Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 5506

Directory

George Bonser writes,
"The problem comes in when you ban an individual based on
the contents of PAST postings. What happens when that person has a
legitimate question or reports an abnormal occurance where they live?"
For a fuller discussion of this cf: "The boy who cried wolf!"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Elmer Bataitis                       "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!" -Hobbes
Planetech Services                                             
716-442-2884                     nylicence@aol.com / nylicens@frontiernet.net
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Folks, there are many newsgroups under discussion at once in news.groups.
Since the "RFD" for Mr. Adams' proposed sci.geo.* reorganisation hasn't
even been officially posted (i.e., has not appeared in news.announce.
newgroups -- nor for that matter in news.groups), it is probably the
last thing someone reading news.groups to discuss, say, soc.culture.
galiza or news.admin.net-abuse.* (both current proposals with 
officially posted RFDs) is likely to think of.
So it would be very helpful if you could keep some hint as to the
group you're discussing in the subject line.  Even if it's obvious
on your group, this is a kindness to people visiting news.groups
from elsewhere.
Thanks.
Joe Bernstein
-- 
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer, bank clerk, and bookstore worker
Speaking for myself and nobody else                joe@sfbooks.com
but...  co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now under discussion
in news.groups

Ken Navarre wrote:
>
> I will again call for you to explain, "Why a moderated mail list wouldn't
> accomplish your goals just as effectively as a moderated newsgroup?"
> 
> I've asked you this on no less than 4 times and although you've chosen to
> answer other questions in my posts you've ignored this most simple question.
> You tried to turn my questions around and have asked me "...what's my
> agenda?" Now I ask you, "What's your's?". WHY won't a moderated mail list
> with crosspost links work as well as or better than a moderated newsgroup?
I believe I have answered this question each time it was posed by you,
including the very first time 2 months ago.  My answer at that time was
within a long list of questions and answers.  Other answers have also
been made each time and this time I'm mailing it to you in case you
missed my prior post.
The answer is that a mailing list is NOT a news group.  It may be 
similiar but it's distribution is more limited and obscure.  There
are people that want a moderated news group.  For that matter, web
pages, e-mailed magazines, IRchat are all channels of communication
that could be used but they are likewise not news groups. This
discussion isn't offered to debate the differences between one form
of internet communication and another.  Why should the people that
want a moderated newsgroup have to place it in a more obscure place?
Other moderated newsgroups exist without being so hidden.
I apologize that I took an offensive position with you by turning
the question around.  The fact is some people want a moderated news
group for these topics, and I believe it will have no negative impact
on you personally, and ask that you not stand in the way of allowing
other people to have the group they want.  You'll still have your
existing forums.
Richard

Dorothy Smith wrote:
Above message was from Richard Adams, not D. Smith
Richard

Ken Navarre wrote:
> 
> Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
> [snip]
> : Notice that the amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law".
> : It does not say what groups of people can or cannot do, it
> : limits the power of the government, not of the people.
> 
> Your comment is true, as far as it goes. However, case law has protected
> prior restraint issues under the "first amendment" concept. Just because the
> Constitution says one thing is no reason to believe that a court will not
> uphold a tangent argument. It happens all the time!

You site no laws or case law to support your arguments here.
I think if you check, you'll find that any successful litigation
brought was against companies that had government funding.  When
the public entity is involved in paying for a group, the laws which
control public entities apply.  It is very possible that parts of
the internet are publicly funded, and moderation may someday be
tested in the courts, but there is no law or case law which sides
with your position that moderation is illegal.  I believe that
moderation will always be permitted so long as there are unmoderated
areas in which to post the unmoderated viewpoint.
You argued that civil case law is against "arbitrary" banning and
would not uphold controls of speech.  Actually they do uphold "laws"
against certain types of speech including defamation and profanity,
but these aren't the issues.
Moderation of a news group to disallow certain posts based on a set
of rules would NOT be arbitrary.  If someone doesn't follow the rules,
they can be excluded.  The issue is that there are no laws which force
a group of people in a discussion area to accept a LACK of rules.
No one is going to force you to go and post or read in the moderated
area, but if you do, the participants have every right to require you
to obey their rules.
Richard

