderated
to the end of a group's name to indicate it was moderated, is far from
the norm indeed

There are 42 groups that end with ".moderated". In 38 cases, the
group has an unmoderated counter-part or counter-parts that cover
roughly the same topic space. In these cases, the fact that the group
is moderated is its distinguishing feature, and is something not
readily available from the status. That is, not only is this group
moderated, it implies that there is also an unmoderated equivalent.
o misc.business.moderated and sci.military.moderated.
In this case, there appears to have been some unease with a two
component name. Some news-server software uses wild cards two
indicate sub-hierarchies of newsgroups.
net.foo.bar.*
Will match net.foo.bar.baz and net.foo.bar.misc, but not net.foo.bar.
In addition, there may have been performance issues when one group
name is a sub-string of other group names (eg news.groups may slow
access to mews.groups.proposals).

Is it supposed to be a joke of some sort?

Do you have an estimate in your deep-shit
statistical analysis on the performance penalties?

Enough.

sci.military.moderated was renamed from sci.military when
sci.military.naval (unmoderated) was created, so in that case
sci.military.naval provided unmoderated discussion of some of the
topics for sci.military.moderated.
o misc.business.marketing.moderated
For some reason this was the proposed name, even though almost all of
the other groups at the misc.business.* level are also moderated, and
pre-date the marketing group.
o rec.toys.transformers.moderated
This proposal had a somewhat odd history, in that original proponent
wanted an unmoderated group for discussion for "classic" transformers.
He was later joined by a proponent group that wanted a moderated group
for discussion of all transformers. They also believed that the
unmoderated transformer group already existed in the alt.* hierarchy.
The final proposal agglomerated the two proposals, proposing
unmoderated ".classic" and ".discuss", and moderated ".moderated", and
".marketplace" thrown in for good measure. Only the ".moderated" and
".marketplace" groups passed the vote (some of the proponents voted
against the unmoderated discussion groups).
If the entire proposal had passed, then the ".moderated" group would
conform to the naming conventions used in the Big 8.

[nukleus]

Removing .moderated makes it clearer that it's moderated? Simply
fucking amazing.

Apparently. Don't look at what the magician is doing with his *other*
hand.

Just looking at the list of moderated groups that were considered
"Active' as was posted here by Jim Riley;
Only 17 (If I counted correctly) have .moderated as part of their name.
That's roughly 19% of the total number of groups listed there A small
percentage. Less than 1 in 5.
One could draw the conclusion from that figure, that adding .moderated
to the end of a group's name to indicate it was moderated, is far from
the norm indeed

There are 42 groups that end with ".moderated".

<snip>
My apologies Jim, if I am being a little dumb here but I only counted 17
groups in the active list that I quoted, that ended in .moderated.

Can you use your brain?
What HAVE they done to it?

Enough.

Are you saying that there are 42 groups out of *all* the groups that are
moderated, that end in .moderated?
If so, how many moderated groups are there in total?

[nukleus]

I suspect many of those listed as stealth moderated groups were not
originally moderated groups. You would have to do some
research/homework on your own.

That's a good point and one that I hadn't considered.

Mr. bookworm,
Why don't you tell people that at least 15 percent
of all big-8 groups are "moderated" already?

Why don't you tell people how many of those groups
were taken over using the hostile takeover techniques
and converted from open public forums
into outlets of nazi propaganda
and marketing shops?

What are you doing here anyway?

comp.ai; comp.lang.asm.x86; news.newsusers.questions;
rec.crafts.jewelry; and talk.origins.

[Terminator]

To Russ Allbery:

This is YOUR creation,
you blood boiling nazi,
who was trying to take over usenet with his nazi
model of Usenet 2 (www.usenet2.org) for MANY years.

And now, this conman Russ, hand picked this clique
of arrogant nazi puppets to do the dirty work for him.

Eat it now.

"Non-moderated" is the "natural state" of newsgroups. Moderation is an
exception -- a later addition to the original concept -- and it is the
exception that should be noted by an addition to the name.

Not any more.

Huh?

Who ARE you, lil sucker,
blinded with his imaginary "powers" of raging nazism?

The final label .moderated is not needed in all cases or even in most
cases.

Who da funk you are?
I don't recall seeing your nick.
What hole did you crawl out of?

The only place I can see it having value is where there is a
non-moderated pairing (e.g. foo.bar, and foo.bar.moderated). If foo.bar
is being proposed for the first time, then it can be called foo.bar.

How can the blind see?

Thus rec.pods.moderated is appropriate since there is an existing
rec.ponds. But news.service-providers is acceptable as a moderated group
name.

So, you, lil mouth foaming nazi puppet of herr fuehrer
Russ Allbery, are doing what here on news.groups?
Spitting in the faces of people and laughing at them
with your blatant nazi tight lipped smile,
hiding your bloodied hands behind your back,
you lil chicken shit impersonator?

What AUTHORITY do you have to make such blatant nazi style
proclamations?

