On Saturday, August 17, 2013 12:41:25 PM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
This is an interesting thread and it would be worthwhile as many as possible contributing. Thanks for starting it Paul.
John has highlighted the difficulty.
What happens in such forums is that the complaints of a group (it turns into a gang), that don't like what an individual is saying, influence moderators.
Yes. The whole point of moderation is that individuals don't get to make
posts that the rest of the group don't want. That way, the group gets a
group that they are happy with.
rest snipped, as here is the crux, but I do appreciate the time and effort that went into this
How can any individual know what a "group" wants on usenet, where almost no-one knows each other? Via moderation and thus filtering, a group would get a group where they only talk to people they want in the group. That's not a group; its a cabal. That's why a broad church is best. That's why moderation is anathema.
There are a proportion of people I really don't like on here. They don't like me. However, sometimes they post things of interest, even though I don't like them and I reply with reciprocal interest. That's why I would never employ a killfile (google groups doesn't let you anyway). Sometimes they post what I don't agree with and I'll challenge that. However, I'd never seek to get rid of anyone and I never have - though people like hughes and others have actively sought to get rid of me, by canvassing others. It's all a part of the wide church for me and I would vigorously defend anyone's right to put their point of view, even if I don't like them (and have done to my cost in forums before).
I detest a "group" mentality. It leads places where my sense of fairness and moral base won't let me go.