Taking s.m.v. from UNmoderated to moderated?

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Neil Brooks, Sep 19, 2005.

  1. Neil Brooks

    Neil Brooks Guest

    http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/usenet/newgroup/how-submit.faq

    This wouldn't deny anybody their right to speak freely. They might
    simply have to find alternate forums to voice opinions not in keeping
    with a clearly prescribed s.m.v.moderated charter.

    Obviously, there would be much to work out, but ...

    Thoughts??
     
    Neil Brooks, Sep 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Moderated usenet groups tend to die quick deaths. Generally, they're not a
    great idea.
     
    Scott Seidman, Sep 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Agreed. The intelligent people on the group simply have to resolve to
    ignore the trolls. Tough to do when they get as outrageous as otis,
    gert, yan, et alia.

    w.stacy, o.d.
     
    William Stacy, Sep 19, 2005
    #3
  4. Moderated usenet groups tend to die quick deaths. Generally, they're
    William, just learn how to use your filter. I'll try not to change my
    name just for you!
     
    Georgeous Gertrude, Sep 19, 2005
    #4

  5. Never use them. Might miss something important. Besides, I'd also miss
    a good laugh now and then...

    w.stacy, o.d.
     
    William Stacy, Sep 19, 2005
    #5
  6. Neil Brooks

    Charles Guest

    You can't take s.m.v. from unmoderated to moderated. Since the date of
    that link you posted that possibility, moderating an existing newsgroup
    has been suspended. What you can do is create a new newsgroup that is
    moderated while leaving s.m.v., in place as is, unmoderated.
     
    Charles, Sep 20, 2005
    #6
  7. Neil Brooks

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear G. Gertrude,

    The real issue is who is going to "moderate" it.
    Neil Brooks? That's a hoot.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Sep 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Neil Brooks

    Howard D. Guest

    Moderated usenet groups tend to die quick deaths. Generally,
    Naw.....I promise to never say anything important! LOL. But I'll try and
    keep you entertained. That's the least I can do!
     
    Howard D., Sep 20, 2005
    #8
  9. Neil Brooks

    otisbrown Guest

    I would vote that Neil Brooks take an "action item"
    to set up a moderated s.m.v.

    As soon as he does that, those interested in
    a censored s.m.v, or call it c.s.m.v.

    I also vote that Dr. Neil Books lead as the
    censor of that new group. When he does
    this he can tell everyone what they should
    think -- and what are "right thoughts" about
    the dynamic behavior of the natural eye,
    and what are "wrong thoughts" about the
    eye's natural behavior.

    Just remember, Neil promises that he
    does not wish to limit the scientific
    exchage of new concepts related
    to the natural eye's behavior.

    He just wishes to have you "believe"
    in the manner that he "believes".


    And further -- it is for your own good.

    After all, respect for the natural eye,
    and scientific analysis of the same are "dangerous"
    ideas. Neil needs to go back to the "Hobbit".

    Enjoy my friends,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Sep 20, 2005
    #9
  10. Neil Brooks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    "New concepts," indeed.

    I will vote if Neil promises to keep the discussion germane to the
    issues, and not to drag us back into the refuse heap of discarded,
    outdated, disproven ideas which Otis somehow thinks represent the
    cutting edge of myopia research and prevention.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Sep 20, 2005
    #10
  11. Neil Brooks

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I'm not a doctor. I've said that countless times. You're really
    losing it, aren't you.
    Not quite. Just want to share knowledge on a sci.* board that
    represents the best information currently available that has been
    proven via the scientific method.

    How much clearer can I make that?

    IF a forum like this went moderated, there would always be lots and
    lots of alternate venues for your cerebral emesis.
    Ask our pilot friend about the unforseen consequences of listening to
    you. I think he'd agree with this last statement of yours.
    And you, kind Sir, need to go back to the rest home. They must be
    worried by now.
     
    Neil Brooks, Sep 20, 2005
    #11
  12. Otis, you haven't explained what you meant by "clearing".
    Is it another term for visual improvement?
     
    Georgeous Gertrude, Sep 21, 2005
    #12
  13. Neil Brooks

    The Real Bev Guest

    You don't want to take an unmoderated group moderated. More trouble and not
    worth it. If you absolutely must, create a new moderated group --
    s.m.v.moderated. I think this is a bad idea.

    The BIG problem is finding a willing injection point for the moderator(s).
    Having participated in the successful creation of a moderated newsgroup, I
    have to tell you that it takes way more time and effort than it's worth.

    (1) We didn't have a trusted person to explain the procedures -- discussions,
    voting, who HAS to approve, etc. -- and ended up doing a lot of unnecessary
    arguing with irrelevant people who apparently live to make life interesting
    for others.

    (2) After the group was established, it's still rarely used -- most people use
    the original group.

    (3) The motivation is important. Ours was avoidance of a few posters who
    swamped the group with crap and turned in other posters to their employers,
    coupled with responses from people who were incapable of NOT responding (I was
    one for a while, but I grew up!). The loons seem to have stopped posting for
    the most part (surmises about jail time, etc.), but traffic on the moderated
    group picks up when they come back to the unmoderated group. Even so, it's
    never significant.

    (4) You have to have a technically sophisticated person set up the moderation
    system. Not easy and may take months depending on resources. Propagation is
    slow and some newsfeeds will still not carry it even years later.

    (5) It's not that big a deal for the moderator to check in a few times a day,
    and you can always whitelist everybody who is likely to make approved posts,
    but it still offers a much-less-spontaneous experience for the posters.

    (6) Otis, Gatti et al. are NOT worth going through the trouble. Trust me on
    this, you'll be glad you did.

    --
    Cheers,
    Bev
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "Screw the end users. If they want good software,
    let them write it themselves." -- Anon.
     
    The Real Bev, Sep 21, 2005
    #13
  14. Neil Brooks

    Dan Abel Guest


    Sadly enough, I have to agree with Bev here, for all the reasons she
    listed. I subscribe to a group, and there were some obnoxious people
    and a lot of spam. A very trusted and responsible person set up a
    moderated group with almost the same name (just added .moderated to the
    end of the name) and the very same purposes. It was nothing but
    problems, and was seldom used. The news people have since wiped out
    most of the obnoxious spam on all groups, and it's just easier to ignore
    (or laugh at) the obnoxious people. I'm not even subscribed to the
    moderated group any more.

    I strongly recommend that no one try to set up a
    sci.med.vision.moderated group, at least not with the goal of setting up
    something functional. There are a whole lot of computer-related things
    that aren't recommended, and that people do anyway. I say more power to
    them, as long as they realize that it is strictly a training experience.
     
    Dan Abel, Sep 21, 2005
    #14
  15. Neil Brooks

    LarryDoc Guest

    I'll likewise agree that it's not a good idea.

    I would, though, like to discuss a plan of action to attempt to get rid
    of Otis and his crap. It will soon be three years of his mindless
    postings.

    My suggestion of ignoring him except to post a single reply to enlighten
    unsuspecting visitors that his posts are worthless drivel did not seem
    to work. Some of us thought there was some value in trying to present
    scientific and rational discussion to someone who is completely
    irrational with an agenda. Others seems to enjoy playing with the troll.

    Suggestions?

    --LB
     
    LarryDoc, Sep 21, 2005
    #15
  16. Neil Brooks

    Dan Abel Guest

    I disagree. I think that it's working. I think many of us are
    responding less to Otis knowing that there is a weekly disclaimer. No
    plan is going to work completely, but just cutting down is helpful.

    I think that it is worthwhile to warn certain new visitors. I cringe
    every time I read a post from a new person thanking Otis for his
    wonderful advice, and they are going to run right out and try it out.
     
    Dan Abel, Sep 21, 2005
    #16
  17. Neil Brooks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    That is/was a good plan until one of his minions and asks a seemingly
    innocuous question or makes a statement. Myopia
    causes/cures/prevention topics are indeed fair game for this NG.
    Unfortunately, and despite attempts to broaden the discussion to the
    more cutting edge ideas and research, Otis and his minions come along
    and drag us all the way back to the 1970's and earlier if you include
    Bates.

    I think Neil Brooks does a great job of responding to Otis, and I want
    to be the first to nominate him as our "official Otis first responder,"
    only if he agrees not to sleep on the job.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Sep 21, 2005
    #17
  18. Neil Brooks

    George Guest

    Didn't Pogo once say "We have met the enemy and it is us." If you people
    would stop responding to "junk" postings many of the problems would go
    away. It takes a lot of self restraint, which sorry to say some of you
    don't have. Remember the fellow who posted here a few weeks ago on wide
    screen TV and burning his retinas with lasers? He got a bunch of
    replies... further feeding his warped ego.

    It doesn't always work, but ignoring the troll is the best policy. Just
    give them a big P L O N K!! and forget about them.

    George
     
    George, Sep 21, 2005
    #18
  19. Neil Brooks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Wise advice...but, then the discussion of myopia prevention, causes,
    etc. is indeed fair game for this NG. Anybody can post a seemingly
    innocuous question, only to reveal themselves as a trojan horse later
    on, as Otis' minions/robots frequently do.

    I suggest nominating Neil Brooks to deal with Otis. He is very
    effective at it. Otis isn't a doctor, and neither is Neil. The rest
    of us can take a sabbatical.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Sep 21, 2005
    #19
  20. Neil Brooks

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Larry,

    Subject: Your majority opinion, and the "second opinion".

    If I were looking for information concerning prevention
    for my child (say at 20/40) I would probably log
    on here.

    What I would find would be that the "second opinion"
    is advocated by a number of ODs like Steve Leung OD.

    I could then go to:

    www.chinamyopia.org

    and get more details.

    Bev is now posting a "caution" about these details
    and a mother looking for a prevetive alternative
    could find it in Bev's posting.

    There are no easy answers concerning
    true-prevention, but a mother should
    be presented with a choice in the matter -- even
    though she MIGHT find "preventive" work
    difficult for her child. A "choice" in the
    matter is better than no choice at all.

    I would have no problem paying a professional
    for this information. You could send the person to
    a number of web sites concerning this issue.

    If the child is at 20/40 -- why would there
    be a "rush" to get the child into a strong
    minus lens. 20/40 is indeed functional
    vision -- since you can fly a plane
    at that level.

    Vision changes only slightly in 6 months.

    I would seem prudent for the parent to
    take the time (6 months) to review ALL THESE ISSUES.

    I am certain that SOME parents will take that time.

    Others will say, just us the minus -- and that
    would be the end of that.

    In either case -- you the parents would respect you
    for INFORMING them. You could of course
    express your displeasure of the prevetive method,
    and they MIGHT then got to a behavioral optometrist
    who WOULD help them with prevention -- but
    that is part of being a "professional".

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Sep 21, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.