"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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

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.

It's so one person that comes into a group devoted to a topic doesn't
dominate it and let's the funtion of the group continue. It's not to
quash legitimate questions. It's also to quash personal attacks, such
as your remark.





Pick your poison.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

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.

It's so one person that comes into a group devoted to a topic doesn't
dominate it and let's the funtion of the group continue. It's not to
quash legitimate questions. It's also to quash personal attacks, such
as your remark.





Pick your poison.

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"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.

i don't think any recipes will be censored () maybe they were thinking of
having an alt.food.vegan board that's moderated so it could actually be
about food. then it could just be full of yummy recipe ideas. and we could
still have an unmoderated vegan one where people who want to debate its
merits can act as civil or rude toward one another as they please. it could
work. but i'll bet everyone would still come here, and the recipe board
would be pretty dead()

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.

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"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.

i don't think any recipes will be censored () maybe they were thinking of
having an alt.food.vegan board that's moderated so it could actually be
about food. then it could just be full of yummy recipe ideas. and we could
still have an unmoderated vegan one where people who want to debate its
merits can act as civil or rude toward one another as they please. it could
work. but i'll bet everyone would still come here, and the recipe board
would be pretty dead()

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.

"katie" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"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.

i don't think any recipes will be censored ()

I don't know, there are some here who like to harrass recipe posters.
:^)

maybe they were thinking of
having an alt.food.vegan board that's moderated so it could actually
be
about food. then it could just be full of yummy recipe ideas. and
we could
still have an unmoderated vegan one where people who want to debate
its
merits can act as civil or rude toward one another as they please.
it could
work. but i'll bet everyone would still come here, and the recipe
board
would be pretty dead()

Yeah, that could make sense. After all, this is alt.FOOD.vegan and
rightfully should be about food and not the social, political, etc.
aspects of veg*nism. If you don't already know, there is rec.food.veg
and rec.food.veg.cooking which are mostly about vegetarian food and
recipes. You are right that they are both pretty dead.

"katie" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"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.

i don't think any recipes will be censored ()

I don't know, there are some here who like to harrass recipe posters.
:^)

maybe they were thinking of
having an alt.food.vegan board that's moderated so it could actually
be
about food. then it could just be full of yummy recipe ideas. and
we could
still have an unmoderated vegan one where people who want to debate
its
merits can act as civil or rude toward one another as they please.
it could
work. but i'll bet everyone would still come here, and the recipe
board
would be pretty dead()

Yeah, that could make sense. After all, this is alt.FOOD.vegan and
rightfully should be about food and not the social, political, etc.
aspects of veg*nism. If you don't already know, there is rec.food.veg
and rec.food.veg.cooking which are mostly about vegetarian food and
recipes. You are right that they are both pretty dead.

C. James Strutz wrote:

Yeah, that could make sense. After all, this is alt.FOOD.vegan and
rightfully should be about food and not the social, political, etc.
aspects of veg*nism. If you don't already know, there is rec.food.veg
and rec.food.veg.cooking which are mostly about vegetarian food and
recipes. You are right that they are both pretty dead.

Simple solution: let's post recipes there and discuss food issues.

C. James Strutz wrote:

Yeah, that could make sense. After all, this is alt.FOOD.vegan and
rightfully should be about food and not the social, political, etc.
aspects of veg*nism. If you don't already know, there is rec.food.veg
and rec.food.veg.cooking which are mostly about vegetarian food and
recipes. You are right that they are both pretty dead.

Simple solution: let's post recipes there and discuss food issues.

C. James Strutz wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
ink.net...

C. James Strutz wrote:

"Beach Runner" wrote in message
r.com...

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.

In my experience of this group, all "vegans" want to
suppress contrary opinions. They pretend to be
concerned with "off-topic" posts, but that's a thin and
easily dissipated smokescreen, as demonstrated by the
following: when one of them begins an off-topic
PRO-"veganism" rant, many of the participants quickly
pile on to express their agreement, often extending and
elaborating on the issue at some length. But as soon
as I or some other anti-"vegan" occasional participant
expresses a contrary point of view, no matter how
politely (I do sometimes remain polite), then look out!
The SHRIEKS of "troll", "kill-file", "off topic" and
so on begin to flow freely.

This is easily understood, too; no mystery at all.
"veganism" is the dietary expression of an inherently
intolerant and extremist political philosophy. As I
have demonstrated many times, "vegans" are virtually
universally leftwing extremists. That's because all
true "vegans" are "animal rights activists"
(passivists, really), and "ar" is intrinsically an
extremist leftwing political belief. "veganism" is
absolutely synonymous with so-called "ethical"
vegetarianism, and all so-called "ethical" vegetarians
are NECESSARILY believers in "ar", and so are
necessarily extremist leftwing dolts.

As all political extremes are inherently intolerant and
repressive, it is a short jump to see why "vegans" are
reflexively censorious.

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.