From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, WEIRD_PORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,5a3fded16a481755 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,5a3fded16a481755 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5a3fded16a481755 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,83c3b78ceaac8e48 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f9437,5a3fded16a481755 X-Google-Attributes: gidf9437,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,83c3b78ceaac8e48 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: rfkat@ibm.net (Rolf F. Katzenberger) Subject: Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated Date: 1998/09/08 Message-ID: <35f53a14.0@news2.ibm.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 389034197 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <904176047.28200@isc.org> <35ee6ccb.0@news2.ibm.net> <35f3da26.0@news2.ibm.net> <6t0rgi$ms4$1@hirame.wwa.com> X-Trace: 8 Sep 1998 14:07:16 GMT, 139.92.41.95 Organization: IBM.NET X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.software-eng X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net Date: 1998-09-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Mon, 7 Sep 1998 09:33:05 -0500, in article <6t0rgi$ms4$1@hirame.wwa.com> "Robert Martin" wrote: > > Rolf F. Katzenberger wrote in message <35f3da26.0@news2.ibm.net>... > >On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 19:29:56 GMT, in article > > Ell > > wrote: > > >> Also Otttinger says above: > >> :> >and in some cases fear of reprisal. > >> > >> The implication of physical threats is not absent from this. And I think > >> its purpose is to bogusly establish some nebulous possible physical > >> threat in people's minds. I have seen nothing of the sort. > > > >I haven't seen anything of the sort, too. > > I have. How about this one: > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Author: Ell > Email: ell@access.digex.net > Date: 1998/06/17 > Forums: comp.object > Message-ID: <358b04ea.1529278@news.erols.com> > Organization: Universe > References: <6m2abn$kef$1@news.interlog.com> <6m35i5$ca4$1@hirame.wwa.com> > <35870B95.925FFB22@palladion.com> <3588e518.14231523@news.erols.com> > <6m8f28$am9$1@hirame.wwa.com> > Reply-To: ell@access.digex.net > X-Complaints-To: abuse@erols.com > X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 898124862 10511 207.172.87.200 (17 Jun 1998 > 23:07:43 GMT) > > "Robert Martin" wrote: > > >As for the rest of Elliott's article, well (Reaganesque chuckle), > >who really cares? Readers are welcome to peruse the articles > >on my website to see if they draw the same conclusions that > >Elliott does. > > The ones who care Ronny are the ones who will make you pay for your > backward, reactionary crimes against human progress. > > Elliott > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I saw enough of a personal threat in this particular post to make sure that > my lawyer had a copy. My personal opinion, not as a candidate moderator but simply as a c.o. reader: I considered the above posting extremely rude and at the same time extremely infantile when I came across it. In my impression it was void of any reasonable thinking, but if its author would have taken action, I would rather have expected a smear campaign than a physical assault. In any case, the intention of the phrase is intimidation. I did not trace the message back, so I don't know where exactly the flaming started in that thread and where exactly the moderators would have taken action in a supposed c.o.m., so that probably the article quoted above would never have been written. However, neither the article above nor the one it quotes would have passed moderation seen *in isolation*. "As for the rest of Elliott's article, well (Reaganesque chuckle), who really cares?" would have been rejected because it violates NO FLAMES c) (No disdainful or belittling articles are tolerated). "The ones who care Ronny are the ones who will make you pay for your backward, reactionary crimes against human progress." would have been rejected because "will make you pay" violates NO FLAMES a) (No threats or attempts at intimidation are tolerated) and "your backward, reactionary crimes against human progress" violates NO FLAMES d) (Questioning of other people's motives and honesty). Just to make one point clear: any regular on Usenet will lose his or her innocence with respect to netiquette at some point in time. E.g. the most recent (just the most recent, not the only one!) example by me would be my classification of Jacobson's view on reality as "old-fashioned"; my fellow moderators would surely have rejected that as a violation of NO FLAMES c), or d) or both. So the moderation policy must never be concerned with people, but with postings. Regards, Rolf -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ______________________________________________________________________ Rolf F. Katzenberger | Software Developer | Trainer 1998-04-28 Home: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9557 PGP : http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3B39491F (Fingerprint F1C0 3116 F6D4 DA33 E61D D2E4 2FB8 D6B6 3B39 491F) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNUX84C+41rY7OUkfEQLV8wCfb/IQACmn+qvT+EIftYMx36ivdRoAoNdF ugze6Ry3oCiwMtGLSKXHOnqs =+QML -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----