Athel wrote:
>> As Paul Schlosser surmised, I'm in favour of moderation, but to avoid
> misunderstanding I should comment that the discussion that John Woods
> referred to at the beginning of his message occurred before Dr Miano's
> message was posted, and was not, therefore, a consequence of it. I agree
> with John that it is not reasonable to call moderation censorship: is it
> really censorship to deny the $$$MAKE MONEY FAST$$$ pests the
> opportunity to post free advertisements?) I also disagree with Herbert
Unfortunately, it is censorship; court cases have been based on this
stuff (ever heard of Larry Flynt?). I just want the right to decide
what is the trash and what isn't. Once this group goes moderated, then
what's next? Bionet.microbiology? All bionet groups? All usenet
groups? That's an extreme scenario, but realize that by moving to
moderation sets a standard for others groups. It may get rid of the
trash, but what else would disappear? *Anything* that isn't relevant to
metabolic-reg?
> that refusing irrelevant (but serious) messages is censorship: would he
> cry Censorship if his monumental treatise on Wild Flowers of the
> Aberystwyth Area was refused publication by the Journal of Mathematical
> Biology on the grounds that it was outside their scope. Defining the
> scope of a journal or a news group and requiring contributors to adhere
> to it is just common sense, not censorship. I agree with the rest of
> what John says, as well.
What you propose makes sense on the surface, but, as I said before, this
is a publicly accessible newsgroup, not a journal group or an academic
society group. Otherwise, I would be agreeing with everything you say.
Another thing: comparing the posts here to publications in a scholarly
journal is ludicrous. That's editting, not censorship. If he sent his
article to the wrong journal, sure, it wouldn't be published, he'd be
committed as a loony, etc. etc. He'd then sen it to another journal.
This is *not* a journal; this is a newsgroup, a meeting of the minds
where we can express whatever opinions we want, even if they are wrong.
Yeah, we do need to stick to the main subject, that being metabolic
regulation, but don't shun somebody b/c they ask a small question that
doesn't relate to the subject. In their mind, it may be relevant to
met-reg.
> Personally, if I were moderating this news group I would exclude all the
> $$$MAKE MONEY FAST$$$ messages, I would use some discretion for the
> CD-R's at Great Price type of message (some of them, though not strictly
> within the terms of reference of the group, might still be considered as
> having sufficient interest for a sufficient number of subscribers), I
> would accept irrelevant messages (however much I might be irritated by
> them) unless they became numerous enough to be a serious nuisance, and I
So who decides when they become a nuisance? That would be *you*, not
us. If it is a nuisance, then let us decide that. I am sure that you
wouldn't intentionally do anything, but what if you were faced with a
message that you knew, in you mind, was a complete and utter fallacy,
total nonsense through and through, and this something had to do with
metabolism. Wouldn't it at the very least cross your mind to do
something about it? It shouldn't if you want to moderate. Okay, now
what if it had to do with your research? Or research that somebody you
knew was doing? Is it fair to put you in the position of moderator if
there is a bias?
> would accept all messages pertinent to the news group, no matter how
> stupid, confused, misleading or even dangerous I might think them. Would
> this be censorship? Herbert?
What if I think a message is pertinent to the newsgroup, but you don't?
I guess I won't know the answer if moderation occurs.
> To set Paul's worries at rest, I might add that in my discussion with
> John I have already indicated to him (as discussion leader of the group)
> that if it were the wish of subscribers, and if it appeared not to
> involve an unreasonable amount of work, I would be willing to act as
> moderator.
>> Incidentally, I may be naive, but it isn't clear to me why many people
> (see for example Paul's messages) assume that moderation is a lot of
> work. Am I missing something, or does it involve more than
>> 1. looking at all the messages that come in (I do this anyway);
>> 2. trashing the trash (I do this anyway);
>> 3. forwarding the rest (I don't do this at the moment, but it doesn't
> sound like a huge amount of work)?
Probably not, and as you say yourself, this is not a high-traffic NG.
So why moderate it?
> The main problem as I see it is that I'm not always here, and am
> sometimes away for several weeks in succession, and clearly subscribers
> wouldn't be happy for the news group to go silent for several weeks just
> because I wasn't around. However, it seems to me that John's statement
> that "There will always be more than one moderator" should take care of
> that. Of course, it may sometimes happen, around BTK time, for example,
> that all the moderators are away at the same moment, but I feel that
> with foresight this needn't create problems. If we were planning to
> leave the group unmoderated for a couple of weeks we wouldn't send
> messages first to all the $$$MAKE MONEY FAST$$$ people giving them the
> good news.
>> One other point: I agree with John that this news group is beginning to
> look more lively, but I notice that of the nine messages so far posted
> in February not a single one is concerned with metabolism! Doesn't
> anyone have any points they want to make about metabolism, metabolic
> control analysis, biothermokinetics, metabolic diseases, etc.? If not,
> maybe we should disband...
No, don't do that. Just act with some sound reasoning. Think about
it. You said
"One other point: I agree with John that this news group is beginning
to
look more lively, but I notice that of the nine messages so far posted
in February not a single one is concerned with metabolism!"
I don't think that nine messages constitute the major overhaul of a
newsgroup (by moderating it). I think that it would be fair, yes; I
just don't like the idea of a public newsgroup having to resort to
somebody editting out the "bad" and keeping the "good." It's kind of
nice and discomforting at the same time to realize a post can be both
praised and lambasted by anybody who reads it, even those crazies who
don't understand it. So what if we get spam. Is it really necessary to
do this?
I think if it comes down to moderation, you would do a great job. I
just worry about little things, like personal biases and conflicts of
interest. So, if you guys decide to go with this, so be it. My opinion
has, however, been aired...
> Athel
--
C. J. Fields
Graduate Student, Dept. of Biological Sciences
The University of North Texas
Denton, TX
P. S. I promise to talk about metabolism next time I post.