gentryd@pipeline.com wrote:
>
> Richard,
> 
> Myself, I prefer one newsgroup to get my information from.  Having
> several creates extra work.  You know, like:
> 
>     Sign-on and request the index for each newsgroup to be updated,
>     so that would be 4 requests instead of 2.
> 
>     Browse the index for each newsgroup and select which
>     messages to downloaded for later reading.  This would require
>     selecting the newsgroup, open it, browse it, select for
>     download, close it (for 4 newsgroups instead of 2).
> 
>     Sign-on for automatic downloads
> 
> So I would have double the number of newsgroups to maintain.
> 
> Additionally, both c.e and s.c.e don't have enough traffic to warrant
> breaking them out.  Most days, they get less then a dozen posts.  The
> prediction newsgroup wouldn't even get that over a whole month.
> 
> Its a waste of time and a waste of reserved space at the provider
> sites (if they do that).
> 
> So lets practice the KISS method and drop the whole subject.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dennis
Summarizing your arguments against additional groups are
    a) longer time to browse through messages
    b) waste of space at provider sites
I agree that for some newsreaders it takes a couple of
keystrokes to select an additional newsgroup, but for
others it's one press of the mouse button.  ...A very
small argument to deny those members the groups they want.
If you personaly don't want that group's articles, no one
is going to force you to add the group name or select the
subject heads.  If the newly added group prohibits cross
posts, it's more likely the articles you find there will be
unique and worth the trip and the mouse button press.
Moderation may invite posters that would otherwise not
like to contribute.
An even less effective argument is the space or time at
the news site.  On a daily basis the alt.binaries takes
more bandwidth than a T1 connection can provide, about
16gb/day (estimate) and many alt.binaries articles are
dropped.  The very tiny amount of text in the sci.geo
groups probably amounts to less than .00005% of the
available space and bandwidth.
Richard

In article <522cge$7h9@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, gentryd@pipeline.com
writes:
> Didn't this issue come up 
>because of one person? 
NO. I and several others brought the issue up on several occasions over
the past couple of years. It seems that some of us would like to have a
group which focuses on seismology. As far as I'm concerned, Adams is a
knight on a white horse, riding to the rescue.
Michael Williams                                t/$=1
Arroyo Grande, CA                   

