In article . net,
says...
3. When a CFV happens, the proposal has to pass by a 3-to-1 margin (IIRC) --

Actually, it's only 2-to-1, but it also must be a margin of at least
100. This actually worries me the most - I'm not sure we can even get
100 votes, period. After the elections I may put up a trial web poll to
see.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

In article . net,
says...
3. When a CFV happens, the proposal has to pass by a 3-to-1 margin (IIRC) --

Actually, it's only 2-to-1, but it also must be a margin of at least
100. This actually worries me the most - I'm not sure we can even get
100 votes, period. After the elections I may put up a trial web poll to
see.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

Ty Ford wrote:


This is as nice as I get Bob. If you persist, it's only gets worse.

I don't know just who the **** you think you are, but bring
it on asshole. There ain't nothin' nice about you to begin
with and I'd pay to see it get worse.

Here's a quote especially for you. "A man hears what he wants to hear and
disregards the rest."...Paul Simon.

And you intend that for me? How ****ing wierd. Get help,
Ty, you're off hook.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Ty Ford wrote:


This is as nice as I get Bob. If you persist, it's only gets worse.

I don't know just who the **** you think you are, but bring
it on asshole. There ain't nothin' nice about you to begin
with and I'd pay to see it get worse.

Here's a quote especially for you. "A man hears what he wants to hear and
disregards the rest."...Paul Simon.

And you intend that for me? How ****ing wierd. Get help,
Ty, you're off hook.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Stu Venable wrote:

I *KNOW* it won't make the trolls go away. "Please, trolls, go to
rec.audio.pro.saloon -- we've made a place for you there."

Yep, that kind of power tripping police action will almost
certainly be self defeating as should be obvious by now. If
those who don't know any other mode of social discource will
leave it to those of us who like talking to each other to
bring people over, rather than having the snipers trash talk
them in a totally vain and counterproductive attempt to
drive them away or force them to do their will, I think it
can be made effective.


But please, don't take my word for it. Subscribe to news.groups and ask the
admins. If you post something on news.groups, someone there will point you
to the FAQs, you might even find an admin who'll help with the wording of
the proposal, tell you why it may or may not pass, and help improve its
chances of passing.

I understand that it it may be difficult but what the hell,
nothing ventured, nothing gained.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Stu Venable wrote:

I *KNOW* it won't make the trolls go away. "Please, trolls, go to
rec.audio.pro.saloon -- we've made a place for you there."

Yep, that kind of power tripping police action will almost
certainly be self defeating as should be obvious by now. If
those who don't know any other mode of social discource will
leave it to those of us who like talking to each other to
bring people over, rather than having the snipers trash talk
them in a totally vain and counterproductive attempt to
drive them away or force them to do their will, I think it
can be made effective.


But please, don't take my word for it. Subscribe to news.groups and ask the
admins. If you post something on news.groups, someone there will point you
to the FAQs, you might even find an admin who'll help with the wording of
the proposal, tell you why it may or may not pass, and help improve its
chances of passing.

I understand that it it may be difficult but what the hell,
nothing ventured, nothing gained.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

If people are serious about this, why not just start alt.audio.pro, it
would be much simpler.

Al

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:58:48 GMT, "Stu Venable"
wrote:

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
You really don't seem to want this. Administrative reasons
and sheer pessimism aside, why is that?

I'm not against it. My perceived opposition is due purely to what you call
pessimism (I call it realism). I think the proponents are underestimating
the difficulty of the task.

http://tinyurl.com/6hew7 -- Here's a nice piece of history, it's a google
groups search of the RFD and CFV for rec.audio.pro (circa 1992). To make a
new group, you have to jump through these hoops, except now it's harder.

Here's the problem: it's going to waste a lot of (somebody's) time, fill
the group with yet even more non-audio-related threads for at least 45 days,
and probably -- in the end -- not happen.