WHO elected you?
WHO authorized you?
What court of law, international conventions or principles
authorized this Stalinist style "committee" to take over
the biggest global information system dedicated to facilitation
of OPEN PUBLIC FORUMS and proclaim themselves to be the "rulers"
and exclusive dictators.

Or you could care less about democratic principles, eh?

Then what are you doing here, you lil nazi puppet?
You think you can hide in your masturbation club
called ngp and brainwash those clueless with your dictates
and then, if there isn't enough clueless, come here
and make these blatant nazi proclamations?

Thomas
--
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board

[Terminator]

Question: On what basis herr fuehrer Russ is about
the ONLY person who can issue the control messages
for the entire big-8, that have a chance to even
be seen by the news admins wordwide?

To Russ Allbery and his puppet theatre:

This is YOUR creation,
you blood boiling nazi,
who was trying to take over usenet with his nazi
model of Usenet 2 (www.usenet2.org) for MANY years.

And now, this conman Russ hand picked this clique
of arrogant nazi puppets to do the dirty work for him.
He announced his "retirement" in a couple of pathetic
posts, lying his rotten shark teeth off
and telling everyone how he loved them.

But he did not retire at all.
He is simply standing in the shade
and let these puppets of his
do the dirty work for him.
But it is HIM who stands behind this grandest
scam in the entire history of big-8.

The same herr fuehrer Russ is issuing the PGP signed
control messages for the entire big-8, creating all
sorts of "moderated" groups, trying to finally convert
big-8 into a totalitarian system, implementing his life
long dream of taking over Usenet.

He and David Lawrence, the previous herr fuehrer,
worked for YEARS to develop a system where the
entire big-8, the biggest global information system,
meant to facilitate OPEN PUBLIC FORUMS,
would belong to them. LITERALLY.

He built the mechanisms to make sure no one
but him can issue the control messages on big-8.
They even implemented the PGP signature requirement
and, unless the From header is group-***@isc.org,
and it is PGP signed with the key HE created,
those control messages are not even seen by the
news admins. They simply get filtered out before
they even show up on their screens.

Thus, these utterly intolerant totalitarian dicators
LITERALLY took over big-8 as far as group creation
or status is concerned.

And now, these puppets of his, are creating any
"moderated" group one can asks for, and they
flately refuse to identify such groups by
appending .moderated to a group name, thus taking
up the name space and preventing the unmoderated
version of the group, covering the same subject,
to EVER exist.

And they are creating these "moderated" groups
like crazy, with a SINGLE proponent nazi wannabe.

Meanwhile, they did not allow even a DISCUSSION
on creating a news.admin.moderation group, that
was voted for 3 times, with over a hundred supporters.
And, even with such support, the group was sabotaged
out of existence and was never created.

Thanks to herr fuehrer!
What a noble public servant he is!
What a dedication to the principles of Democracy!

These Stalinist peverts even went as far as to
create news.groups.proposals, a "moderated"
version of usenet, which is nothing but a
"private property" of theirs, where they can
implement their raging nazi ideology and brainwash
all those "newbies" and "clueless", twisting
their arms and dictating to them just about
ANYTHING they wish, because no views but their
own nazi dictates are allowed on that "private
property" of theirs. They'll simply "moderate"
it out of existence.

Following post is from one of his puppets,
a member of so called "Big 8 Management Board" scam.

Eat it now.

"Non-moderated" is the "natural state" of newsgroups. Moderation is an
exception -- a later addition to the original concept -- and it is the
exception that should be noted by an addition to the name.

Not any more.

Huh?

Who ARE you, lil sucker,
blinded with his imaginary "powers" of raging nazism?

The final label .moderated is not needed in all cases or even in most
cases.

Who da funk you are?
I don't recall seeing your nick.
What hole did you crawl out of?

The only place I can see it having value is where there is a
non-moderated pairing (e.g. foo.bar, and foo.bar.moderated). If foo.bar
is being proposed for the first time, then it can be called foo.bar.

How can the blind see?

Thus rec.pods.moderated is appropriate since there is an existing
rec.ponds. But news.service-providers is acceptable as a moderated group
name.

So, you, lil mouth foaming nazi puppet of herr fuehrer
Russ Allbery, are doing what here on news.groups?
Spitting in the faces of people and laughing at them
with your blatant nazi tight lipped smile,
hiding your bloodied hands behind your back,
you lil chicken shit impersonator?

What AUTHORITY do you have to make such blatant nazi style
proclamations?

WHO elected you?
WHO authorized you?
What court of law, international conventions or principles
authorized this Stalinist style "committee" to take over
the biggest global information system dedicated to facilitation
of OPEN PUBLIC FORUMS and proclaim themselves to be the "rulers"
and exclusive dictators.

Or you could care less about democratic principles, eh?

Then what are you doing here, you lil nazi puppet?
You think you can hide in your masturbation club
called ngp and brainwash those clueless with your dictates
and then, if there isn't enough clueless, come here
and make these blatant nazi proclamations?

Thomas
--
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board