"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
ink.net...
C. James Strutz wrote:
"Beach Runner" wrote in message
om...

Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may
not
like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed
to
in a moderated group.

It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't
work well for this kind of topic. No academic in his
right mind would publish, for example, in an
"unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet:
any ignorant shitbag's material shows up.

The problem with moderated groups is that contrary
points of view are suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd
bet $100, of the asshole "beach ruiner". The problem
with unmoderated groups is that there are no quality
standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit
David Harrison appears.

Pick your poison.

All true. I guess it comes down to how the group is moderated. I wrote
what I did with this particular group in mind: some people want to
suppress contrary points of view. However, I think they also want to
suppress all the name calling and bad language. Something that some of
us (ahem) are more guilty of than others.