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 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,544c98121879c710 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b99334cb89bcb335 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,544c98121879c710 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f9437,544c98121879c710 X-Google-Attributes: gidf9437,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,544c98121879c710 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,544c98121879c710 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Tim Ottinger Subject: Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated Date: 1998/10/12 Message-ID: <36225018.5A23C7C3@oma.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 400337429 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <907918039.22235@isc.org> <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Object Mentor Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada,news.groups,comp.object Date: 1998-10-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bertrand Meyer wrote: > > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring > any non-conforming view on object technology. (The censorship > has already begun with the redirection of replies to a single > newsgroup that no one reads. Please refuse this and reply to the > newsgroups where the original was posted, as I am doing -- with > some difficulty -- here. I can't believe the arrogance of posting > on a newsgroup and trying to bar others from replying on the same forum!) Dr. Meyer: This is the standard, well-published Usenet standard. As a courtesy to the newsgroups who received the (2nd) RfD, followups are posted to news.groups, for exactly the reason that it's not used for anything else. It is not a malicious invention of the group who propose and support comp.object.moderated. It is required, in fact, by the usenet mentors in their documents on how to create a newsgroup. As such, it was considered common knowledge among netizens, but here we see that maybe the procedure is not so well-known. I suggest that you and all others who are concerned about this practice take a look at the FAQs at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/news/news.groups.html particularly: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/ Where there are links to find the information about how to format and post newsgroup RFDs. There are rules. By adhering to these rules, we are not performing any dispicable personal acts. You are free to dislike the rules, and to post against them. But you should attribute the rules to the usenet ruling bodies for whatever purposes they have, not to the adherents of the rules who are just trying to get a newsgroup created. Please also consider: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/mod/manifesto/ > To the authors of this proposal: if you really want to have an O-O > group tailored to your own view, you are entitled to creating it > but you are NOT entitled to the name comp.object. Start your own > Web-archived mailing list, or a newsgroup with a less portentous name. Consider the FAQ on newsgroup names. We're within the rules of the Usenet ruling body. Creating a newsgroup is a bureaucratic process with reasonable rules, and not an effort by some upstart to usurp whatever standards of courtesy you feel should instead apply. I respect your work. I'm sorry you weren't aware of the standard process for moderation, and that you've misinterpreted it to be a vicious and personal and sneak operation. I still respect your work. tim