On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:31:25 +0000, Homer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Saturday 01 November 2008 16:52 : \____
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> ____/ Tattoo Vampire on Saturday 01 November 2008 14:33 : \____
>>>>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:58:21 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>>> Perhaps it is time to start comp.os.linux.advocacy.moderated group?
>>>>>> Your thoughts?
>>>>> I think you're right. Assholes like Queeg and Splat make it
>>>>> miserable for the real users here.
>>>> I'm in favour. Let's do this. :-)
>>> A moderated advocacy group? Really?
>> Counter arguments are one thing. Personal attacks, which were directed
>> at you as well, are another.
> Establishing the rules for moderation, and not crossing the line due to
> personal conflicts is a difficult proposition though. My opinion of who
> is or isn't a Troll may be different to others. People sometimes have a
> disagreement and insult each other; have bad days; post OT funnies, and
> so on. Should they be banned?
> There are some obvious Trolls with absolutely nothing to contribute ...
> such as DooFuS; Dopez; Hardon; Scott "shitstick Nudds" Douglas; flatty;
> and creepy stalkers like Smith, but I'm still on the fence with Fuddie,
> who does (or used to) at least try to be reasonable. Recently, he seems
> to have gone completely off the deep end though - his weaseling FUD has
> become ridiculous, as he sprints to defend the Vole from every possible
> criticism in the most desperate and pathetic way. It's embarrassing. It
> is almost as pathetic as watching Jeff Waugh come running to his pal de
> Icaza's rescue every time someone points out what a Microsoft fanboy he
> is (heck, de Icaza admits that himself).
> Then again, some people seem to enjoy jousting with the Trolls. As much
> as I don't want to read a single putrid word it, should we deny others?
> Moderation in a technical group is one thing, but to moderate a group
> whose entire purpose is debate is rather silly, IMHO.
> And remember, it is only because the Trolls/shills/kooks get to let off
> steam in COLA that the other Linux groups don't bear the brunt of their
> frustration. Housing the Trolls is COLA's unwritten responsibility.
> Personally, I'd love to see the Trolls FOAD in a ditch somewhere, but I
> don't own COLA, so it's not up to me, and for the sake of others whom I
> don't speak for - I think we should just leave things as they are.
I'm with Homer on this one.
Personally I like hassling the Trolls, it's the main reason I joined COLA
in the first place. It was no different in 1996 when I started *reading*
COLA. It's in my nature, I like confrontations.
I didn't *dare* write one single post for 12 months when I joined because
in those days Alexander Viro was guarding the bridge to COLA and he could
deliver such heavy duty kicks to Troll arse, that hardly any Cola Trolls
had any arses left...
They were just grist for his mill. He chewed them up, spat he them out
and laughed heartily afterwards.
Anyone is free to start a moderated newsgroup for Linux advocates *only*,
but leave the Trolls here on COLA, otherwise they will just pester other
Linux newsgroups (more then they do now) just as Homer says.
If anyone feels the Troll pressure is too great, just take a holiday for
a while, COLA and Linux will survive just fine while you're gone.
In any event, Roy S is doing a great job, his news posts are just
drowning out the Trolls, and the quality of Linux Advocates here has
never been better in my opinion. You Linux advocates just RULE!
I think COLA is shiny and in tip top condition.
And finally, the Wintrolls won't be here forever because Microsoft won't
be here forever. I can't say the same for the Trolls, who in general are
an antisocial lot. The Trolls are a blight everywhere.
I think we should just leave things as they are, that's my one person
Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997