Xref: utzoo talk.religion.newage:4865 news.groups:14461
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!megatest!djones
From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,news.groups
Subject: Re: Moderation (was Re: Discussion: talk.religion.pagan)
Message-ID: <9608@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Date: 13 Nov 89 00:48:16 GMT
References: <1042@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>
Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca
Lines: 28


In article (Andrew C. Plotkin) writes:
> Even so, creating the group will not keep out the fundies, skeptics,
> or other posters whose sole purpose seems to be bent on detraction
> and/or harassment.  Is moderation such a dirty word?

Great tactic that: Lump together two groups who consider themselves
quite fundamentally different. Makes them both angry. I consider the newagers
and the "fundies", as you call them, very similar because, by my way of
thinking both find solace in irrationality. The fundies put me in with the
newagers, because we haven't found Jesus. You put me (I guess I'm one of
your "skeptics") in with the fundies because, well, you tell me. The point
is that it works. You had me going there for a few seconds.

A woderful example comes up again and again: Every few months a certain
correspondent posts a message to some group or another saying "Atheism is a
religion." He must do it just for spite, because the atheists rail against
it for months every time. I know I did.

Now to the question at hand: Is "moderation" (as in "moderator")
a dirty word?

If you want to silence opinions you don't share, it can be a wonderful
word, or a nasty one, depending on whether the moderator agrees with you.
I really don't see why anybody would favor moderators for these talk
groups. The exchange of ideas is what it's all about. If somebody is
rude, or if they write things you don't want to read, just ignore them.
It's just for fun, right?