1997-01-20 - Re: Monitoring the monitors [Was: Gilmore and Sandfart suck

Header Data

From: Ross Wright <rwright@adnetsol.com>
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Message Hash: 560b26c46e6c41416bd33a786a580c802ad60072ce72d531847896ffdd40ee63
Message ID: <199701201611.IAA12370@toad.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-20 16:11:51 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:11:51 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Ross Wright <rwright@adnetsol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:11:51 -0800 (PST)
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Monitoring the monitors [Was: Gilmore and Sandfart suck
Message-ID: <199701201611.IAA12370@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On or About 19 Jan 97 at 17:37, Dale Thorn wrote:

> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.  We already get the censored stuff
> on the alleged-to-be "unedited" list, so by looking at the censored
> list only, we can do the subtraction more reliably than Sandfort.
> 
> Just the censored list is needed, not the cut-out stuff, as far as I
> know.

I disagree.  Or I don't quite understand what you are saying.  I
want to see the moderated list and I want to see what was removed.

So since I was automatically given the Moderated List, I just put in 
a subscription, under a different address, so I can easily see what was 
removed.  Of the three lists that now exist: unedited, edited, and 
removed posts, I would chose to remove the unedited version so that I 
can keep my eye on what the moderators decide I should not see.  That 
gives me an insight into what they think.  

Ross

=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ross Wright
King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services
http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia
Voice: 415-206-9906






Thread