GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-05 > 0990685159


From: "Rosie Bevan" <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Trivial Pursuits
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 18:19:19 +1200
References: <94.1491f1cd.283dd84d@aol.com> <3B0C94D6.78E75211@interfold.com>


I have been a happy member since 1999 and would hate to see any changes to
GEN-MEDIEVAL. As Todd says, if you don't like it, you have options.
Personally, although I don't always agree with Todd, I think he and Don do a
damn good job of what must be a largely thankless task and deserve a lot
more than they are getting here.

Cheers

Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Trivial Pursuits


> wrote:
> >
> > In response to the message sent by Todd Farmarie dated 5/23/2001, I
respond
>
> You might want to check that spelling, which is about 150 years
> out of date.
>
> > as follows:
> >
> > Todd wrote:
> >
> > "This too has already been explained (in February). When this list was
taken
> > on by RootsWeb, from AppleSoft, what was set forth to me was "here is
the
> > page you use to manage the list". That's it. While there may or may
not
> > have been assumptions on either side, none were "set forth".
> >
> > That may have been true at the time, but that is not the current
requirement
> > of listowners at the present time.
>
> If they don't like the way we are running this, then they can go
> to the trouble of telling us. As has been said before (and will
> be said again, until it sinks in) the gatewayed lists are special
> cases.
>
> > Also, what assumptions is Todd referring to?
>
> Any assumptions that may or may not have been made by the parties
> in question. Obviously, if those assumptions were not set forth,
> I don't know what they might have been.
>
> > I find it very interesting that Todd continues to keep this thread going
by
> > stating "Then you stand corrected."
>
> I said it bcause I was correcting your misstatements, by which
> you stated that you would stand.
>
> > Let me try a different approach.
>
> Sure, why not - the other one doesn't seem to be working.
>
> > The word MODERATE is defined as "to preside over or act as chairman
of..."
> >
> > The word MODERATOR is defined as "one who presides over an assembly,
meeting,
> > or discussion ..."
>
> That may be what Webster has to say, but in internet terms,
> moderate and moderator have more specific definitions, refering
> to the approval (or disapproval) of every single individual post
> submitted to a discussion group.
>
> > I do not think that there is much difference between a MODERATOR or
> > LISTOWNER.
>
> You are certainly entitled to think that, but your philosophical
> contemplation is of little relevance to the reality of the
> situation. There is a very specific technical difference between
> soc.gen.african/GEN-AFRICAN a moderated list/group, and
> soc.gen.med/GEN-MED, an unmoderated group.
>
> > If this list in an UNMODERATED LIST, then perhaps Todd and Don
> > are abdicating their ownership of the list.
>
> Ownership of a list (actually, RootsWeb has abandonned this term,
> or at least had prior to their acquisition, in favor of, what was
> it? List Manager?) involves, primarily, processing the error
> messages, subscription requests, unsubscription requests, Mime
> messages, SPAM messages, and general complaints, requests, and
> questions from all comers. Had we abdicated, we certainly would
> have discontinued to monitor this crap, and the whole list would
> perhaps have crashed by now. Unless some miracle happened and
> the problem fixed itself, Don has probably already had to handle
> 1200 error message, just this month. Does this sound like an
> abdication to you?
>
> As I have suggested to others, if you don't like the job we are
> doing, either start your own list, or go to rootsweb and try to
> get us removed (both of us, because Don won't let me get away
> unless he can quit too). I could certainly use the extra time
> and don't need the second email account largely dedicated to
> managing this list on my months.
>
> > I also do not think that any listowner can arbitrarily state that "this
is an
> > unmoderated list" that is contrary to the requirements of ROOTSWEB.COM.
>
> This is an unmoderated list - you see, I can. As has been
> explained, whatever RootsWeb has to say about non-gated lists is
> not directly applicable to gated ones, because we can control
> absolutely NOTHING coming across that gateway. That situation
> has not changed, in spite of specific requests on our part. It
> is simply beyond our ability to control.
>
> > It is interesting to me, that Todd continues to fan the flames that he
should
> > be controlling.
>
> So far, you and I are having a discussion here. If I am fanning
> flames, I must ask why you are flaming? How am I to control
> these flames of yours, other than to irresponsibly give in to
> your imprecise understanding of the situation? Simply put, (and
> to quote a terminated NFL coach) you think you know, but you
> really don't know. I have tried to explain it to you, but you
> are fighting that explanation. I can lead a horse to water . . .
>
> You have four choices. 1) leave the list and/or start your own
> list. 2) try to have Don and I removed (rootsweb has, in the
> past, proved unresponsive to such approaches, suggesting that the
> complaintant follow #1, although if enough people complain, they
> may decide to dump the list all together). 3) try to get
> soc.gen.med moderated, so that there can be effective moderation
> of GEN-MED (without the support of a few specific members of this
> group, including at least one of the current Listowners, you will
> almost certainly fail catastrophically in news.groups). 4) deal
> with it.
>
> taf
>

This thread: