Mike Piedmont > wrote in message
...
[T0rll stopping measure]
> Aim me in the right direction and I'll do the work involved
> in starting a moderated AFB! What harm could it do? AFB
> would still be here. the moderated group would be open to
> the public, just like AFB.

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." -- Alexander Pope

I'd recommend you set up a Yahoo!Group for bbq and see just how much
effort moderation takes before suggesting afb move to moderation.

Moderation's a lot of work. There are _no_ thanks for the excess work
and task-focus you commit to. It's a lot of work. You're always wrong,
even when you're right. And most importantly, it's a lot of work.

BTW: What will happen to your moderated afb when you grow tired or
decide you've had enough guff and want to move on?

ObFood RIP afb: Smoked five Cornish game hens, three quail, and a duck
in my FIL's smoker. My amateurish tending caused him a severe case of
The Twitches throughout the blessed event. But even the most finicky
eater scarfed up the fowl. The duck went over the best.

The Ranger

Charlie wrote:
> Once upon a time there was lots of good stuff happening here and I
> thank ya for what I learned here.
>
> But now?
>
> Patooey!
>
> This newsgroup has become about as palatable as a full plate of cold
> boiled ribs.
>
> I'll be back next spring to see if the maroons have settled down and/
> or gone away.
>
> Ya'll have a great holiday season. :-)
>

Charlie,

I can't say that I don't blame you. the troll/s have taken over AFB real
bad. I've killed filed a number of posters, continually add threads to
the filter for dumping in the trash. I've begged in the past that we set
up a moderated AFB, but even many that I hold in high regard nixed that
idea.

I'd like to offer up the suggestion once more that a moderated AFB be
started, the moderators/moderation could be shared by a small number to
share the work load, I for one would volunteer to do moderation. The
moderators could moderate by majority, but I'm talking minimal rules
here, not draconian measures, rules such as no profanity, no flame wars,
typical protocol such as stay on topic or mark clearly as off topic. I'd
hate to see the friendly discussion and off topic views stopped by
moderation,just put an end to obvious troll/flames wars, name calling,
back biting.

Aim me in the right direction and I'll do the work involved in starting
a moderated AFB! What harm could it do? AFB would still be here. the
moderated group would be open to the public, just like AFB.


--
Regards, Mike (Piedmont)

http://groups.msn.com/ThePracticalBa...ewwelcome.msnw

"Mike \"Piedmont\"" > wrote:
> Charlie wrote:
> > Once upon a time there was lots of good stuff happening here and I
> > thank ya for what I learned here.
> >
> > But now?
> >
> > Patooey!
> >
> > This newsgroup has become about as palatable as a full plate of cold
> > boiled ribs.
> >
> > I'll be back next spring to see if the maroons have settled down and/
> > or gone away.
> >
> > Ya'll have a great holiday season. :-)
> >
> I can't say that I don't blame you. the troll/s have taken over AFB real
> bad. I've killed filed a number of posters, continually add threads to
> the filter for dumping in the trash. I've begged in the past that we set
> up a moderated AFB, but even many that I hold in high regard nixed that
> idea.
>
> I'd like to offer up the suggestion once more that a moderated AFB be
> started, the moderators/moderation could be shared by a small number to
> share the work load, I for one would volunteer to do moderation. The
> moderators could moderate by majority, but I'm talking minimal rules
> here, not draconian measures, rules such as no profanity, no flame wars,
> typical protocol such as stay on topic or mark clearly as off topic. I'd
> hate to see the friendly discussion and off topic views stopped by
> moderation,just put an end to obvious troll/flames wars, name calling,
> back biting.
>
> Aim me in the right direction and I'll do the work involved in starting
> a moderated AFB! What harm could it do? AFB would still be here. the
> moderated group would be open to the public, just like AFB.

I like it as it is. I kf the assholes, adding to the list as necessary.

Bye, Charlie. Have a nice life!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

wrote:
> I like it as it is. I kf the assholes, adding to the list as
> necessary.
>
> Bye, Charlie. Have a nice life!

Hey Shithead! No cussing!

--
The High Honorable Reverend
Fosco Gamgee Wooaaa.... hahaa... Whitfurrows
and his 6" stoner


--Weddings performed for a nominal fee.
--Beer or magic shrooms accepted in lieu of cash payment
ROFL!