1. It takes a minimum of (something like) 45 days to go from RFD to CFV.
During this time, there'll be an enormous amount of discussion on
news.groups AND rec.audio.pro -- because people inevitably start
crossposting the discussion threads.

2. Someone has to be the proponent of this and has to devote a huge amount
of time arguing for, answering questions about, and defending the proposal
during the RFD phase.

3. When a CFV happens, the proposal has to pass by a 3-to-1 margin (IIRC) --
that's right, 3 yes votes for every no vote! And anyone can vote, including
the USENET admins, who may vote "no" for lots of reasons, including what
they perceive as "misuses" of USENET, the existance of groups that already
fulfill the needs of the proposed group, poorly thought-out justifications
in the proposal, etc.

In all honesty, I would probably vote in favor of such a proposal, just out
of shear desparation to lower OT/flame threads. But (also) in all honesty, I
don't think it'll pass. And I hold the (yes) pessimistic view that the
creation of such a group won't fix the problem, at least not in the long
term. I *KNOW* it won't make the trolls go away. "Please, trolls, go to
rec.audio.pro.saloon -- we've made a place for you there."

But please, don't take my word for it. Subscribe to news.groups and ask the
admins. If you post something on news.groups, someone there will point you
to the FAQs, you might even find an admin who'll help with the wording of
the proposal, tell you why it may or may not pass, and help improve its
chances of passing.


Stu

If people are serious about this, why not just start alt.audio.pro, it
would be much simpler.

Al

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:58:48 GMT, "Stu Venable"
wrote:

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
You really don't seem to want this. Administrative reasons
and sheer pessimism aside, why is that?

I'm not against it. My perceived opposition is due purely to what you call
pessimism (I call it realism). I think the proponents are underestimating
the difficulty of the task.

http://tinyurl.com/6hew7 -- Here's a nice piece of history, it's a google
groups search of the RFD and CFV for rec.audio.pro (circa 1992). To make a
new group, you have to jump through these hoops, except now it's harder.

Here's the problem: it's going to waste a lot of (somebody's) time, fill
the group with yet even more non-audio-related threads for at least 45 days,
and probably -- in the end -- not happen.

1. It takes a minimum of (something like) 45 days to go from RFD to CFV.
During this time, there'll be an enormous amount of discussion on
news.groups AND rec.audio.pro -- because people inevitably start
crossposting the discussion threads.

2. Someone has to be the proponent of this and has to devote a huge amount
of time arguing for, answering questions about, and defending the proposal
during the RFD phase.

3. When a CFV happens, the proposal has to pass by a 3-to-1 margin (IIRC) --
that's right, 3 yes votes for every no vote! And anyone can vote, including
the USENET admins, who may vote "no" for lots of reasons, including what
they perceive as "misuses" of USENET, the existance of groups that already
fulfill the needs of the proposed group, poorly thought-out justifications
in the proposal, etc.

In all honesty, I would probably vote in favor of such a proposal, just out
of shear desparation to lower OT/flame threads. But (also) in all honesty, I
don't think it'll pass. And I hold the (yes) pessimistic view that the
creation of such a group won't fix the problem, at least not in the long
term. I *KNOW* it won't make the trolls go away. "Please, trolls, go to
rec.audio.pro.saloon -- we've made a place for you there."

But please, don't take my word for it. Subscribe to news.groups and ask the
admins. If you post something on news.groups, someone there will point you
to the FAQs, you might even find an admin who'll help with the wording of
the proposal, tell you why it may or may not pass, and help improve its
chances of passing.


Stu

I think having an appropriate place to carry on political discussions is a
great idea. I don't think you'll find many people will leave RAP to post their
thoughts, though.

These are strange times. Not since the early 70's has the US found itself
embattled in an unpopular war. Never has the world found itself so permeated
with terrorists. Never has the United States acted alone in a war of
agression. Historically, we (in the US) have been able to trust our government
to more or less act on our behalf and trust that decisions on both foreign and
domestic issues were well thought ou t and well presented. A lot of people
don't trust this government. Personal freedoms and safety- things we used to
take for granted- are being eroded from within our government and from outside
forces.

