«

Well, first of all, I'd like to thank you all for participating in the
poll, regardless of whether you voted in favour of it or against it.

I've finally gotten around to sorting through all the responses to the
poll & tallying it up.

In favour: (either as proposed, or subject to changes)
32 votes in the group, 6 via email.
Against:
15 votes in the group, 0 via email.

A total of 38 at least broadly in favour, (including 5 respondents
wanting changes to the initial proposal), vs 15 against.

That's a pretty good indicator that people are strongly in favour of a
cleaned-up version of RPD, & that it's worth our time & effort to get
the process started.
As soon as I have time, I'll write up a more formal proposal to be
discussed here. This version will also include changes based on peoples'
comments & questions during the poll, & on input I've received from
various experts on how to make the moderation system work quickly &
smoothly.

For those interested in checking my results, or verifying that I've
correctly tallied their opinion, I've added a summary of people's votes
to the end of this post. Please comment if you find any errors, or if
I've missed your vote.

-------------
From: Bay Area Dave <>
Message-ID: <AJrAc.74190$ m>
I vote for the status quo.
(Against)

From Fri Jun 18 14:49:59 2004
Message-ID: <Xns950C96EDF89E8billgatescom@130.133.1.4>
I'm with "Dave".
(Against)

From: John McWilliams <>
Message-ID: <hmvAc.48438$2i5.27103@attbi_s52>
Since it won't change anything here - immediately at least, and not by
fiat, I say: What an offer, and thank you. What's to lose? Give it a go,
and if it doesn't have legs, nothing lost.... except your time, for
which: tia!
(In favour)

From: "Jack Pohler" <jpohler-nospamno-@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <xRrAc.54$>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.248.194.231
Works for me.
(In favour)

From: Ron Hunter <>
Message-ID: <>
ONE opinion, with others completely repressed. No thanks.
(Against)

From Sat Jun 19 03:04:56 2004
Message-ID: <>
Against.
(Against)

From: (Richard Ballard)
Message-ID: <>
My Usenet experience leads me to prefer _not_ moderated newsgroups.
I tend to self-moderate through the use of killfiles in cases where
(after unhappy reading) I don't want to read another individual's
future messages.
(Against)

From Fri Jun 18 12:44:56 2004
Message-ID: <Xns950BE75DC905Acockburnwebjettersco@130.133.1. 4>
I would support the new group. I would not support the linkage of RPD
and
the proposed RPDM via any crossposts or automatic posting mechanisms.
(In favour, if modified)

From: "Kimberlee" <>
Message-ID: <40d2e3c9$>
If it means the idiots would go away...I'm all for it!
(In favour)

From: Double D <>
Message-ID: <>
Hi Lionel. Echo that for me too. IFAP.
Dick Drysdale
(In favour)

From Fri Jun 18 13:22:18 2004
Message-ID: <>
No.
(Against)

From: Nuk <>
Message-ID: <>
Can't see a problem with it...
(In favour)

From: "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <>
Message-ID: <>
> (b) Would you support or *vote for* the above proposal, with changes?
Depends on the changes.
(In favour, with changes)

From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd->
Message-ID: <>
> (a) Would you support or *vote for* the above proposal, exactly as
> stated?
I might very well. (I've just looked at it for the first time, and
who knows what people may bring up in discussion I haven't thought of
yet).
(In favour, with changes)

From: Thad <>
Message-ID: <>
Affirmative.
(In favour)

From: Andy Blanchard <>
Message-ID: <>
(b) Would you support or *vote for* the above proposal, with changes?
Yes. See above.
(In favour, with changes)

From: "Tony" <>
Message-ID: <PeSdnZzBley5okvdRVn->
I also post to RASTB5M (using my real email persona), and can support
everything said by Andy. I also agree with all of his suggestions below.
(In favour, with changes)

From: Charlie <>
Message-ID: <>
>> (a) Would you support or *vote for* the above proposal, exactly as
>> stated?
NO DOUBT!
(In favour)

From: (rs)
Message-ID: <dvadnaWDNtXmFk_dRVn->
Seems worth a try.
(In favour)

From: (Leroy Jolicoeur)
Message-ID: < >
Sounds very good. In favour.
(In favour)

From: Ron Hunter <>
Message-ID: <>
I will not take part in ANY moderated group. Past experience with them
has been totally unsatisfactory. Free exchange of ideas is suppressed
in the by moderators who allow only the 'party line', and contrary
opinions are simply not allowed to be seen.
(Against)