"F.G. Whitfurrows" > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I like it as it is. I kf the assholes, adding to the list as
> > necessary.
> >
> > Bye, Charlie. Have a nice life!
>
> Hey Shithead! No cussing!

FOAD, punk!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:15:53 -0500, "Mike \"Piedmont\""
> wrote:

>I'd like to offer up the suggestion once more that a moderated AFB be
>started, the moderators/moderation could be shared by a small number to
>share the work load, I for one would volunteer to do moderation. The
>moderators could moderate by majority, but I'm talking minimal rules
>here, not draconian measures, rules such as no profanity, no flame wars,
>typical protocol such as stay on topic or mark clearly as off topic. I'd
>hate to see the friendly discussion and off topic views stopped by
>moderation,just put an end to obvious troll/flames wars, name calling,
>back biting.

I know, I suspect, a bit more than most about moderating newsgroups,
as I've been part of the moderating team for a.s.s.m since 2000.

My opinion is that for a 'conversational' group like afb, moderating
isn't that great an idea.

Your 'no profanity' rule is off-putting to me--who defines? Is 'Dave
makes damn good Q' profanity and thus barred? How 'bout a simple
'damfino' in reply to a question?

I have no problem ignoring egregiously offtopic junk or flamewars,
etc. I have a killfilter available if needed.



>
>Aim me in the right direction and I'll do the work involved in starting
>a moderated AFB! What harm could it do? AFB would still be here. the
>moderated group would be open to the public, just like AFB.

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

Denny Wheeler wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:15:53 -0500, "Mike \"Piedmont\""
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I'd like to offer up the suggestion once more that a moderated AFB be
>>started, the moderators/moderation could be shared by a small number to
<snip>
>
> I know, I suspect, a bit more than most about moderating newsgroups,
> as I've been part of the moderating team for a.s.s.m since 2000.
>
> My opinion is that for a 'conversational' group like afb, moderating
> isn't that great an idea.
>
> Your 'no profanity' rule is off-putting to me--who defines? Is 'Dave
> makes damn good Q' profanity and thus barred? How 'bout a simple
> 'damfino' in reply to a question?
>
> I have no problem ignoring egregiously offtopic junk or flamewars,
> etc. I have a killfilter available if needed.

I doubt much if there would be a great response to a moderated group.
The thing that most would probably object to would be the delay of posts
and/or replies.

I don't use killfiles as a rule. It's very easy with Thunderbird to
simply press the "k" key and that thread is then ignored. You never know
when someone who had a bad day or something went on a tirade but may
post something interesting or valuable later. It's usually pretty easy
to tell from the thread subject.

Just a thought.


--
Steve

Never read the fine print. There ain't no way you're going to like it.

Steve Calvin wrote:
>
> Denny Wheeler wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:15:53 -0500, "Mike \"Piedmont\""
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd like to offer up the suggestion once more that a moderated AFB be
> >>started, the moderators/moderation could be shared by a small number to
> <snip>
> >
> > I know, I suspect, a bit more than most about moderating newsgroups,
> > as I've been part of the moderating team for a.s.s.m since 2000.
> >
> > My opinion is that for a 'conversational' group like afb, moderating
> > isn't that great an idea.
> >
> > Your 'no profanity' rule is off-putting to me--who defines? Is 'Dave
> > makes damn good Q' profanity and thus barred? How 'bout a simple
> > 'damfino' in reply to a question?
> >
> > I have no problem ignoring egregiously offtopic junk or flamewars,
> > etc. I have a killfilter available if needed.
>
> I doubt much if there would be a great response to a moderated group.
> The thing that most would probably object to would be the delay of posts
> and/or replies.
>
> I don't use killfiles as a rule. It's very easy with Thunderbird to
> simply press the "k" key and that thread is then ignored. You never know
> when someone who had a bad day or something went on a tirade but may
> post something interesting or valuable later. It's usually pretty easy
> to tell from the thread subject.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> --
> Steve
>
> Never read the fine print. There ain't no way you're going to like it.

I'm thinking the problem lately is not so much OT trolls, but a lack of
on topic content. When I first started following AFB it was a good deal
more active. Lately I seem to see only a few on topic posts per day.