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Richard Adams wrote:
> ATTENTION:
> 
> * Here's your chance to make a difference.
> 
> * All survey respondees will be held private.
> 
> * If the majority says NO, the proposed reorganization will cease.
> 
> * There will be no follow up to your survey response.
> 
> * No one will be told of your response.
> 
> * The survey itself has no direct force to change any newsgroup
>   but the proponent will use the information to mold the
>   proposal so your answers will affect the outcome.
> 
> * This is not an official Call For Votes (CFV).  You cannot
>   vote to implement these changes at this time.
>  
> * Please vote in all cases, The group needs the votes
>   from all observers and contributors, all should vote!
> 
> IMPORTANT, Please be sure you have the whole survey.
> Your survey should end with the "END OF SURVEY" line
> 
> You don't have to answer all the questions.  I'll
> consider anything you are willing to share with me.
> 
> email to happypcs@oro.net, No surveys accepted after 9/23/96
> 
> ===============================================================
> Which group(s) are you primarily concerned with?
> Please mark one or both
> 
> ( * )  sci.geo.geology
> 
> ( * )  sci.geo.earthquakes
> ================================================================
> (  ) Check here if you'd like to be added to the proposal as
>      another proponent.  I'll contact you by e-mail in that case.
> 
> (  ) Check here if you'd like to be one of the persons listed
>      as a moderator.  I'll contact you by e-mail in that case.
> ==================================================================
> (  ) Changes to moderate the sci,geo.geology group are fine but
>      don't change the sci.geo.earthquakes group, not one bit!
> =================================================================== 
> 
> A recommendation has been made by a respected mentor in news
> group matters to use the name sci.geo.earthquakes.moderated
> rather than sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world.  This is more
> consistent with current naming standards for moderated groups.
> It is our right to choose a group name that we want and we
> do not have to comply with the suggestion of the mentor.
> 
> Please vote for one name for the moderated group previously
> proposed as sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world:
> 
> (  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world
> 
> (  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.moderated
> 
> (  ) sci.geo.eartquakes._________________________________
>                         (write in a group name extension)
> ==================================================================
> A recommendation has been made by a respected mentor in 
> news group matters to add an extension to the name for the
> existing sci.geo.earthquakes group (which is NOT moderated)
> in order to keep all the earthquakes groups on the same level
> in the hierarchy.  The following suggestions were presented
> each with a logical reasoning.
> 
> The .news extension identifies that the group is for posting
> of up to date news about earthquake events and predictions.
> This would be the most accurate name to agree with the
> charter now proposed for the group.
> 
> The .unmoderated extension identifies that the group is the
> unmoderated one.
> 
> The .misc extension identifies that any earthquake topic is
> accepted here.  The .misc is equated with the term "general".
> 
> Continued usage is still available as an option to us, but adds
> confusion to the hierarchy structure for users, news servers
> and others, it should be AVOIDED.
> 
> Please vote for one of the following names to rename the
> existing unmoderated sci.geo.earthquakes group to.
> 
> ( * ) sci.geo.earthquakes     [please read above about problems]
> 
> (  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.unmoderated
> 
> (  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.misc
> 
> (  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.news
> 
> (  ) sci.geo.earthquakes._________________________________
>                          (write in a group name extension)
> ==============================================================
> A suggestion has been offered on numerous occasions to
> continue to offer a unmoderated sci.geo.geology group
> when the moderated group is formed.  This preferred naming
> would be that if there is both an unmoderated group and a
> moderated group that they both be on the same level of hierarchy,
> which means they only differ in their final extension name.
> 
> 
> Please fill in only one of the below combinations between
> the delimiters.
> ==============================================================
> (  ) Changes for earthquakes groups are fine but don't change
>      the sci.geo.geology group at all, not one bit!
> ..............................................................
> (  ) The unmoderated sci.geo.geology group should be replaced
>      with a moderated group and there should be no unmoderated
>      group.
> 
>      If you check this box, please select one of the following
>      names for single moderated group.
> 
> (  ) sci.geo.geology  [same name as existing group]
> 
> (  ) sci.geo.geology.moderated 
> 
> (  ) sci.geo.______________________________
>              (fill in one or two word name) 
> .............................................................
> (  ) There should be both a moderated and unmoderated group
>      for sci.geo.geology.  Unless otherwise indicated, the
>      conventional names are okay which are:
> 
>              sci.geo.geology.unmoderated
>              sci.geo.geology.modererated
> 
>         If you prefer another pair of names, please fill in:
>         Please: if one has an extension the other should also!
> 
>     sci.geo.geology._____________________________________________
>                     (fill in extension to name unmoderated group)
> 
>     sci.geo.geology._____________________________________________
>                     (fill in extension to name moderated group)
> ==================================================================
> Some things to note:
> 
> There are two schools of thought on the issue of the "Rationale"
> in the RFD, one says there should be a historical description
> arguing for the need for the group.  The other says that it
> is simpler to just outline what the ongoing rationale for the
> group is without having a history lesson.  I go along with
> the latter.
> 
> Several people have raised concerns over the lack of precise
> detail within the RFD for the moderation policies.  I note
> that when there is a moderator, we are really in the moderators's
> hands no matter what the charter says.  I think it would
> be misleading to list all the details out in the charter
> when there is almost no mechanism to enforce this upon the
> moderator except to do another RFD and CFV.
> 
> When I previously submitted a very detailed set of
> moderation policies a mentor knowledgable in such matters.
> He balked at the detailed list.  However, he did find that
> the current policies in the rev 6 proposal were acceptable.
> 
> ==================================================================
> Here are some issues regarding the robot moderation system and
> voting for the exclusion of certain posts.  These items are
> not intended to be in the charter but will be in a document
> the moderator shall make available to the group for public
> inspection in the proposed system.
> ..................................................................
> Should the proposed robot moderation system be scrapped and
> replaced with a more usual one where a human reads each post?
> 
> (  ) Yes
> 
> (  ) No
> ..................................................................
> Should the proposed moderation system be updated to provide
> that no post should be declined until a human first reads it
> and verifies the robot's decision to decline and include the
> option to appeal to an appeals committee?
> 
> (  ) Yes
> 
> (  ) No
> ..................................................................
> Should the proposed moderation system provide for the exclusion
> of specific individuals on the basis of their e-mail address or
> should the system be limited to the exclusion of posts that are
> detectable as "off topic" via the cross post list (for example)?
> 
> (  ) Should permit exclusion of specific individuals.
> 
> (  ) Should NOT permit exclusion of specific individuals.
> 
> (  ) Other_______________________________________________________
> ...................................................................
> What voter majority should be used to establish the criterion
> to exclude certain posts?
> 
> (  ) Suggestion for 90% majority and minimum of 30 votes
> 
> (  )_______________________________________________
>     (write in majority and minimum number of votes)
> ...................................................................
> For what period of time shall posts be excluded when so voted?
> 
> (  ) Suggestion: 6 months
> 
> (  ) ________________________________________
>        (write in amount of time)
> ===================================================================
> (*) I will never agree to any of this, STOP NOW!
> 
>      [The proponent doesn't take this personally and
>       greatly appreciates your honesty]
> ===================================================================
> ===================================================================
> Write in whatever you want!
Please note:  It is Netiquet to report the *full* results of *any* such
survey.  Whilst you may remove the *names* of the respondants, you *must*
report, and hold in an auditable form, the responses so that you can
justify your results if challenged.
> ===================================================================
> 
> END OF SURVEY (whew, you and your server made it!)
> 
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPPPPH     H  | Peter Halls - University of York Computing Service -
P    P     H  |                        GIS Advisor
P    P     H  | Email: P.Halls@YORK.AC.UK
PPPPPJHHHHHH  | Telephone: 01904 433806  FAX: 01904 433740
P    J     H  | Smail: Computing Service,
P    J     H  |        University of York,
P    J     H  |        Heslington.
     J        |        YORK Y01 5DD
 J   J        |        England.
  JJJ   This message has the status of a private & personal communication
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results of the simple survey that I conducted are in.
The question asked were:
>1) Should sci.geo.earthquakes be moderated? (Y/N)
>2) Should sci.geo.geology be moderated? (Y/N)
>
Perhaps a better question would have been do you want a moderated 
news group on earthqaukees?  on Geology?   (this is not 
a new survey).
The results of the survey are:
	Moderation	No Moderation
SGE	5		19
SGG	7		16
A list of voters follows:  (if anyone's vote is 
missing or mistabulated, let me know).
David
Voter:					SGG	SGE
gshadel@vt.edu				y	y
jadamski@wrdmail.er.usgs.gov		y
stan@thhpc.gps.caltech.edu		n	n
swatkins@usgs.gov			n	n
forster@dlcwest.com			y*	n
impo@deltanet.com			n	n
abdikjse@aol.com			n	n
johnamos@crl.com			n	n
russ@seismo.demon.co.uk			n	n
coop@bcf.usc.edu			n	n
blady@sunline.net			n	n
schweich@well.com			y	
mweather@rmii.com 				n
MikeW16461@aol.com				y
bernie@boudreau.ocean.dal.ca		y	y
mozley@nmt.edu				y	y
phillips@bright.uoregon.edu		y	y
schlue@griffy.nmt.edu			n	n
emgannon@sunrise.alpinet.net		n	n
michael@andreas.wr.usgs.gov		n	n
jelly@thebigj.demon.co.uk		n	n
lorme@cmc.net				n	n
kjell@tromso.npolar.no			n	n
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig 		n
jones@bombay.gps.caltech.edu		n	n	
taber@rses.vuw.ac.nz			n	n
-- 
David Salzberg                salzberg@seismo.css.gov
Sliding down the slippery slope to oblivion...
All opinions are mine unless otherwise noted.