I don't want a televised football game interrupted with spurious gossip. If
there's a tornado bearing down on my town, I wantt the show interrupted.
Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

I think having an appropriate place to carry on political discussions is a
great idea. I don't think you'll find many people will leave RAP to post their
thoughts, though.

These are strange times. Not since the early 70's has the US found itself
embattled in an unpopular war. Never has the world found itself so permeated
with terrorists. Never has the United States acted alone in a war of
agression. Historically, we (in the US) have been able to trust our government
to more or less act on our behalf and trust that decisions on both foreign and
domestic issues were well thought ou t and well presented. A lot of people
don't trust this government. Personal freedoms and safety- things we used to
take for granted- are being eroded from within our government and from outside
forces.

I don't want a televised football game interrupted with spurious gossip. If
there's a tornado bearing down on my town, I wantt the show interrupted.
Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
"rec.audio.pro.moderated."

Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.

If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going, talk
to me in email.

--MFW

Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
"rec.audio.pro.moderated."

Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.

If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going, talk
to me in email.

--MFW

In article ,
Marc Wielage wrote:

Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
"rec.audio.pro.moderated."

Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.

If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going, talk
to me in email.

--MFW



That will solve your problem as most everyone would leave
the beauty of most NG is thier unmoderated fomat, warts and all they are
much better than any moderated group
the cure is worse than the disease
George

In article ,
Marc Wielage wrote:

Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
"rec.audio.pro.moderated."

Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.

If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going, talk
to me in email.

--MFW



That will solve your problem as most everyone would leave
the beauty of most NG is thier unmoderated fomat, warts and all they are
much better than any moderated group
the cure is worse than the disease
George

killermike wrote:

Jay Levitt wrote:

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

I prefer 'offtopic' to 'saloon'. I consider it to be clearer. As far as
I know, 'saloon' is an Americanism. I'd probably be able to work out
what it meant. A saloon is more comonly a class of car in the UK.

Sedan in the US.

For
someone from a non English speaking country, it might be even less
clear. Anyway, I don't consider it to be of crucial importance.

The use of 'saloon' is indeed an americanism. There is a historical use of
'saloon bar' in the UK but not much used anymore.

I'd prefer 'opinion' maybe.


2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I'd vote in favour.

I'm in favour - bur preferably with a name other than saloon.


Graham

killermike wrote:

Jay Levitt wrote:

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

I prefer 'offtopic' to 'saloon'. I consider it to be clearer. As far as
I know, 'saloon' is an Americanism. I'd probably be able to work out
what it meant. A saloon is more comonly a class of car in the UK.

Sedan in the US.

For
someone from a non English speaking country, it might be even less
clear. Anyway, I don't consider it to be of crucial importance.

The use of 'saloon' is indeed an americanism. There is a historical use of
'saloon bar' in the UK but not much used anymore.

I'd prefer 'opinion' maybe.


2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I'd vote in favour.

I'm in favour - bur preferably with a name other than saloon.


Graham

EganMedia wrote:

I think having an appropriate place to carry on political discussions is a
great idea. I don't think you'll find many people will leave RAP to post their
thoughts, though.

I'm hoping that it won't be like leaving RAP, but like
stepping around the corner from where you work to hang out
with the same folks for different reasons, when there is an
obnoxious, self rightous co-worker going around from office
to office listening in and telling people to quit talking
about anything but work because it says so somewhere in the
company guidelines that were written in antiquity.

I sure agree about your conclusions with respect to the
times. I've been around a fairly long time now and the
situation at ground level is the worse it's ever been by
such a wide margin that it truly terrifies me.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

EganMedia wrote:

I think having an appropriate place to carry on political discussions is a
great idea. I don't think you'll find many people will leave RAP to post their
thoughts, though.

I'm hoping that it won't be like leaving RAP, but like
stepping around the corner from where you work to hang out
with the same folks for different reasons, when there is an
obnoxious, self rightous co-worker going around from office
to office listening in and telling people to quit talking
about anything but work because it says so somewhere in the
company guidelines that were written in antiquity.

I sure agree about your conclusions with respect to the
times. I've been around a fairly long time now and the
situation at ground level is the worse it's ever been by
such a wide margin that it truly terrifies me.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

George wrote:

That will solve your problem as most everyone would leave
the beauty of most NG is thier unmoderated fomat, warts and all they are
much better than any moderated group
the cure is worse than the disease

sci.physics went a similar route by creating
sci.physics.research which is moderated (somehow.) The
original group had become too much of a place for people
with crank theories. Even though it's still that way, many
of the old people like Uncle Al (sure wish he'd get
interested in audio) and John Baez, to name a few, remained
scouting for the items that were still within the original
scope. I'm in a really good technical discussion there
right now that found an expert interested in the problem I'm
working on enough to do what I can't. (I think he just took
a long trip to a dead end but that's more my fault than his
in how I originally described the problem.)

I'd still prefer going the other route, though, just because
having a saloon really makes it explicit what the group is
all about and hanging it off RAP more concretely states who
it is for. Making it an alt group seems to me to defeat the
purposes of making it a hangout more specific to this group.
Sure that can't and won't be enforced (not the nature of
the beast) but steering it that way isn't a bad thing.

If as has been said by others, this high OT content is
hitting groups across the board, the powers-that-be might be
persuaded that a saloon (or some such) is a good solution
across the board.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

George wrote:

That will solve your problem as most everyone would leave
the beauty of most NG is thier unmoderated fomat, warts and all they are
much better than any moderated group
the cure is worse than the disease

sci.physics went a similar route by creating
sci.physics.research which is moderated (somehow.) The
original group had become too much of a place for people
with crank theories. Even though it's still that way, many
of the old people like Uncle Al (sure wish he'd get
interested in audio) and John Baez, to name a few, remained
scouting for the items that were still within the original
scope. I'm in a really good technical discussion there
right now that found an expert interested in the problem I'm
working on enough to do what I can't. (I think he just took
a long trip to a dead end but that's more my fault than his
in how I originally described the problem.)

I'd still prefer going the other route, though, just because
having a saloon really makes it explicit what the group is
all about and hanging it off RAP more concretely states who
it is for. Making it an alt group seems to me to defeat the
purposes of making it a hangout more specific to this group.
Sure that can't and won't be enforced (not the nature of
the beast) but steering it that way isn't a bad thing.

If as has been said by others, this high OT content is
hitting groups across the board, the powers-that-be might be
persuaded that a saloon (or some such) is a good solution
across the board.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

On 26 Sep 2004 15:17:36 GMT, (EganMedia) wrote:

Never has the United States acted alone in a war of
agression.

Better check the history books on that one...

On 26 Sep 2004 15:17:36 GMT, (EganMedia) wrote:

Never has the United States acted alone in a war of
agression.

Better check the history books on that one...

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:25:28 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

killermike wrote:

Jay Levitt wrote:

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

I prefer 'offtopic' to 'saloon'. I consider it to be clearer. As far as
I know, 'saloon' is an Americanism. I'd probably be able to work out
what it meant. A saloon is more comonly a class of car in the UK.

Sedan in the US.

For
someone from a non English speaking country, it might be even less
clear. Anyway, I don't consider it to be of crucial importance.

The use of 'saloon' is indeed an americanism. There is a historical use of
'saloon bar' in the UK but not much used anymore.

I'd prefer 'opinion' maybe.


2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I'd vote in favour.

I'm in favour - bur preferably with a name other than saloon.


Graham

How about, "maroon"?

Al

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:25:28 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

killermike wrote:

Jay Levitt wrote:

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

I prefer 'offtopic' to 'saloon'. I consider it to be clearer. As far as
I know, 'saloon' is an Americanism. I'd probably be able to work out
what it meant. A saloon is more comonly a class of car in the UK.