Pete C.

Pete C. wrote:
>
> I'm thinking the problem lately is not so much OT trolls, but a lack of
> on topic content. When I first started following AFB it was a good deal
> more active. Lately I seem to see only a few on topic posts per day.
>
> Pete C.


No arguement with ya on that Pete. A lot of the "old timers" seem to
have vanished as well.

--
Steve

Never read the fine print. There ain't no way you're going to like it.

"Steve Calvin" > wrote in message
...
> Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking the problem lately is not so much OT trolls, but a lack of
> > on topic content. When I first started following AFB it was a good deal
> > more active. Lately I seem to see only a few on topic posts per day.
> >
> No arguement with ya on that Pete. A lot of the "old timers" seem to
> have vanished as well.
>

It IS less active. we had little in the way of newbie posts in the spring
and we've (so far) had few "how do I smoke a 20 pound Turkey on my 2 burner
gasser?" questions.

I suspect fewer and fewer are aware of usenet and discover this place via
Google where they can search old posts and information to their hearts
content and no need to interact. And really, if you do do those things,
reading and learning I mean, there isn't a whole hell of a lot left but
recipe sharing and the nuances to this and that. And then reading too many
KW/ CAL/ DK posts who's gonna come here for the company and ambiance?

But yeah, moderation of this group seems a bit of an overreaction and more
work than worthwhile.

Look around at most of the "soc" groups, the Jewish one is not too a-typical
to see what does require moderation.

Here's a cool tool to show the historical patterns:
http://netscan.research.microsoft.co....food.barbecue

***Dual posted in an effort to satisfy/offend everyone***


I suspect many of the "usual suspects" involved in the off-topic flame wars
here have no desire or interest in a moderated group. Rather, they seem to
enjoy engaging the trolls and chastising the newbies (and turning them into
even more trolls) more than they enjoy engaging in conversation about Q.
Essentially, they protest too much. I doubt you'll get much support from
the biggest offenders (or the most offended) here to preventing them from
engaging in this pastime. There just wouldn't be much, if anything for many
to comment on if all the "offenses" were to go away.


"Denny Wheeler" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:15:53 -0500, "Mike \"Piedmont\""
> > wrote:
>
>>I'd like to offer up the suggestion once more that a moderated AFB be
>>started, the moderators/moderation could be shared by a small number to
>>share the work load, I for one would volunteer to do moderation. The
>>moderators could moderate by majority, but I'm talking minimal rules
>>here, not draconian measures, rules such as no profanity, no flame wars,
>>typical protocol such as stay on topic or mark clearly as off topic. I'd
>>hate to see the friendly discussion and off topic views stopped by
>>moderation,just put an end to obvious troll/flames wars, name calling,
>>back biting.
>
> I know, I suspect, a bit more than most about moderating newsgroups,
> as I've been part of the moderating team for a.s.s.m since 2000.
>
> My opinion is that for a 'conversational' group like afb, moderating
> isn't that great an idea.
>
> Your 'no profanity' rule is off-putting to me--who defines? Is 'Dave
> makes damn good Q' profanity and thus barred? How 'bout a simple
> 'damfino' in reply to a question?
>
> I have no problem ignoring egregiously offtopic junk or flamewars,
> etc. I have a killfilter available if needed.
>
>
>
>>
>>Aim me in the right direction and I'll do the work involved in starting
>>a moderated AFB! What harm could it do? AFB would still be here. the
>>moderated group would be open to the public, just like AFB.
>
> --
> -denny-
> "Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth
> unannounced?"
>
> "It's come as you are, baby."
>
> -over the hedge

I suspect many of the "usual suspects" involved in the off-topic flame wars
here have no desire or interest in a moderated group. Rather, they seem to
enjoy engaging the trolls and chastising the newbies (and turning them into
even more trolls) more than they enjoy engaging in conversation about Q.
Essentially, they protest too much. I doubt you'll get much support from
the biggest offender (or the most offended) to preventing them from
engaging in this pastime. There just wouldn't be much, if anything for many
to comment on if all the "offenses" were to go away.

