Re: RESULT: rec.ponds.moderated will be created

I was thinking more along the lines of basic robo-moderation to eliminate obvious spam and cross-poasts. *g*

Unless news server abuse desks consider poasts not conforming to charters to be 'abuse' (and I'm not aware of any that do these days), a charter is nothing more than a hoop that teh B8MBis require you to jump through to get their blessing.

soc.religion.asatru (moderated), soc.men.moderated, rec.ponds.moderated

The proponent of smm was a woman, as is, I think, one of the moderators. Essentially none of the men who were regulars wanted the moderated group, almost nobody uses it. The B8MBis were simply unhappy at having one of 'their' froups serve as one of the usernetz's better known battlegrounds.

Yep, women should be involved in everything that men do. Period. Men should have no place where they can be away from women. Of course, on the other hand, women should be in control of everything, have all the jobs and be able to set aside places where men aren't allowed.

This double standard is total bullshit.

Hey, if you don't understand why it's inappropriate for women to moderate a men's group, then you're too stupid to breath.

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:05:30 -0800, Du Haxen Hase wrote in :

DAMN these laws and customs that allow women to be in areas open to the public!

DAMN THEM, I SAY!!

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:08:56 -0700, John Corliss wrote in :

By golly, you're right!

How DARE those uppity women be seen in public places?

By the Gods, while we're at it all those blacks and Jews and Muslims should be removed from any public place where men can be found, too. Who do they think they are, anyway, members of the public or something?

I think you should try to impress me with your IQ score now.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:16:32 -0700, Aratzio wrote in :

I don't like to brag. Besides, I'm *trying* to be nice.

Indeed! They should all be kept in the home where they belong and preferably muzzled.

CWQ

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:11:13 -0700, pandora wrote in :

Honestly, next thing those uppity women will be wanting is to attend public football games fer pity's sake.

Participation in the group as a poster is one thing, moderating it is another. The simple fact is that there is an obvious conflict of interest involved when a woman is moderating what men can say or not say in a men's rights group. Period.

No, rather than pick apart your trollish reply piece by piece, instead I will ask you a question:

Do you think it's appropriate for a man to moderate a woman's issues newsgroup?

By the way, any further replies on my part will be posted only to the rec.motorcycles.victory newsgroup rather than cross-posted to news.groups and rec.models.railroad as well. They will also be labeled (OT).

F*ck off topic, Freedom of speech dude. You commie bastard.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:42:42 -0700, John Corliss wrote in :

No, it is not. It is a ***public*** discussion forum, comprised and moderated by members of ***the public***, which last I checked, included women.

#1: "Conflict of interest"?!? That's not a fact, let alone simple. That's your prejudice.

#2: The moderator moderates what women *and* men can say . #3: SMM is not a "men's rights group", it is a PUBLIC discussion forum to discuss men's issues.

Then next time think twice before you decide to comment on others being too stupid to breathe; that way you won't end up looking the fool when called on it, my uninformed little bigot; because the only way your position would be valid was if a Usenet group was a private member's only club--in this case, a men's club--which it is not.

Mmkay?

'she's a woman who disagrees with my stupid, unsupportable position that I shot my mouth off about, therefore she's trolling'

Other than I'm opposed to most moderation schemes as a matter of principle, sure it's appropriate.

After all, it's a PUBLIC discussion forum. There's no reason why a man should not moderate a discussion group on say, abortion. It's not a "women's group", it's a ***public*** discussion forum.

That means it's open to members of the ****public****, which last I checked, included men.

Well then, I won't be reading your wit as I'm not going to sub to that newsgroup, so unless you xpost it here you'll be talking to yourself.

Which will probably make you better off in the long run, as I can see your azz beginning to glow from here.

Nice? Who needs nice?

CWQ

It's not a "men's rights" group. It's a group about men's issues.

I'm not Sharon, but I'll answer anyway. Sure, why not? If he can follow the rules and the charter and all that bullshit, then there's absolutely no reason why a man can't moderate a woman's issues ng.

I'd say this is more on-topic in ng than in a group about bikes. Wouldn't you?

Not you, you old bat!

Or worse, even PLAY football.

Sheesh!

CWQ

Of course, *I* prefer to play soccer. It's more *civilized*.

Good lucky johnny boi.

Sure is...

OT stand for on topic. you should be glad for any traffic in your ill formed and ill named newsgroup. If you have no traffic to speak of or Dustbin Jim and Janitor Vito dismantling it soon.