In article <525r7q$3fq@seismo.CSS.GOV>, salzberg@seismo.CSS.GOV 
says...
>
>The results of the simple survey that I conducted are in.
>
>The question asked were:
>>1) Should sci.geo.earthquakes be moderated? (Y/N)
>
>>2) Should sci.geo.geology be moderated? (Y/N)
>>
>
>Perhaps a better question would have been do you want a moderated 
>news group on earthqaukees?  on Geology?   (this is not 
>a new survey).
>
>The results of the survey are:
>
>        Moderation      No Moderation
>SGE     5               19
>SGG     7               16
>
>
>A list of voters follows:  (if anyone's vote is 
>missing or mistabulated, let me know).
>
>
>David
>
>
>Voter:                                  SGG     SGE
>gshadel@vt.edu                          y       y
>jadamski@wrdmail.er.usgs.gov            y
>stan@thhpc.gps.caltech.edu              n       n
>swatkins@usgs.gov                       n       n
>forster@dlcwest.com                     y*      n
>impo@deltanet.com                       n       n
>abdikjse@aol.com                        n       n
>johnamos@crl.com                        n       n
>russ@seismo.demon.co.uk                 n       n
>coop@bcf.usc.edu                        n       n
>blady@sunline.net                       n       n
>schweich@well.com                       y       
>mweather@rmii.com                               n
>MikeW16461@aol.com                              y
>bernie@boudreau.ocean.dal.ca            y       y
>mozley@nmt.edu                          y       y
>phillips@bright.uoregon.edu             y       y
>schlue@griffy.nmt.edu                   n       n
>emgannon@sunrise.alpinet.net            n       n
>michael@andreas.wr.usgs.gov             n       n
>jelly@thebigj.demon.co.uk               n       n
>lorme@cmc.net                           n       n
>kjell@tromso.npolar.no                  n       n
>Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig               n
>jones@bombay.gps.caltech.edu            n       n       
>taber@rses.vuw.ac.nz                    n       n
>
>-- 
>David Salzberg                salzberg@seismo.css.gov
>Sliding down the slippery slope to oblivion...
>
NO - let me express myself!!!!
On the Supernova window!!! as predicted.
>
09-22-96 --- Typhoon Violet lashed Tokyo and other Pacific coastal 
regions                   
Sunday, killing at least three people, including a 6-year-old boy.
09-22-96----Rains force evacuations in Southern France--- ST. TROPEZ, 
France  --
Helicopters and ships Sunday evacuated dozens of people from three 
villages around the
Gulf of St. Tropez who were trapped by heavy rains.   The rains 
flooded several streets of
the villages of Cogolin, La Mole and Gassin with up to three feet (one 
meter) of water
during several hours. ]
Next window Sept. 28th, 1996