"CS" > wrote in message
...
> ***Dual posted in an effort to satisfy/offend everyone***
>
>
> I suspect many of the "usual suspects" involved in the off-topic flame
> wars here have no desire or interest in a moderated group. Rather, they
> seem to enjoy engaging the trolls and chastising the newbies (and turning
> them into even more trolls) more than they enjoy engaging in conversation
> about Q.

Sadly, this is very true. Most of the problem is a group of maybe four
people that cause 99% of the flames and nonsense. I've never use filters
before, but recently started. In some cases, a seemingly occasional profane
person would still contribute good information so I'd be tolerant of the OT
flames. At least a couple of these no longer contribute anything so in the
KF they go.

What really hurts the group is newbies and infrequent visitors that just
won't come back after a brief visit. The future of the group is being
jeopardized by the ranting of the pathetic few.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

EMOVETHIS wrote:
> "Mike \"Piedmont\"" > wrote:
>
> >I'd like to offer up the suggestion once more that a moderated AFB be
> >started, the moderators/moderation could be shared by a small number to
> >share the work load, I for one would volunteer to do moderation. The
> >moderators could moderate by majority, but I'm talking minimal rules
> >here, not draconian measures, rules such as no profanity, no flame wars,
> >typical protocol such as stay on topic or mark clearly as off topic. I'd
> >hate to see the friendly discussion and off topic views stopped by
> >moderation,just put an end to obvious troll/flames wars, name calling,
> >back biting.
>
> I know, I suspect, a bit more than most about moderating newsgroups,
> as I've been part of the moderating team for a.s.s.m since 2000.

And you guys do a great job of filtering the crap that appears on a.s.s!
>
> My opinion is that for a 'conversational' group like afb, moderating
> isn't that great an idea.

I agree. []
>
> I have no problem ignoring egregiously offtopic junk or flamewars,
> etc. I have a killfilter available if needed.
>
And I use mine!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

On 22 Oct 2005 20:56:04 GMT, wrote:

>> I know, I suspect, a bit more than most about moderating newsgroups,
>> as I've been part of the moderating team for a.s.s.m since 2000.
>
>And you guys do a great job of filtering the crap that appears on a.s.s!

Thank you. We have good tools and good people.

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:05:25 -0700, "Duwop" >
wrote:

>I suspect fewer and fewer are aware of usenet and discover this place via
>Google where they can search old posts and information to their hearts
>content and no need to interact.

I definitely agree with the first part of that. Usenet in general
seems to be somewhat in decline; it didn't help any that aol dropped
its usenet feed. Us old farts are becoming irrelevant. Or, at least
so the young ones think.

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

"Denny Wheeler" > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:05:25 -0700, "Duwop" >
> wrote:
>
>>I suspect fewer and fewer are aware of usenet and discover this place via
>>Google where they can search old posts and information to their hearts
>>content and no need to interact.
>
> I definitely agree with the first part of that. Usenet in general
> seems to be somewhat in decline; it didn't help any that aol dropped
> its usenet feed. Us old farts are becoming irrelevant. Or, at least
> so the young ones think.
>

Website boards own juo! Text only boards are dinosaurs.

Jack

Duwop wrote:
>
> "Steve Calvin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Pete C. wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm thinking the problem lately is not so much OT trolls, but a lack of
> > > on topic content. When I first started following AFB it was a good deal
> > > more active. Lately I seem to see only a few on topic posts per day.
> > >
> > No arguement with ya on that Pete. A lot of the "old timers" seem to
> > have vanished as well.
> >
>
> It IS less active. we had little in the way of newbie posts in the spring
> and we've (so far) had few "how do I smoke a 20 pound Turkey on my 2 burner
> gasser?" questions.
>
> I suspect fewer and fewer are aware of usenet and discover this place via
> Google where they can search old posts and information to their hearts
> content and no need to interact. And really, if you do do those things,
> reading and learning I mean, there isn't a whole hell of a lot left but
> recipe sharing and the nuances to this and that. And then reading too many
> KW/ CAL/ DK posts who's gonna come here for the company and ambiance?

Man, all you have to do is look at KevinS and your know the man has to
know good BBQ. <wink> Sure he has his faults, but just because he has a
God complex and lies under the pretense of trolling, he has a right to
be ****ed at DanK having to do the balls to do what Kevin threatens to
do to others, turn them in. As for me and Kevie, he just hasn't realized
I'm the one holding the stick with Twinkie bait on it.

For BBQ content, I did two butts this weekend, when was the last time
you did?

(considering all the complaints of OT posts here, funny how everyone
complaining knows the usual suspects by name. Almost as if they keep
following the threads. Hmm, weird.)

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "CS" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ***Dual posted in an effort to satisfy/offend everyone***
>>
>>
>> I suspect many of the "usual suspects" involved in the off-topic flame
>> wars here have no desire or interest in a moderated group. Rather, they
>> seem to enjoy engaging the trolls and chastising the newbies (and turning
>> them into even more trolls) more than they enjoy engaging in conversation
>> about Q.
>
> Sadly, this is very true. Most of the problem is a group of maybe four
> people that cause 99% of the flames and nonsense. I've never use filters
> before, but recently started. In some cases, a seemingly occasional profane
> person would still contribute good information so I'd be tolerant of the OT
> flames. At least a couple of these no longer contribute anything so in the
> KF they go.
>
> What really hurts the group is newbies and infrequent visitors that just
> won't come back after a brief visit. The future of the group is being
> jeopardized by the ranting of the pathetic few.

This is also how I feel, that the low volume of, on topic and lack of
newbies is they are terrified to uncloak! And yes, a few have tried
their very best to destroy an unmoderated AFB and it seems they are
succeeding. Remember the last time I mentioned the newbies were afraid
to join in, and one did, to say that was the reason they waited until I
said something about blowing off the agitators. As far as bad language,
I really meant obscenities relating to sexual content, an occasional
common swear word is not an issue with me. No Fxxx this, M-Fxxxer that,
I meant that this is a public place and I would be highly taken aback if
someones youngster was subjected to some of the foul mouth that is
written by a few. Would anyone here feel comfortable letting your
grandkids or children read here on AFB at times! I am not a prude, I'm
an ex-sailor and factory worker and have cursed with the best of them,
but I have the sense to know where it is not appropriate.
--
Regards, Mike (Piedmont)

http://groups.msn.com/ThePracticalBa...ewwelcome.msnw

cl wrote:
> Duwop wrote:
> >
> > "Steve Calvin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Pete C. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm thinking the problem lately is not so much OT trolls, but a lack of
> > > > on topic content. When I first started following AFB it was a good deal
> > > > more active. Lately I seem to see only a few on topic posts per day.
> > > >
> > > No arguement with ya on that Pete. A lot of the "old timers" seem to
> > > have vanished as well.
> > >
> >
> > It IS less active. we had little in the way of newbie posts in the spring
> > and we've (so far) had few "how do I smoke a 20 pound Turkey on my 2 burner
> > gasser?" questions.
> >
> > I suspect fewer and fewer are aware of usenet and discover this place via
> > Google where they can search old posts and information to their hearts
> > content and no need to interact. And really, if you do do those things,
> > reading and learning I mean, there isn't a whole hell of a lot left but
> > recipe sharing and the nuances to this and that. And then reading too many
> > KW/ CAL/ DK posts who's gonna come here for the company and ambiance?
>
> Man, all you have to do is look at KevinS and your know the man has to
> know good BBQ. <wink> Sure he has his faults, but just because he has a
> God complex and lies under the pretense of trolling, he has a right to
> be ****ed at DanK having to do the balls to do what Kevin threatens to
> do to others, turn them in. As for me and Kevie, he just hasn't realized
> I'm the one holding the stick with Twinkie bait on it.
>
> For BBQ content, I did two butts this weekend, when was the last time
> you did?
>
> (considering all the complaints of OT posts here, funny how everyone
> complaining knows the usual suspects by name. Almost as if they keep
> following the threads. Hmm, weird.)

As a lurker, who drops in occasionally, it seems to me that there is
only so much to be said about BBQ. If someone has a question, and asks
it here it will be answered. The newbie Q'r will get two or three
competing answers with good information before the thread breaks down.
If the newbie still has followup questions they too will get answered.

AFB works.

Now, when there are no questions to answer what's the regulars to do?
They have swapped storys and recipes and jokes for years. They have
groups and cliques, (I always par boil my ribs with the membrane on) vs
(That's not Q, that's crap), (Top Posters) vs (Bottom Posters) vs
(Interspaced Posters).

Sooner or later, the same people do the same things over and over, the
usual suspects go at each other. Although, if some on topic questions,
or just on topic info appears in in the group the fights subside until
the 'on topic' intrusion is handled and the thread wanders off in a new
direction with the origional topic long forgotten. Then it is back to
the feuds and BS. That is the way it works, that is the way it is
supposed to work. This is an unmoderated News Group on Usenet. It has
charactor.

I DO agree with someone who wished that the use of profanity and
socially unacceptable words would be eliminated. I have seen words
here that I would not want to have to explain to an 8 year old great
granddaughter sitting beside me as I check AFB for ideas and
entertainment. But, to do this, AFB would have to be moderated, which
would kill the group. So just don't let the little ones near the group
until you yourself have moderated it. That gives you the best of both
worlds.

Those of you who want moderation have kill filters and the delete key,
use them, moderate until your heart is content with the content. The
rest of us that like the group 'as is' want you to censor your AFB, but
leave our AFB alone. Allow each of us to be out own moderator.

I did a pork shoulder this weekend. Skin on and the last half hour or
so I took the temp up to 450 -500 to bubble the skin and make it
crunchy. The bark gets very crunchy too. I like the crunch to offset
the rest, while the missus likes just the tender pulled pork. Slaw,
fried taters, pinto beans, dill pickles, BBQ pork with sauce on the
side,she likes sweet, I like vinegar, and pecan pie. Life is good.

Got to go, I think I hear a sandwitch calling me.

Ed

"Yonderboy" > wrote:
>[ . . . ]
> . . . Allow each of us to be our own moderator.
>
> I did a pork shoulder this weekend. Skin on and the last half hour or
> so I took the temp up to 450 -500 to bubble the skin and make it
> crunchy. The bark gets very crunchy too. I like the crunch to offset
> the rest, while the missus likes just the tender pulled pork. Slaw,
> fried taters, pinto beans, dill pickles, BBQ pork with sauce on the
> side,she likes sweet, I like vinegar, and pecan pie. Life is good.
>
> Got to go, I think I hear a sandwitch calling me.
>
Tasteful post, ending with what sounds like a very tasty meal!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

Denny Wheeler wrote:


> My opinion is that for a 'conversational' group like afb, moderating
> isn't that great an idea.

I tend to agree you. For most people using newsgroups, the extra delay
in posting to a moderated group tends to be disconcerting.

> Your 'no profanity' rule is off-putting to me--who defines? Is 'Dave
> makes damn good Q' profanity and thus barred? How 'bout a simple
> 'damfino' in reply to a question?

And a zillion other questions about how off-topic is too off-topic and
how nasty is too nasty and all that. You also have to be very wary of
"old boys network", where friends of the moderators get away with stuff
that newbies don't.

> I have no problem ignoring egregiously offtopic junk or flamewars,
> etc. I have a killfilter available if needed.

I've found that putting about half a dozen people in the killfile has
virtually eliminated the flame traffic. Unfortunately, that's only a
partial solution. For any usenet group to thrive, it must constantly
attract new members, as inevitably some of the old ones cut back or
stop posting altogether. Having a hostile group full of flames is
detrimental to that goal, especially as (like it or not) many new
people are using Google to access usenet and that has no filtering
capability.

As far as the lack of topical postings, we can certainly try to post
more, but I don't know if that will serve to attract new blood or not.
Can't hurt to try.


Brian

Default User wrote:

> I've found that putting about half a dozen people in the killfile has
> virtually eliminated the flame traffic.

Considering the amount of posters, I bet you don't see much content
here. Oh yeah, you have me kf'd

Yonderboy wrote:
>
> As a lurker, who drops in occasionally, it seems to me that there is
> only so much to be said about BBQ. If someone has a question, and asks
> it here it will be answered. The newbie Q'r will get two or three
> competing answers with good information before the thread breaks down.
> If the newbie still has followup questions they too will get answered.
>
> AFB works.
>

I couldn't agree more. There is no need for a moderator or a new web
based group. All you need is this group, the FAQ and the Virtual Weber
Bullet. And some beer. And some meat. And a fire. Also, I'd miss my
dogs so they're included too.