Sedan in the US.

For
someone from a non English speaking country, it might be even less
clear. Anyway, I don't consider it to be of crucial importance.

The use of 'saloon' is indeed an americanism. There is a historical use of
'saloon bar' in the UK but not much used anymore.

I'd prefer 'opinion' maybe.


2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

I'd vote in favour.

I'm in favour - bur preferably with a name other than saloon.


Graham

How about, "maroon"?

Al

playon wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:25:28 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

I'm in favour - bur preferably with a name other than saloon.

Graham

How about, "maroon"?

Al

You want to attract the alt.conspiracy crowd ?


Graham ;-)

playon wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:25:28 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

I'm in favour - bur preferably with a name other than saloon.

Graham

How about, "maroon"?

Al

You want to attract the alt.conspiracy crowd ?


Graham ;-)

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:04:40 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article ):



EganMedia wrote:

I think having an appropriate place to carry on political discussions is a
great idea. I don't think you'll find many people will leave RAP to post
their
thoughts, though.

I'm hoping that it won't be like leaving RAP, but like
stepping around the corner from where you work to hang out
with the same folks for different reasons, when there is an
obnoxious, self rightous co-worker going around from office
to office listening in and telling people to quit talking
about anything but work because it says so somewhere in the
company guidelines that were written in antiquity.

Thanks Bob. We all appreciate your observations. Wanna lower your voice?

I sure agree about your conclusions with respect to the
times. I've been around a fairly long time now and the
situation at ground level is the worse it's ever been by
such a wide margin that it truly terrifies me.


Bob

Be very afraid. It will only get worse. Then you die and they throw dirt on
you.

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:04:40 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article ):



EganMedia wrote:

I think having an appropriate place to carry on political discussions is a
great idea. I don't think you'll find many people will leave RAP to post
their
thoughts, though.

I'm hoping that it won't be like leaving RAP, but like
stepping around the corner from where you work to hang out
with the same folks for different reasons, when there is an
obnoxious, self rightous co-worker going around from office
to office listening in and telling people to quit talking
about anything but work because it says so somewhere in the
company guidelines that were written in antiquity.

Thanks Bob. We all appreciate your observations. Wanna lower your voice?

I sure agree about your conclusions with respect to the
times. I've been around a fairly long time now and the
situation at ground level is the worse it's ever been by
such a wide margin that it truly terrifies me.


Bob

Be very afraid. It will only get worse. Then you die and they throw dirt on
you.

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:23:33 -0400, Marc Wielage wrote
(in article ):

Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
"rec.audio.pro.moderated."

Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.

If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going, talk
to me in email.

--MFW



Not a bad idea Marc. Who would do the moderating?

BTW, My newsreader says your email is invalid.

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:23:33 -0400, Marc Wielage wrote
(in article ):

Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
"rec.audio.pro.moderated."

Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.

If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going, talk
to me in email.

--MFW



Not a bad idea Marc. Who would do the moderating?

BTW, My newsreader says your email is invalid.

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

In article ,
Ty Ford wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:23:33 -0400, Marc Wielage wrote
(in article ):

Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
"rec.audio.pro.moderated."

Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.

If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going,
talk
to me in email.

--MFW



Not a bad idea Marc. Who would do the moderating?

BTW, My newsreader says your email is invalid.

Ty Ford

if you enjoy a moderated forum , there is one at wwww.prosoundweb.com
George

In article ,
Ty Ford wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:23:33 -0400, Marc Wielage wrote
(in article ):

Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
"rec.audio.pro.moderated."

Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.

If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going,
talk
to me in email.

--MFW



Not a bad idea Marc. Who would do the moderating?

BTW, My newsreader says your email is invalid.

Ty Ford

if you enjoy a moderated forum , there is one at wwww.prosoundweb.com
George

George wrote:

if you enjoy a moderated forum , there is one at wwww.prosoundweb.com


That thing's got more ads than Times Square. Like he really needs the money.