On the Supernova window!!! as predicted for  09-22-96 --- Typhoon 
Violet lashed Tokyo and other Pacific coastal regions                 
Sunday, killing at least three people, including a 6-year-old boy.
09-22-96----Rains force evacuations in Southern France--- ST. TROPEZ, 
France  -- Helicopters and ships Sunday evacuated dozens of people 
from three villages around the Gulf of St. Tropez who were trapped by 
heavy rains.   The rains flooded several streets of the villages of 
Cogolin, La Mole and Gassin with up to three feet (one meter) of water
during several hours. ]
Next window Sept. 28th, 1996

½s¼g Elmer Bataitis <"nylicens@frontiernet.net / nylicence"@aol.com> ¦¸:
> George Bonser writes,
> 
> "The problem comes in when you ban an individual based on
> the contents of PAST postings. What happens when that person has a
> legitimate question or reports an abnormal occurance where they live?"
> 
> For a fuller discussion of this cf: "The boy who cried wolf!"
> 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Elmer Bataitis                       "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!" -Hobbes
> Planetech Services                                             
> 716-442-2884                     nylicence@aol.com / nylicens@frontiernet.net
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In article , kjn@netcom.com (Ken Navarre) wrote:
: Richard Adams expressed his lack of perspective with:
: [snip]
: 
: : The group is not a public group.  Access to the group is limited
: : by your internet service contract.  It is LEGAL to bar people so
: : long as there is no law to the contrary.  The group is free to 
: : make its own rules.
: 
: That's what they thought in Selma, Al. in the 1950's. Seems as if 
: opinions varied... I can remember when people thought that if they owned 
: property that was offered for rent or use that they could restrict that 
: use to members of a select group. The courts upheld that even private 
: groups could not exclude individuals for arbitrary reasons!
Specious argument. The Selma case had to do with denial of EQUAL rights by
a state, in direct conflict with Federal Law.
Show a case specific to what is being discussed.
: I will again call for you to explain, "Why a moderated mail list wouldn't 
: accomplish your goals just as effectively as a moderated newsgroup?"
The case could just as easily be reversed on you, Mr. Navarre. Show reason
why he should be constrained to a mailing list.
-- 
 David A. Stinson   Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves/index.html 
Product Integration Work E-Mail      : daves@procom.com
     Engineer       Personal E-Mail  : dstinson@ix.netcom.com   or
Procom Technology                      dastinson@aol.com
**** OPINIONS ABOVE ARE THOSE OF D.STINSON, AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF PROCOM TECHNOLOGY ****

In article <3242BAFF.5A8C@cardiff.ac.uk>, irvingd1@cf.ac.uk (Duncan H B 
Irving) says...
>
>Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>> 
[My pointing out the Richard Adams is short of a complete set of clues as 
far as UseNet is concerned - Snipped]
>Is it really necessary to use this tone? Maybe you could eloquently 
>put forward some creative ideas instead of sitting in yer corner making 
>snide remarks about others?
>
How's about this lot?
Posted the day before yours!!
:OK. First, lets define the problems with the groups at present (I say 
:groups 
:but I only read s.g.g). There's been a lot of rubbish about creationism, 
:the 
:normal wierdness from ArchiePoo and miscellaneous junk ever since I've been 
:here. The last lot was almost too much but has died down now. Other noise 
:(Dr Turi for example) is on-topic even if it's garbage.
:
:I see no way to prevent the Turis of this world. What he posts belongs in 
:s.g.*. In this case the only defence is to personally killfile him.
:
:Most of the other crud could be handled by an automatic bot that does not 
:allow any post that is crossposted to more than n other groups (where n is 
:variable) outside of a list. It might not be a bad idea to prevent anything 
:cross-posted from talk.origins and some other groups.
:
:This way nobody is prevented from posting to s.g.* if they want to. They 
:just can't include us in their muckspreading attempts.
:
:If somebody wants to propose this I have no problems at all.
I've no problem with discussing viable ideas. But when someone comes along 
telling me that he wants to set it up so that the newsgroups get completely 
hacked about. And that he's got lots of positive resonses (and no negatives) 
but he's the only one to do the counting. Then he posts an RFD (but it's not 
really an RFD or he'd have posted it to news.announce.newgroups, which he 
said he did, but couldn't have done) without any prior discussion in the 
group (apart from his private survey). That's when I get annoyed, decide 
that this person is the last person in the world that I'd like to see as a 
moderator and fight back.
Richard Admas is, in my view, not competent to act as a moderator. His 
various errors in what he has done so far have satisfied me of this. Now can 
we sit down and try to sort out what can and should be done?
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

In article <51v6u4$s44@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, gentryd@pipeline.com wrote:
:  
: >Since when is it illegal for any non-government group of 
: >people to establish rules for what they accept or won't 
: >accept as topics in their meeting areas, i.e. news groups? 
:  
: Since when is it legal bar people from participating in a 
: public newsgroup just because their view differs from yours? 
Since the USENET was created. I'd suggest you go back and check out the
history of the USENET and its predecessors...
: >Since when are the members of news groups or the news groups 
: >administrators the Congress of the United States such that 
: >the rules of moderation are like laws passed by congress? 
:  
: Could it be because the government is "the people" who make 
: up (for the most part) the posters to these ng's? 
Mr. Gentry, that's specious and doesn't answer the question. The fact is,
as I've said before, the First Amendment does not apply to the argument at
hand (and Mr. Adams was kind enough to quote the actual Amendment)
: >How could a cause of action in a lawsuit brought against 
: >a moderator claim a violation of constitutional laws, when 
: >the constitution only states what the the government cannot 
: >do, and the moderator is not the government? 
:  
: Then why do states (who aren't congress) have laws struck 
: down by the courts when the constitution refers to Congress? 
: Say like laws as to what languages various government 
: supplied documents will be printed in, or what the official 
: language for a state is, and on and on.  Battles over this 
: have been going on for some time now.  How is it that the 
: constitution can be applied to these cases when in only 
: applies to Congress? 
A little study of law would indicate that the overturns have to do
primarily with issues where a state has tried to pass a law that would
preempt a federal law already on the books.
BTW, the Supreme Court (and the judicial segment of government has powers
and responsibilities very different from the Legislative. Did you forget
your GOVT. classes from school.
: >For many news group participants, the groups have become 
: >a place where people feel a false sense of impunity. 
: >They proclaim a freedom of speech which does not exist, 
: >and then fail to practice their real legal duty to speak 
: >truthfully.  They distort and destroy the true meaning of 
: >the constitution to justify their lies. 
:  
:  
: Usenet is a world wide discussion medium.  If you moderate, 
: then you are taking away the chance for somebody to discuss 
: something. 
Once again the argument is specious. What applies is WHAT RULES ARE USED
TO DETERMINE THE MODERATION STATUS. BTW, I would refer you to a post of
mine last week where I pointed out that at this time, I thought the
proposal should be dropped on the basis that Mr. Adams could not, IMO,
accomplish what he wishes to.
But I have to correct the rhetoric that people have been throwing into
this that is not only inaccurate, but blatantly incorrect.
: Even though I don't agree with the ideas by some of the 
: posters, I still tolerate them and try and understand what 
: they are trying to get across.  Thats why it is a worldwide 
: discussion medium.  So that opposing views can be discussed. 
:  
: Lets not set this up to be a ng that only allows a certain 
: viewpoint or topic to be allowed. 
Agreed.
: Vote NO against moderation. 
Your choice.
: Dennis
-- 
 David A. Stinson   Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves/index.html 
Product Integration Work E-Mail      : daves@procom.com
     Engineer       Personal E-Mail  : dstinson@ix.netcom.com   or
Procom Technology                      dastinson@aol.com
**** OPINIONS ABOVE ARE THOSE OF D.STINSON, AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF PROCOM TECHNOLOGY ****