Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: mod.motss Message-ID: <993@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Sun, 7-Oct-84 18:46:22 EDT Article-I.D.: bbncca.993 Posted: Sun Oct 7 18:46:22 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Oct-84 03:15:38 EDT References: <617@ubc-vision.CDN> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 51 >As much as I sympathize with you, I just have to disagree because I >don't believe in 'benevolent dictators'. This newsgroup is supposed >to be a discussion group. It's [sic] intended function is very >different from that of (ex) net.general. I don't see any 'anarchic' >situation here, just a lot of 'noise'. Why couldn't the true >contributors of net.motss ignore that noise and respond to the more >reasonable arguments? Then you don't believe in moderated newsgroups, either. One of the main functions of a moderator is to remove "noise" as well as to ensure that the discussion follow the groundrules for the news group. The moderator for mod.movies, shall we say, is acting appropriately when a discussion about a sci-fi movie becomes a discussion of Heinlein, and redirects the postings to net.sf-lovers. The moderator for mod.movies is acting appropriately when a question about "Casablanca" generates 50 identical responses, and only posts a single representative response. So, too, for the moderator of mod.motss, if the group is ever realized. I am redistributing to you the reason and purpose of net.motss from its first posting, to remind you just how far the group has strayed lately. The problem is not only Brunson and Arndt and the occasional other crazies who crop up now and again, but the "righteous" of us, myself included, who, by counterflaming, further degrade the quality of the discussion. Nor do our targets ever listen. Responses of any type merely reinforce their behavior, as they observe with infantile wonder their ability to stir up their environment. I think it is probably futile to encourage people to ignore such postings, given the nature of the net. "Noise" prompts people to unsubscribe to net.motss. "Noise" causes people to type 'n' before they even read an article. This "noise" obscures cogent points in a discussion by pandering instead to emotion and invective. Reasonable arguments? Show me one, and I'll respond to it. I haven't see one yet. Rather, we have Brunson (and fellows) who should be written off by everyone else as a fool, and we have Arndt who has no arguments at all, but rather a diffuse antipathy towards gay people and an anti-social manner, veering between stark-raving madness (witness his last response to Gerber) and parodies of sociological citation. Regardless of the fate of {net,mod}.motss, which I'll discuss in a later message, I invite those of you who can discern cogency in any of this "sludge" (to recapitulate a phrase of Ron Rizzo's) to do these people one better, and restate what you think was important therein in a manner more suitable for public discussion. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA