XPost: news.groups, rec.arts.comics.dc.universe, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: cpd@cat.pan.net   
      
   "KalElFan"  wrote in message   
   news:8omaojFhr7U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > "catpandaddy"  wrote in message   
   > news:ig38r1$o62$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   >   
   > ["catpandaddy" was responding to "redux"]   
   >   
   >> You should have noticed, that I am NOT pro-moderation.  That's   
   >> exactly why I was arguing against mr kal el fan.   
   >   
   > You were, yes, past tense.  You may still be, but if so it's because   
   > you still don't understand what Optional Moderation is.  Not only   
   > isn't it moderation, one of its selling points is that you can turn off   
   > the moderator and see the full "unmoderated" view of the group.   
   > Another selling point is that the moderation, or robo-moderation   
   > is probably what it would mostly be, is much more a traffic cop   
   > and "bag it and tag it" process than it is moderating content per   
   > se.   
   >   
   > OM simply provides filtering tools or options to existing and in   
   > particular returning and new users, so that the cesspool barrier   
   > and signal to noise problems are addressed.  Then yes, there'd   
   > also have to be promotion and so on to bring people in to the   
   > new top-level hierarchy, but at least there'd be a point to such   
   > promotion.  Once they got here, or returned here, the cesspool   
   > and signal to noise wouldn't be there.   You and others wouldn't   
   > just be dismissing their aversion to it with "here's your bucket   
   > and strainer now filter the cesspool yourself".   
   >   
   > It's not brain surgery, neither the concept and its objective nor   
   > the implementation of it.  By being in a completely new hierarchy,   
   > it also doesn't touch ANYTHING else on Usenet.  People have to   
   > choose to post there in the new top-level hierarchy.  So if you   
   > don't like it you just don't post there.  Again, very simple.   
   >   
   > When you made your post upthread dissing newbies, it began   
   > with:   
   >   
   >  "Newbies ARE the problem.  They don't know how to conduct   
   >  themselves.  Usenet in its very first year was negligible noise   
   >  and nearly all signal.  No moderation was necessary.  Then the   
   >  unwashed masses..."   
   >   
   > I'd already written the skewering piece on that philosophy, right   
   > down to having used the "unwashed masses" phrase, but it was   
   > in draft.  So it wasn't aimed at you at all.  It was originally going   
   > to be preemptive.  Get it out there, and if anyone wants to then   
   > marginalize themselves enough by defending it then great.  The   
   > shoes fit, they step into them, and they're on the record in the   
   > unreasonable 15% as I estimated it.   
   >   
   > You were smart enough not to be comfortable in those shoes and   
   > instead responded with:   
   >   
   >  "Either I miscommunicated my stance or you misread it, because   
   >  that's not at all what I was getting at."   
   >   
   > Well you were.  Some of it was almost word for word and the rest   
   > was the entirely consistent and logical extension of the philosophy   
   > that I was skewering.  That's the way many of these newbie-hating,   
   > stick-up-their-ass 15 percenters think.   They go all the way.   
      
   Not me.  Here's what I was taking for granted when I wrote that:  I am   
   assuming that we all take as common knowledge, that each of us has been a   
   newbie at one time.  There's no such thing as someone who did not start out   
   as a newbie.  So I am not dividing things up as an "Us vs Them" way.  That   
   would be as over-simplified as saying that one person could be an old man   
   all of his life and another person could always be 18 every single day of   
   his life.   
      
   We're all on a continuum where we start out new and have to learn or be   
   taught along the way.  Therefore, my take is that any discussion needs to   
   bear in mind how the *process* with which all of us as newbies got   
   acclimated may or may not have changed over time.   
      
   I'm not presuming to have the answers or know-all about that.  I simply wish   
   to point out that it is something that has been missing from the discussion   
   at this point, at least the portion that I've seen from the newsgroup I   
   read, and I know it might be incomplete.  Just the nature of the beast.   
      
   So no, the phrase "newbie-hater" does not apply to me, regardless of your   
   opinion to the contrary.  It's as much of a misnomer as referring to someone   
   as a baby-hater or child-hater or new-employee-hater or tourist-hater, or   
   whatever else.  Nobody starts out without /some/ gaps when in a strange new   
   land.  Some more so than others.  Bearing this in mind, any complete   
   discussion should take these things into consideration.   
      
   If you have any other questions, we can take them either offgroup or in the   
   specific group of origin.  Are you posting and reading this thread primarily   
   from the "news.groups" location?  I can subscribe to whichever group you are   
   using and keep the traffic local that way.  Or email is fine.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)