scouts-l Mail Archive for November of 1999: Being censored or moderated
Rik Bergethon (rberg@RMI.NET
Sat Nov 27 1999 - 09:16:46 CST
Mike, et al: Your response to Ed Dunn was very nice and really kind of
touching. A while back you explained to me why Ed seemed to be so
bitter towards scouting. (Ed: hang in there. We have had two DE's
leave scouting to work for Social service agencies dealing with youth in
the area. Both are making more money now with the County or state than
they did with scouting.)
But Mike, I can see why Ed may be left out or is on moderated status.
Many of his replies are very bitter to the person and to scouting.
While this forum is constantly trying to keep information positive and
important, I find Ed's postings to be rather negative and very bitter to
the poster and the topic and sometimes very trivial in content. I even
dropped off this list for a while after Ed sent me a nasty flame, just
for voicing my opinion. It was no more "off the wall" than his!
The second point of "monitoring": after I posted something that must
have dissed somebody, I was put on "moderated" status for about two
months, where every post I sent in was "submitted to the list moderator
for posting." I currently am trying to help a guy in New Jersey (I think
I sent his problem on to you for your expertise) who also is on
"moderated" status and can't get many postings or questions on the list.
So Jon or somebody down there in Texas is doing something to this list.
Remember when I complained about the length of somebody's posts? I was
complaining to the group moderator, who sent it on to that person. I
was kept off the list for three months! I wrote to the moderator and
promised to behave myself and was let back on.
I do have one burning question: The banana milk shake and the coffee
from Dairy Queen. The coffee is for Jessie and the shake for you,
As to the main point of this forum, let's post good questions, there
are no dumb questions, and keep the responses positive. Right?