From: Bill <>
Message-ID: <>
Note me as "For" please.
(In favour)

From: (Orville Wright)
Message-ID: < >
You have my full support. In favor.
(In favour)

From: (Steven Scharf)
Message-ID: < >
A new group would be fine, we'll see if anyone posts to it though.
(In favour)

From: Richard Cockburn <>
Message-ID: <Xns951330A59AEAcockburnwebjettersco@130.133.1.4 >
Thank you for articulating. Please change my vote to A: "in favor, as
proposed".
(In favour)

From: "Chuck" <>
Message-ID: <>
(B)
(In favour, with changes)

From: "Charles Schuler" <>
Message-ID: <NcWdnT86h4QKNkndRVn->
My vote is yes.
(In favour)

From: "George" <>
Message-ID: <>
Getting to your question, I'd rather be in control of what I read vs.
having someone else decide for me. Put me down as a "no" on moderated.
(Against)

From: Roger Halstead <Delete->
Message-ID: <>
>(c) Would you *vote against* the above proposal?
Yes
(Against)

From: Charles <>
Message-ID: <200620040643372962%>
I don't think this solution would fly. I think there would be
objections to automated cross posting like that. On several levels. I
for one would not want my posts to one newsgroup automaticly posted to
another.
(Against)

From: Adam <>
Message-ID: <>
I'll vote yes for the moderated group. Navigation has been getting
rather troublesome in here.
(In favour)

From: "Tonci" <>
Message-ID: <>
> (a) Would you support or *vote for* the above proposal, exactly as
> stated?
yes
(In favour)

From: Jerry Shaw <>
Message-ID: <>
First, put me down for a "no."
(Against)


From: (ittsy)
Message-ID: < >
> (b) Would you support or *vote for* the above proposal, with changes?
Yes
(In favour, with changes)

From: (WebKatz)
Message-ID: < >
Works for me, and since this is allegedly a poll, count me as
"Against." Thanks. BTW - what are the numbers so far?
(Against)

From: "Chris G" <>
Message-ID: <DpCdnXWQuoJp0kXdRVn->
I vote absolutely NO. The best filter is my own head, I wish keep the
freedom to choose what to read or not read for myself.
(Against)

From: "Simone Wellington" <>
Message-ID: <>
Put me down for a yes as described.
(In favour)

From: lid
Message-ID: <>
Good plan.
(In favour)

From: Anders Svensson <>
Message-ID: <>
If it can really be done as you have explained it here, I am completely
in favour of your proposal.
(In favour)

From: (Paolo)
Message-ID: < >
> (Yes) Would you support or *vote for* the above proposal, exactly as
> stated?
(In favour)

From: (Mike)
Message-ID: < >
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(In favour)

From: (Jorge Prediguez)
Message-ID: <>
> (a) Would you support or *vote for* the above proposal, exactly as
> stated?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!
(In favour)

From: Steve Wilbur <>
Message-ID: <020720042129324897%>
Not me - we have enough problem with the govt censoring people. We
don't need petty tyrants on USENET to help out.
(Against)

From: Roger Halstead <Delete->
Message-ID: <>
If I post to one group I'm going to complain if some one is cross
posting my posts to another group be it manually or by a bot.
(Against)

From: NoName <>
Message-ID: <>
> (a) Would you support or *vote for* the above proposal, exactly as
> stated?
Sure... it beats trying to weed through RPD. Go for it!
(In favour)

From: "Bernard Saper" <>
Message-ID: <69gGc.59281$>
YES!!!...Emphatically YES!!!
(In favour)

From: Dave Head <>
Message-ID: <>
I'd join a moderated digital photo group in a heartbeat.
(In favour)
-------------

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Lionel <> wrote in
news::

> From Fri Jun 18 12:44:56 2004
> Message-ID: <Xns950BE75DC905Acockburnwebjettersco@130.133.1. 4>
> I would support the new group. I would not support the linkage of RPD
> and
> the proposed RPDM via any crossposts or automatic posting mechanisms.
> (In favour, if modified)

Hi Lionel. Remember, I changed my vote to in favor as proposed. Check the
thread again.

--
"Live fast. Die young." (Nikki Sixx)

-Richard Cockburn

Kibo informs me that Richard Cockburn <>
stated that:

>Lionel <> wrote in
>news: :
>
>> From Fri Jun 18 12:44:56 2004
>> Message-ID: <Xns950BE75DC905Acockburnwebjettersco@130.133.1. 4>
>> I would support the new group. I would not support the linkage of RPD
>> and
>> the proposed RPDM via any crossposts or automatic posting mechanisms.
>> (In favour, if modified)
>
>Hi Lionel. Remember, I changed my vote to in favor as proposed. Check the
>thread again.

You did indeed. My apologies.
I'll give everyone a chance to check their own data, then repost a
corrected summary.

PS: The technical side of the private newsgroup is coming along nicely.
My friend has arranged a commercial quality newsfeed for the news
server, (which will make for exceptional speed & no missing articles), &
I've been given some excellent tips from some expert friends on the
design of the mod-bot system.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"Lionel" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Well, first of all, I'd like to thank you all for participating in the
> poll, regardless of whether you voted in favour of it or against it.
>

I abstained, thank goodness - since you found it necessary to post every
participant's email address. Not that mine is in my posts anyway, but I
wonder if it was a very good idea.

In article <40ed89aa$0$6447$>,
says...
>
> I abstained, thank goodness - since you found it necessary to post every
> participant's email address. Not that mine is in my posts anyway, but I
> wonder if it was a very good idea.

*Blink*

It looks to me that he merely cut-n-pasted the From: line of each
relevant post. If the email address of that From: line is clear then
that was the choice of the poster, not Lionel.

--
Charles Jones -- Loveland, Colorado
ICQ: 29610755
AIM: LovelandCharles
Y!M: charlesjonesathpcom
MSN:

On 8 Jul 2004 13:49:28 GMT, Richard Cockburn
<> wrote:

>Lionel <> wrote in
>news: :
>
>> From Fri Jun 18 12:44:56 2004
>> Message-ID: <Xns950BE75DC905Acockburnwebjettersco@130.133.1. 4>
>> I would support the new group. I would not support the linkage of RPD
>> and
>> the proposed RPDM via any crossposts or automatic posting mechanisms.
>> (In favour, if modified)
>
>Hi Lionel. Remember, I changed my vote to in favor as proposed. Check the
>thread again.

I wonder how many other mistakes that simpleton made?

"Karen" <> wrote in message news:...
> On 8 Jul 2004 13:49:28 GMT, Richard Cockburn
> <> wrote:
>
> >Lionel <> wrote in
> >news: :
> >
> >> From Fri Jun 18 12:44:56 2004
> >> Message-ID: <Xns950BE75DC905Acockburnwebjettersco@130.133.1. 4>
> >> I would support the new group. I would not support the linkage of RPD
> >> and
> >> the proposed RPDM via any crossposts or automatic posting mechanisms.
> >> (In favour, if modified)
> >
> >Hi Lionel. Remember, I changed my vote to in favor as proposed. Check the
> >thread again.
>
> I wonder how many other mistakes that simpleton made?

Oh, dear...

Kibo informs me that Charles Jones <> stated that:

>In article <40ed89aa$0$6447$>,
> says...
>>
>> I abstained, thank goodness - since you found it necessary to post every
>> participant's email address. Not that mine is in my posts anyway, but I
>> wonder if it was a very good idea.
>
>*Blink*
>
>It looks to me that he merely cut-n-pasted the From: line of each
>relevant post.

Yes, that is exactly what I did.

> If the email address of that From: line is clear then
>that was the choice of the poster, not Lionel.

Exactly.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that "Alan D-W" <> stated that:

>
>"Lionel" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> Well, first of all, I'd like to thank you all for participating in the
>> poll, regardless of whether you voted in favour of it or against it.
>>
>
>I abstained, thank goodness - since you found it necessary to post every
>participant's email address. Not that mine is in my posts anyway, but I
>wonder if it was a very good idea.

I merely listed the 'from' address from each post, exactly as each
poster identifies themselves in the group. If you'd checked through the
listing you would've noticed that quite a few of the 'adresses' are
invalid, just like yours.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 18:51:58 +0100, "Alan D-W" <>
wrote:


>I abstained, thank goodness - since you found it necessary to post every
>participant's email address. Not that mine is in my posts anyway, but I
>wonder if it was a very good idea.
>
Actually it is a good idea to post everybodies email.....for the spam
bots at least....



Colyn Goodson

email address hidden

Camera manuals and mercury battery fix
http://www.colyngoodson.com