George wrote:

if you enjoy a moderated forum , there is one at wwww.prosoundweb.com


That thing's got more ads than Times Square. Like he really needs the money.

In article ,
Don Cooper wrote:

George wrote:

if you enjoy a moderated forum , there is one at wwww.prosoundweb.com


That thing's got more ads than Times Square. Like he really needs the money.

but at least your free from having to think about the future of your
country(for usa residents only)
George

In article ,
Don Cooper wrote:

George wrote:

if you enjoy a moderated forum , there is one at wwww.prosoundweb.com


That thing's got more ads than Times Square. Like he really needs the money.

but at least your free from having to think about the future of your
country(for usa residents only)
George

George wrote:

but at least your free from having to think about the future of your
country(for usa residents only)


Do they have a political section?

George wrote:

but at least your free from having to think about the future of your
country(for usa residents only)


Do they have a political section?

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:57:47 -0400, Lorin David Schultz wrote
(in article fY17d.170$MV5.61@clgrps13):

Yeah yeah yeah, the USA this and the government that and war to boot.
Whatever. Take it OUTSIDE!!!

I care as much about your domestic politics as you do about my
carburetor problems, and neither has any place in a pro audio newsgroup.

Now would all you hand-wringers and flag wavers please get the **** OVER
yourselves?

Thank you.



Careful there son. You're likely to raise the hackles on them 5-6 "Polly
Boys" who think their **** don't stink. When you tell 'em they's breaking the
rules, they don't much care. They'll start tellin' folk you're a communist,
bed wetter, pinko, faggot.

I'm sure it's big fun for them that's not from these here states; seeing them
"Polly Boys" ****in' in their pants about stuff and not doin' nothin' else.
Purty much sets 'em up for what they is. Know what I mean. (wink wink).
If'n they had real genetalia, they'd be doin' stuff stead of jawbonin'.
Course, they ain't, so they won't. It makes it real difficult for 'em and it
just drives 'em over the edge.

I tried bein' nice to 'em at first. When that didn't work, I kicked it up a
notch or two, but them "Polly Boys" is just teched in the head. I'm 'fraid
it's terminal. Once you git that far gone, there ain't no comin' back. You
just slip over the edge and ......sploop! Youse gone.

It'll be real nice when that happens. I'm gonna have a party with favors and
everything just to celebrate.

"Uncle" Ty




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:57:47 -0400, Lorin David Schultz wrote
(in article fY17d.170$MV5.61@clgrps13):

Yeah yeah yeah, the USA this and the government that and war to boot.
Whatever. Take it OUTSIDE!!!

I care as much about your domestic politics as you do about my
carburetor problems, and neither has any place in a pro audio newsgroup.

Now would all you hand-wringers and flag wavers please get the **** OVER
yourselves?

Thank you.



Careful there son. You're likely to raise the hackles on them 5-6 "Polly
Boys" who think their **** don't stink. When you tell 'em they's breaking the
rules, they don't much care. They'll start tellin' folk you're a communist,
bed wetter, pinko, faggot.

I'm sure it's big fun for them that's not from these here states; seeing them
"Polly Boys" ****in' in their pants about stuff and not doin' nothin' else.
Purty much sets 'em up for what they is. Know what I mean. (wink wink).
If'n they had real genetalia, they'd be doin' stuff stead of jawbonin'.
Course, they ain't, so they won't. It makes it real difficult for 'em and it
just drives 'em over the edge.

I tried bein' nice to 'em at first. When that didn't work, I kicked it up a
notch or two, but them "Polly Boys" is just teched in the head. I'm 'fraid
it's terminal. Once you git that far gone, there ain't no comin' back. You
just slip over the edge and ......sploop! Youse gone.

It'll be real nice when that happens. I'm gonna have a party with favors and
everything just to celebrate.

"Uncle" Ty




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com