[Meta] *Poll Results* Proposed new, moderated digital photography group (rec.photo.digital.moderated

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Lionel, Jul 8, 2004.

  1. Lionel

    Lionel Guest

    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$>
    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" <>
    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 <>
    Message-ID: <-b.net>
    > (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: <>
    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: <>
    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: <>
    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 <>
    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: <>
    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 <>
    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, Jul 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
    Richard Cockburn, Jul 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lionel

    Lionel Guest

    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, Jul 8, 2004
    #3
  4. Lionel

    Alan D-W Guest

    "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.
    Alan D-W, Jul 8, 2004
    #4
  5. 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:
    Charles Jones, Jul 8, 2004
    #5
  6. Lionel

    Karen Guest

    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, Jul 8, 2004
    #6
  7. Lionel

    Bill Cleere Guest

    "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...
    Bill Cleere, Jul 8, 2004
    #7
  8. Lionel

    Lionel Guest

    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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Jul 8, 2004
    #8
  9. Lionel

    Lionel Guest

    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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Jul 8, 2004
    #9
  10. Lionel

    Colyn Guest

    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
    Colyn, Jul 8, 2004
    #10
  11. Re: [Meta] *Poll Results* Proposed new, moderated digital photographygroup (rec.photo.digital.moderated)

    Lionel wrote:
    >
    > 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$>
    > 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$2i5.27103@attbi_s52>
    > Since it won't change anything here - immediately at least, and not by
    > fiat, I say: What an offer, and thank you. What's to lose? Give it a go,
    > and if it doesn't have legs, nothing lost.... except your time, for
    > which: tia!
    > (In favour)
    >
    > From: "Jack Pohler" <>
    > Message-ID: <xRrAc.54$>
    > 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 <>
    > Message-ID: <-b.net>
    > > (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: <>
    > 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: <>
    > 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: <>
    > 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 <>
    > 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: <>
    > 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 <>
    > 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)


    Nice job of exposing private addys of rec.photo.digital regs to spam
    email harvesters, Outer Filth.

    My guess is you'll do a bang-up job as moderator, if this is any
    indication.











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



    --
    http://www.geocities.com/snuhsite



    -------
    / \
    / \ /-----\
    | (@) | | SnuH |
    | (O) | \_ ___/
    | / | ||
    | \ /_ / //
    \ \____/ / /
    \ /
    \_____,
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=, Jul 10, 2004
    #11
  12. Re: [Meta] *Poll Results* Proposed new, moderated digital photographygroup (rec.photo.digital.moderated)

    Karen wrote:
    >
    > 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?


    How many hours do you have?





    --
    http://www.geocities.com/snuhsite



    -------
    / \
    / \ /-----\
    | (@) | | SnuH |
    | (O) | \_ ___/
    | / | ||
    | \ /_ / //
    \ \____/ / /
    \ /
    \_____,
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=, Jul 10, 2004
    #12
  13. Lionel

    Lionel Guest

    Re: [Meta] *Poll Results* Proposed new, moderated digital photography group (rec.photo.digital.moderated)

    Kibo informs me that ± <> stated that:

    >Lionel wrote:
    >>
    >> 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$>
    >> 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$2i5.27103@attbi_s52>
    >> Since it won't change anything here - immediately at least, and not by
    >> fiat, I say: What an offer, and thank you. What's to lose? Give it a go,
    >> and if it doesn't have legs, nothing lost.... except your time, for
    >> which: tia!
    >> (In favour)
    >>
    >> From: "Jack Pohler" <>
    >> Message-ID: <xRrAc.54$>
    >> 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 <>
    >> Message-ID: <-b.net>
    >> > (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: <>
    >> 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: <>
    >> 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: <>
    >> 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 <>
    >> 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: <>
    >> 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 <>
    >> 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)

    >
    >Nice job of exposing private addys of rec.photo.digital regs to spam
    >email harvesters, Outer Filth.


    They're the addresses that they use in the group, moron.

    BTW, Deano, is it true that you still keep your cheating ex-wife's photo
    in your wallet? Doesn't it bother you that every time you look at it, it
    reminds you of seeing her blowing your 'friends'?

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2004
    #13
  14. Re: [Meta] *Poll Results* Proposed new, moderated digital photographygroup (rec.photo.digital.moderated)

    Lionel wrote:
    >
    > Kibo informs me that ± <> stated that:
    >
    > >Lionel wrote:
    > >>
    > >> 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$>
    > >> 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$2i5.27103@attbi_s52>
    > >> Since it won't change anything here - immediately at least, and not by
    > >> fiat, I say: What an offer, and thank you. What's to lose? Give it a go,
    > >> and if it doesn't have legs, nothing lost.... except your time, for
    > >> which: tia!
    > >> (In favour)
    > >>
    > >> From: "Jack Pohler" <>
    > >> Message-ID: <xRrAc.54$>
    > >> 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 <>
    > >> Message-ID: <-b.net>
    > >> > (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: <>
    > >> 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: <>
    > >> 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: <>
    > >> 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 <>
    > >> 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: <>
    > >> 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 <>
    > >> 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)

    > >
    > >Nice job of exposing private addys of rec.photo.digital regs to spam
    > >email harvesters, Outer Filth.

    >
    > They're the addresses that they use in the group, moron.


    From: "Alan D-W" <>
    Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: [Meta] *Poll Results* Proposed new, moderated digital
    photography group (rec.photo.digital.moderated)
    Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 18:51:58 +0100
    Message-ID: <40ed89aa$0$6447$>

    "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.


    > BTW, Deano, is it true that you still keep your cheating ex-wife's photo
    > in your wallet? Doesn't it bother you that every time you look at it, it
    > reminds you of seeing her blowing your 'friends'?


    From: Lionel <>

    Message-ID: <>

    And another classic PKB from Dean "Google is my life" Humphries. ;)

    -

    Message-ID: <c2gvo0$4fa$>

    Well, it's an improvement over spending 24x7 either posting lames to
    Usenet, or frantically scouring Google for 'dirt' in people, like Humpy
    & his Jizz-mopping buddy Soapy.

    -

    Message-ID: <c1217r$mjg$>

    Don't you think people might find it a *little* ironic that
    you've just spent about *nine hours* on Google, researching me - then
    you claim that *I'm* obsessive? That's a big fat PKB, little boy.

    -

    Message-ID: <>

    Too bad you're so fucking stupid, Snuhtard. What a pity that it never
    occurred to you to spend part of your 48 hour Google-frenzy checking for
    my name on any of my *old* email accounts.

    -

    Message-ID: <c2k17l$cak$>

    As for the X-NA, my sick sense of humour gets a huge kick out of the
    idea of lamers like Humpy spending hours on Google feverishly looking
    for dirt on me, then finding out far, far too late that they've found
    exactly the kind of posting history that I want them to find.

    -

    Message-ID: <>

    If only /you/ had the skills required to convince someone to pay you for
    all the hours you spend on Google, or posting your whiny shit to Usenet
    you'd be a millionaire! ;)

    -

    Message-ID: <>

    How come you haven't yet figured out how to get your website up
    again? - Too busy with Google?

    -

    Message-ID: <>

    Well, I guess Deano 'n' Doapy do need some buttboy to cover for them
    when they're too busy with Google, or too embarrassed to show their
    bright red faces here.

    -

    Message-ID: <>

    To know that the hours you spending with Google,
    trying to find information on us, merely results in old or incorrect
    data that nobody cares about?

    -

    Message-ID: <>

    Man, you really love playing the tough guy, but you wimp out pretty damn
    fast when you discover that you've taken on someone who isn't bothered
    by the results of your 8 hour dumpster-diving sessions at Google, or
    having you spew their RL details all over Usenet.

    -

    Message-ID: <c8aclf$9c$>

    Yowza! - Thanks for that URL, Humpy. It never even occurred to me to run
    a search on the real owner of George/Georgette's nym. Clearly, your 24x7
    Google-trawling is a virtue as well as a vice. And please be sure to
    inform me of any other nuggets of data that may be of interest to me.

    -

    Message-ID: <>

    I love the way you Snuhtards spend half your lives on Google,
    desperately hunting for something, *anything*, that your broken,
    drug-addled brains think you might be able to use against me.
    I've fucked-over Deano & Doapy, I've fucked-over Jason, & you're scared
    shitless that I'll do *you* next, aren't you?
    Man, you kids are just so fucking stupid. It would never occur to any of
    you that someone might throw out bait & just sit back & wait for dumb
    **** 'trolls' like you to swim past & just *slurrrrrp* it right down
    your throats. Jesus, even when I *actually tell you in advance* how I'm
    going to **** you up, you're so goddamn stupid that you fall for it
    anyway, you simpering little chimps.
    Watching you Snuhtards dredge up one of my posts this way is like
    watching a spoiled, obnoxious toddler presenting a full potty for
    mommy's approval. I can almost /see/ that big smirk on your fat little
    face, little knowing that you're about to trip over the cat & land
    face-first in the pile of shit.

    Here's a free tip that I know you're too stupid to listen to:
    Don't waste your time Googling for dirt on me. I was right there when
    the Dejanews admins were arguing with newsadmins about the ethics of
    archiving Usenet, & I know what's archived & what isn't. I'm also very
    familiar with all sorts of information about how NNTP+Usenet works that
    I won't be sharing with the likes of you, & I can assure you that if I
    don't want you to know about something I've posted, you haven't got a
    snowballs chance in hell of finding it, because it just won't be in any
    publicly-accessible archives in the first place, & if it it got there in
    a moment of carelessness, I will have removed it afterwards.

    Now, I know how you jerk-offs 'think', so I know that you're sitting
    there on that crappy chair, in front of your crappy, dinged up keyboard,
    thinking: "He's bluffing. If he was telling the truth, he wouldn't be
    tipping us off". What you're not realising is that you're so goddamn
    stupid that I can tell you the *absolute truth*, in the full knowledge
    that even after I've tipped you off, you'll *still* waste your nights
    Googling for *anything* you can find that I might've written. ;)

    You Snuhtard bitches are *so* fucking 0wn3d. And there is not one thing
    you can do about it but run away, & I know you'd rather die than do
    that. ;)






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



    --
    http://www.geocities.com/snuhsite



    -------
    / \
    / \ /-----\
    | (@) | | SnuH |
    | (O) | \_ ___/
    | / | ||
    | \ /_ / //
    \ \____/ / /
    \ /
    \_____,
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=, Jul 10, 2004
    #14
  15. Lionel

    Lionel Guest

    [OT troll] Dean Humphries (± <) takes out his frustration at his wife's infidelity on Usenet

    Kibo informs me that ± <> stated that:

    >Lionel wrote:
    >> BTW, Deano, is it true that you still keep your cheating ex-wife's photo
    >> in your wallet? Doesn't it bother you that every time you look at it, it
    >> reminds you of seeing her blowing your 'friends'?


    No answer to that question, Tough Guy?

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2004
    #15
  16. Re: [Meta] *Poll Results* Proposed new, moderated digital photography group (rec.photo.digital.moderated)

    ± <> wrote in
    news::

    > Lionel wrote:
    >>
    >> 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$>
    >> 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" <>
    >> 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 <>
    >> Message-ID: <-b.net>
    >> > (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: <>
    >> 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: <>
    >> 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: <>
    >> 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 <>
    >> 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: <>
    >> 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 <>
    >> 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)

    >
    > Nice job of exposing private addys of rec.photo.digital regs to spam
    > email harvesters, Outer Filth.
    >
    > My guess is you'll do a bang-up job as moderator, if this is any
    > indication.



    I'm going to netkkkop them all for Fluffy.

    --
    BeDoper
    http://www.bedoper.com/

    Meter Versus Yard
    http://www.soundclick.com/bands/3/meterversusyard.htm

    High-C
    http://www.garageband.com/artist/jasongortician
    Curtis Blofeld, Jul 10, 2004
    #16
  17. Re: [Meta] *Poll Results* Proposed new, moderated digital photography group (rec.photo.digital.moderated)

    Lionel <> wrote in
    news::

    > Kibo informs me that ± <> stated that:
    >
    >>Lionel wrote:
    >>>
    >>> 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$>
    >>> 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$2i5.27103@attbi_s52>
    >>> Since it won't change anything here - immediately at least, and not
    >>> by fiat, I say: What an offer, and thank you. What's to lose? Give
    >>> it a go, and if it doesn't have legs, nothing lost.... except your
    >>> time, for which: tia!
    >>> (In favour)
    >>>
    >>> From: "Jack Pohler" <>
    >>> Message-ID: <xRrAc.54$>
    >>> 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 <>
    >>> Message-ID: <-b.net>
    >>> > (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: <>
    >>> 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: <>
    >>> 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: <>
    >>> 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 <>
    >>> 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: <>
    >>> 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 <>
    >>> 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)

    >>
    >>Nice job of exposing private addys of rec.photo.digital regs to spam
    >>email harvesters, Outer Filth.

    >
    > They're the addresses that they use in the group, moron.
    >
    > BTW, Deano, is it true that you still keep your cheating ex-wife's
    > photo in your wallet? Doesn't it bother you that every time you look
    > at it, it reminds you of seeing her blowing your 'friends'?
    >


    You appear to have a bit of a hang-up, Lionel.

    --
    BeDoper
    http://www.bedoper.com/

    Meter Versus Yard
    http://www.soundclick.com/bands/3/meterversusyard.htm

    High-C
    http://www.garageband.com/artist/jasongortician
    Curtis Blofeld, Jul 10, 2004
    #17
  18. Lionel

    Soapy Guest

    Re: [OT troll] Dean Humphries (± <) takes out his frustration at his wife's infidelity on Usenet

    Lionel <> wrote in
    news:

    > Kibo informs me that ± <> stated that:
    >
    >>Lionel wrote:
    >>> BTW, Deano, is it true that you still keep your cheating
    >>> ex-wife's photo in your wallet? Doesn't it bother you that every
    >>> time you look at it, it reminds you of seeing her blowing your
    >>> 'friends'?

    >
    > No answer to that question, Tough Guy?
    >


    You do realize you're just parroting the same overdone shtick that all
    the other obsessive kooks posted, don't you, Looney?

    --
    __ __ __ __ O O O
    / / | / | / | / | O o o
    (___ ( |(___|(___|(___| o _____________o
    )| )| )| ) o.;-----------./|
    __/ |__/ | / | __/ // S O A P Y // |
    |'-----------'| /
    Smeeter #30-something jgs | | /
    '-------------'`
    "It's funny how the quality of the material declines when the Snuhbois
    aren't around."
    ---- Cujo DeSockpuppet <> in Message-ID:
    <cbvdr9$63b$>
    Soapy, Jul 11, 2004
    #18
  19. Lionel

    Soapy Guest

    Re: [Meta] *Poll Results* Proposed new, moderated digital photography group (rec.photo.digital.moderated)

    Curtis Blofeld <> wrote in
    news:Xns95227857E59DD123456@207.14.113.17

    > Lionel <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Kibo informs me that ± <> stated that:
    >>
    >>>Lionel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> 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$>
    >>>> 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$2i5.27103@attbi_s52>
    >>>> Since it won't change anything here - immediately at least, and
    >>>> not by fiat, I say: What an offer, and thank you. What's to
    >>>> lose? Give it a go, and if it doesn't have legs, nothing
    >>>> lost.... except your time, for which: tia!
    >>>> (In favour)
    >>>>
    >>>> From: "Jack Pohler" <>
    >>>> Message-ID: <xRrAc.54$>
    >>>> 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 <>
    >>>> Message-ID: <-b.net>
    >>>> > (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: <>
    >>>> 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: <>
    >>>> 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: <>
    >>>> 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 <>
    >>>> 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: <>
    >>>> 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 <>
    >>>> 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)
    >>>
    >>>Nice job of exposing private addys of rec.photo.digital regs to
    >>>spam email harvesters, Outer Filth.

    >>
    >> They're the addresses that they use in the group, moron.
    >>
    >> BTW, Deano, is it true that you still keep your cheating
    >> ex-wife's photo in your wallet? Doesn't it bother you that every
    >> time you look at it, it reminds you of seeing her blowing your
    >> 'friends'?
    >>

    >
    > You appear to have a bit of a hang-up, Lionel.
    >


    A "bit"?

    --
    __ __ __ __ O O O
    / / | / | / | / | O o o
    (___ ( |(___|(___|(___| o _____________o
    )| )| )| ) o.;-----------./|
    __/ |__/ | / | __/ // S O A P Y // |
    |'-----------'| /
    Smeeter #30-something jgs | | /
    '-------------'`
    "It's funny how the quality of the material declines when the Snuhbois
    aren't around."
    ---- Cujo DeSockpuppet <> in Message-ID:
    <cbvdr9$63b$>
    Soapy, Jul 11, 2004
    #19
  20. Re: [OT troll] Dean Humphries (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=<) takes out his frustration at his wife'sinfidelity on Usenet

    Lionel wrote:
    >
    > Kibo informs me that ± <> stated that:
    >
    > >Lionel wrote:
    > >> BTW, Deano, is it true that you still keep your cheating ex-wife's photo
    > >> in your wallet? Doesn't it bother you that every time you look at it, it
    > >> reminds you of seeing her blowing your 'friends'?

    >
    > No answer to that question, Tough Guy?


    Like you've never seen anyone joke like that before about an ex - what a
    revelation, oh Desperate One.

    This, coming from a guy that found humor in "a 'guerilla marketing'
    scheme based around sponsoring serial killers who rape & murder
    children."



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



    --
    http://www.geocities.com/snuhsite



    -------
    / \
    / \ /-----\
    | (@) | | SnuH |
    | (O) | \_ ___/
    | / | ||
    | \ /_ / //
    \ \____/ / /
    \ /
    \_____,
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=, Jul 12, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lionel

    [Meta] rec.photo.digital.moderated proposal

    Lionel, Jun 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    453
    Bay Area Dave
    Jun 28, 2004
  2. Lionel

    OFFICIAL RESULTS: rec.photo.digital.moderated poll

    Lionel, Jun 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    702
    The Renaissance Troll
    Jun 27, 2004
  3. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    705
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  4. Woodchuck Bill
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    542
  5. Woodchuck Bill
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    781
Loading...

Share This Page