Re: Moderation=YES

[Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>]

Ray Arachelian wrote:
> Filters aren't intelligent enough.  How do you propose to filter out the
> anonymous dialy warnings about Tim May?

 I keep hearing about how moderation is essential to get rid of the
noise
so that 'code writers' can have serious discussions.
 Am I to understand that I am expected to have some kind of esoteric
faith in 'code writers' cryptographic output, when they can't even
write a filter that meets their own requirements?

> Even our friend Vulis has sane posts when he takes his medication (though
> I suspect he does so rarely.)  Filtering out everything he posts doesn't
> make sense, as reading the sane stuff will have some value.  I don't want
> to miss what he says when it is worth my time to read it.

  Exactly. And I don't know how 'any' moderator is going to satisfy your
personal desires, and mine, and those of several thousand others.
  I don't know 'Sandy' from spit, and it doesn't really matter to me
whether he is God or the SpamMan.  He may be the most well-intentioned
person in the universe, but if he can psychically divine what
'everybody'
wants, I'll kiss your butt.

> The proposed scheme should not affect anyone in any way.  Those who want
> the filtered list will get it, those who want the spams and flames and
> ads and turds will get them, those who want it all will also get them.

  Split lists won't lead to 'harmony', it will lead to 'fractation'.
Putting up a sign that says, "Flamers must sit in the back of the bus."
seems like a good idea.  The fact is, however, that it leads to a
society with a structured class system, and history has already told
us where it goes from there.
  Blacks have always had the option of 'going back to Africa, where they
came from'. (It's a 'free' country, isn't it?)

Toto