The Nice Mean Man wrote:
> This is what you get with censor****p. Fourteen posting since August
> 1st. Nobody wants to participate because they can't be themselves.
> Plus, the salt and pepper just ain’t there. Deadsville, man.
Thanks for your comments on the matter, though it's worth pointing out
that no on-topic article has ever been rejected, even articles objecting
to the format of the newsgroup, or complaining of "censor****p". The only
articles rejected are (a) non-Beatles-related posts and (b) commercial
posts (it's a non-commercial newsgroup).
Moderation is seen in a variety of catgories across Usenet, much the way
moderated mail lists work. If you don't like the format, it's okay with
me, though I do wonder what is meant by the phrase that you "can't be
yourself". If by being yourself you demand the right to post off-topic
or sell your wares, I'd have to agree that r.m.b.m. probably isn't a
good choice for you.
But for those who would like to discuss the Fabs in an enviromnent free
of politics, trolls, and spammers, r.m.b.m. might be a handy option.
Traffic has never been an issue. Moderated newsgroups often have lower
traffic than their unmoderated cousins (misc.legal.moderated is a case
in point, as anyone trying to plow through the effluvia of misc.legal
would know).
If you want to discuss the philosophy of Usenet and mod-vs-unmod, you're
welcome to email me and we can have a pleasant chat about it. If you
have some Beatles-related thoughts to share, post away, I'm always happy
to hear your opinions.
----
saki@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup,
please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
|
