PV>Very sorry - again sent stuff to you instead of forwarding
PV>to the list. Could you please again reforward it? Won't
PV>repeat the third time- promise.
OK, but I'll pepper with my remarks right away ;-)!
On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, PETER VOROBIEFF wrote:
> A minor observation here.
>
> AFAIK, there exist FAQs expressing contradicting opinions
> (for instance, in n.a.n-a.m there are Ric Honzales and Scott
> Southwick with _very_ different net abuse FAQs). But the
> difference in the opinions in these FAQs is in interpretation
> of factual data. Until the recent time, not event the most
> biased and power-hungry SOB dared write a _serious_ "FAQ"
> which would contradict the _facts_ themselves, and in a
> blatant and deliberate way.
As a matter of fact, the paranoia guy's "FAQ" is doing just that with
imaginary votes, cancellation procedures and the like presented (although
I do not know - nor particularly care - if that is posted to news.answers
or NANAM only). I do not consider the contra-FAQ "_serious_" and in my
opinion you're a but overestimating its effectiveness, incidentally - it
just seems to overboard for that, IMHO.
> The group was created as unmoderated; the charter is available
> at UUNET archives; nevertheless, the "alternative FAQ" claims
> that "crossposted articles will be cancelled" and produces
> the "version" of the charter that has nothing to do with the
> real thing.
>
> And now, not as before, there are cohorts of net.stupids marching
> from Compu$lime, Earth$tink, America Off-Line and so on who will
> chomp on the rotten bait and swallow it hook, line and sinker,
> which makes the situation even worse.
Yeah, but they are more likely to suckle on the fountain of relevations
in s.c.r than in n.a, so it would matter little what happens with the
"official" copy there don't you think?
> And I think that it would not be asking of news.answers mods
> too much if one suggested that they check for _lies_ in the
> materials they approve. Not the differences in opinions, but
> bold unashamed statements that the World War II was won by Hitler,
> that Usenet was founded by John Martin Grubor, and that
> soc.culture.mordavian in particular was created by
> Right Rev. Hon. Dr. Sergei Whatshisname III 1/2 and that no niggers
> and kikes are permitted to post there.
I still think the little benefit of such 'quality control' would be
negligable compared to the problems created by making the moderators to be
overseers of the truth. That would create an unfortunate appearance that
anything they do approve is certified to be true. And then you'd get
sligtly less transparent lies packaged in a way that is not rejectable
out-of-hand by an independent unbiased moderator easily - do you want to
lend increased "aura of authority" to those things on the one hand, and
overwhelm the moderators with the struggle against the kook-attacks on the
other? Moreover you can bet that anything rejected would be posted
elsewhere anyway and waved around as something PROVEN by the suppression
by the Cabal[TINC] (in addition, Vulis then could play his trick he pulled
against tale: forge approvals and then quote the clean-up cancels, to the
above-mentioned newbie suckers, as evidence for something fishy).
I maintain that the best way to handle these miscreants is to let unravel
their pathetic nonsense by their own sheer idiocy.
- --
Zoli fekete@bc.edu, keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBMg5aycQ/4s87M5ohAQFAwAH/VE2YXNSTCBd3PYNICMudYUSbWMxZ3fuk
7O3fsx7s/nLMxytWZ00Mzt24jlL8y8eym+qjcyNAsWIaLeZgr1MIwg==
=ekl+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved