|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
ESA Funding question
On 31 Jul 2003 01:45:18 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Derek Lyons wrote: You are uninterested in having a discussion, rather your main aim is to justify a bias, by lies, misleading statements, evasions, and deliberate misunderstanding of basic English. Where have you been the last few weeks, Derek? We've missed you. :-) And notice, *I* didn't even rise to the bait this time. Of course, I've got my blog to keep my juices pumping these days... -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
ESA Funding question
I thought this is a moderated sci.space newsgroup.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
ESA Funding question
"C. Heise" wrote ...
I thought this is a moderated sci.space newsgroup. It is. However it operates on a dual 'hand moderation' / 'white list' basis. The original post http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1c...g .google.com was fair enough for a moderated group. http://www.google.com/groups?selm=r9...vf%404 ax.com was (IMO) OK, but inviting trouble. Most of the 30-odd posts following on from that should probably (IMO) have been better off blocked as off-topic and conducive to a long and 'flamable' thread. However it is likely that most of the participants were white-listed, and while off-topic the posts probably weren't such as to make it clear that the poster should be removed from the white list (c.f. "Personal attacks, abusive content, or material that is inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate for example, may result in an approved poster being removed from the whitelist." ) Unfortunately s.p.moderated hasn't exactly flourished - despite plenty of events in other space groups that would suggest it's needed. People would (apparently) rather have their post seen in 5 minutes on an un-moderated group irregardless* of what rubbish is also posted alongside it than wait for it to filter through the moderation system. * I say 'Hah!' to you. Mr. Standard English. :-P |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
ESA Funding question
"News Admin" wrote in message ...
*ahem* "Paul Blay" wrote in message ... Thank-you-very-much. Somewhere between my computer (going out) and arrival in newsgroup my identification went "bye-bye". "C. Heise" wrote ... I thought this is a moderated sci.space newsgroup. It is. However it operates on a dual 'hand moderation' / 'white list' basis. The original post http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1c...g .google.com was fair enough for a moderated group. http://www.google.com/groups?selm=r9...vf%404 ax.com was (IMO) OK, but inviting trouble. Most of the 30-odd posts following on from that should probably (IMO) have been better off blocked as off-topic and conducive to a long and 'flamable' thread. However it is likely that most of the participants were white-listed, and while off-topic the posts probably weren't such as to make it clear that the poster should be removed from the white list (c.f. "Personal attacks, abusive content, or material that is inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate for example, may result in an approved poster being removed from the whitelist." ) Unfortunately s.p.moderated hasn't exactly flourished - despite plenty of events in other space groups that would suggest it's needed. People would (apparently) rather have their post seen in 5 minutes on an un-moderated group irregardless* of what rubbish is also posted alongside it than wait for it to filter through the moderation system. * I say 'Hah!' to you. Mr. Standard English. :-P |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|