Re: 2nd RFD: moderate talk.origins
Ed Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:32:31 GMT
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, email@example.com (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>On 17 Jan 1997, firstname.lastname@example.org <David Iain Greig> wrote
>to talk origins:
>>>: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>>: moderated group talk.origins (moderates existing group)
>>>: CHANGES: talk.origins
>>>: The proposed moderation policy has been clarified: all rejected articles
>>>: are to be returned to the sender. Permission to approve widely-posted
>>>: RFD's and similar articles is given to the moderator. The moderator is
>>>: specifically allowed to cancel unapproved postings to the group. Minor
>>>: rammatical changes have also been made. (etc., snip , etc. . .)
>> >> On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Jiri Mruzek <email@example.com> wrote
>> >> to sci.archaeology (responding to Greig):
>>:> p.s. Just so as to be nettish - is this where you stock up on
>>:> tattered propaganda, so that you can play a know-it-all on
>>:> unmoderated NG's? What a dreary NG this sci.archy.moderated be!
>>:> The smell of mold is overpowering..
> I doubt if I could've said it better myself.
Then, again, I really shouldn't underestimate myself, at least
until I give it that good old college try (in one stanza):
+ + +
If it wins the vote, it's understood, things cannot stay the same.
It'll deprive the critics of our free speech, undoubtedly the aim.
The smell of mold and propoganda, it certainly will get started.
Worse it'll be when a poster groans: We smell like someone farted!