Re: Monitoring the monitors [Was: Gilmore and Sandfart suck

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

Ross Wright wrote:
> 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, I agree in principle, but not in fact.  If the "removed" list
was accurate, I'd say yes, but not only is it suspect, Sandy admitted
personally that some items could "fall thru the cracks" and not make
it to either the edited or removed list.

The only way to guarantee the removed list is to subtract the censored
list from the uncensored list, and hope that the uncensored list is
complete.