Cam

Cam wrote:
>
> Yonderboy wrote:
> >
> > As a lurker, who drops in occasionally, it seems to me that there is
> > only so much to be said about BBQ. If someone has a question, and asks
> > it here it will be answered. The newbie Q'r will get two or three
> > competing answers with good information before the thread breaks down.
> > If the newbie still has followup questions they too will get answered.
> >
> > AFB works.
> >
>
> I couldn't agree more. There is no need for a moderator or a new web
> based group. All you need is this group, the FAQ and the Virtual Weber
> Bullet. And some beer. And some meat. And a fire. Also, I'd miss my
> dogs so they're included too.
>
> Cam


Even though I give them a hard time here, the Kamado site is filled with
a wealth of information. Same goes with Primo and BGE.

"Yonderboy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> As a lurker, who drops in occasionally, it seems to me that there is
> only so much to be said about BBQ. If someone has a question, and asks
> it here it will be answered. The newbie Q'r will get two or three
> competing answers with good information before the thread breaks down.
> If the newbie still has followup questions they too will get answered.
>

<teh snippage>

Thanks for de-lurking and post more often, please.

Jack

"Cam" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Yonderboy wrote:
>>
>> As a lurker, who drops in occasionally, it seems to me that there is
>> only so much to be said about BBQ. If someone has a question, and asks
>> it here it will be answered. The newbie Q'r will get two or three
>> competing answers with good information before the thread breaks down.
>> If the newbie still has followup questions they too will get answered.
>>
>> AFB works.
>>
>
> I couldn't agree more. There is no need for a moderator or a new web
> based group. All you need is this group, the FAQ and the Virtual Weber
> Bullet. And some beer. And some meat. And a fire. Also, I'd miss my
> dogs so they're included too.
>
> Cam
>

Some hot chicks would be cool, too.

Jack

Jack Schidt® wrote:
> "Cam" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Yonderboy wrote:
> >>
> >> As a lurker, who drops in occasionally, it seems to me that there is
> >> only so much to be said about BBQ. If someone has a question, and asks
> >> it here it will be answered. The newbie Q'r will get two or three
> >> competing answers with good information before the thread breaks down.
> >> If the newbie still has followup questions they too will get answered.
> >>
> >> AFB works.
> >>
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. There is no need for a moderator or a new web
> > based group. All you need is this group, the FAQ and the Virtual Weber
> > Bullet. And some beer. And some meat. And a fire. Also, I'd miss my
> > dogs so they're included too.
> >
> > Cam
> >
>
> Some hot chicks would be cool, too.
>
> Jack

And some tunes.

Cam

Jack Schidt® wrote:
> "Cam" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Yonderboy wrote:
>>
>>>As a lurker, who drops in occasionally, it seems to me that there is
>>>only so much to be said about BBQ. If someone has a question, and asks
>>>it here it will be answered. The newbie Q'r will get two or three
>>>competing answers with good information before the thread breaks down.
>>>If the newbie still has followup questions they too will get answered.
>>>
>>>AFB works.
>>>
>>
>>I couldn't agree more. There is no need for a moderator or a new web
>>based group. All you need is this group, the FAQ and the Virtual Weber
>>Bullet. And some beer. And some meat. And a fire. Also, I'd miss my
>>dogs so they're included too.
>>
>>Cam
>>
>
>
> Some hot chicks would be cool, too.
>
> Jack
>
>
AWLLLLRIIIGHT!!! PARTY at Jacks place! ;-D

--
Steve

Never read the fine print. There ain't no way you're going to like it.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:18:44 -0500, "Mike \"Piedmont\""
> wrote:

>As far as bad language,
>I really meant obscenities relating to sexual content, an occasional
>common swear word is not an issue with me. No Fxxx this, M-Fxxxer that,
>I meant that this is a public place and I would be highly taken aback if
>someones youngster was subjected to some of the foul mouth that is
>written by a few. Would anyone here feel comfortable letting your
>grandkids or children read here on AFB at times!

If you're letting your grandkids or children read unmoderated Usenet,
then you are a negligent grandparent or parent. Believe it or not,
there are large parts of the world that are not for children, and many
people who are unswayed by the plaintive cry of "Won't somebody think
of the children?"