rec.pets.cats.breeds

On 5 Sep 2003 21:38:17 GMT, Noreen Cooper
wrote:

BarB wrote:

: Anyone can vote "no" for any reason or for no reason at all, but usually
: "no" votes come from users who find something technically wrong with the
: proposal.

But you discount the verve and mission the anti-breeders hold against any
purebred owner. I would guess at least some of them would go out of their
way to vote NO because in the more radical mind the world would be a
better place if purebred cats were eradicated from the face of the planet.
Sorry, but those people are very likely to vote NO because of their
mission work in rescue and their outrage against "cat factories" which
deny a stray a good home.

No I don't think I can be accused of discounting anything when it comes
to the cat groups. I was a member of rpc during the original split in
'96 and have been ever since.

To the news.groups regulars who don't frequent the Usenet cat groups, it's
bad, I mean really bad, a cardinal sin, to own a purebred and post on the
rec.pets.cats* groups. There's been a recent flame war to that effect and
I'm sure the RFD is coming out of that experience. This enmity has been
going on for a long time and I doubt it'll ever change. Some of the most
enthusiastic posters work in rescue. Certainly, moderates exist but
overall the popular belief prevails that owning a purebred is a heinous
act against all cat-kind.

Perhaps we should look at those flame wars in context. There are plenty
of wars to go around besides the one over breeding. There's the
declawing war, the indoor-outdoor war, the dry food- wet food war, the
raw meat diet war, the alternative medicine war and a few users who have
their own personal wars going on. Yes, breeders get flamed, but so does
everyone else. As both a breeder and a rescuer of cats, I've had it from
both sides.

As Brian said, there are many ways to set up a moderated group without
much maintenance for human moderators. The least amount of moderation in
this case, the better.


Noreen

While I respect Brian's opinion, he don't know rpc.*. I help moderate
news.newusers.questions. I have no trouble deciding if a post that got
past the bot and comes to me is off topic. It takes me two seconds to
approve or reject that message.

However deciding when a post about declawing or homeopathy for instance
passes the point of reasonable discussion and becomes hysterical rant
wouldn't be so easy. It can't be handled by a bot. I think a lot of
users wouldn't trust any moderator to make that decision for them. In
addition the stress on the moderators would be unbearable. They would be
castigated in the other groups for every rejected post.

Moderation is sometimes a good answer to keep out spam and trolls, but
in a group as divided as rpc.* I very much doubt it's the solution.
Personally I prefer to filter out the unreasonable myself rather than
expect someone to do it for me.


BarB

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 23:23:54 GMT, BarB wrote:

On 5 Sep 2003 21:38:17 GMT, Noreen Cooper
wrote:

BarB wrote:

To the news.groups regulars who don't frequent the Usenet cat groups, it's
bad, I mean really bad, a cardinal sin, to own a purebred and post on the
rec.pets.cats* groups. There's been a recent flame war to that effect and
I'm sure the RFD is coming out of that experience. This enmity has been
going on for a long time and I doubt it'll ever change. Some of the most
enthusiastic posters work in rescue. Certainly, moderates exist but
overall the popular belief prevails that owning a purebred is a heinous
act against all cat-kind.

I made a couple of posts about my feelings on early neuter. The person
was at least talking logically until...... He started going into a
tirade about breeders. Never mind that I put way more stock into what
a board certified vet tells me than a breeder. Some of his gems.

Think about it,
look at the mentality of the average breeder:
2 many cats + a few more cats = need more cats..

Reputable breeders are only interested in IMPROVING the breed.

And this:

Reputable breeders won't sell a cat
to just anybody.

"Yes. The buyer must have money."

Let's see, top breeders can have waiting lists of a year or more. All
reputable breeders require a spay / neuter contract, a Non-declaw
clause . Some won't part with their cats until they have seen your
home. Oh , and all the ones I bought from wanted a Vet reference. Does
that sound like somebody who will sell to anybody who just happens to
have the money? The top breeders show their cats worldwide. There is
no money in it for them. Cat Shows are a hobby. These people just
don't understand the difference between some " backyard" kitten mill
and the strict standards that reputable breeders have. Does anybody
need any more proof that a group is needed for purebred cat owners and
breeders?

At this point it is just a matter of proving numerical demand. Off and
on I have checked out the numerous cat groups for years. This type of
sentiment is the reason, I don't spend a lot of time in them. I
suspect that a lot of purebred cat owners picked up on the hostility
and left the groups. I just happened to stumble upon this RFD. It had
been months since I even looked at a cat group.


Perhaps we should look at those flame wars in context. There are plenty
of wars to go around besides the one over breeding. There's the
declawing war, the indoor-outdoor war, the dry food- wet food war, the
raw meat diet war, the alternative medicine war and a few users who have
their own personal wars going on. Yes, breeders get flamed, but so does
everyone else. As both a breeder and a rescuer of cats, I've had it from
both sides.

That is why I will ONLY support a moderated group. Any unmoderated
group would become just like the other cat groups.

As Brian said, there are many ways to set up a moderated group without
much maintenance for human moderators. The least amount of moderation in
this case, the better.


Noreen

While I respect Brian's opinion, he don't know rpc.*. I help moderate
news.newusers.questions. I have no trouble deciding if a post that got
past the bot and comes to me is off topic. It takes me two seconds to
approve or reject that message.

However deciding when a post about declawing or homeopathy for instance
passes the point of reasonable discussion and becomes hysterical rant
wouldn't be so easy. It can't be handled by a bot. I think a lot of
users wouldn't trust any moderator to make that decision for them. In
addition the stress on the moderators would be unbearable. They would be
castigated in the other groups for every rejected post.

Tentatively , the group title is rec.pets.cats.breeds. The vast
majority of the above would be rejected as off-topic. If someone tried
to start a topic like that , they would be told to post it in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav. That is the beauty of a moderated group.
People would be *restricted* to posting about the topic. Maine Coon
owners would post about the temperament and physical aspects of the
Maine Coon. Same for Ragdolls , Siamese etc. Breeders would post about
their breeds. The people who have volunteered to moderate are tired of
the incessant flames in the other groups for the " crime" of owning a
purebred cat. People are already being castigated in every other group
for owning a purebred cat.

Moderation is sometimes a good answer to keep out spam and trolls, but
in a group as divided as rpc.* I very much doubt it's the solution.
Personally I prefer to filter out the unreasonable myself rather than
expect someone to do it for me.

Well , I certainly would not vote for another unmoderated cat group.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 23:23:54 GMT, BarB wrote:

On 5 Sep 2003 21:38:17 GMT, Noreen Cooper
wrote:

BarB wrote:

To the news.groups regulars who don't frequent the Usenet cat groups, it's
bad, I mean really bad, a cardinal sin, to own a purebred and post on the
rec.pets.cats* groups. There's been a recent flame war to that effect and
I'm sure the RFD is coming out of that experience. This enmity has been
going on for a long time and I doubt it'll ever change. Some of the most
enthusiastic posters work in rescue. Certainly, moderates exist but
overall the popular belief prevails that owning a purebred is a heinous
act against all cat-kind.

I made a couple of posts about my feelings on early neuter. The person
was at least talking logically until...... He started going into a
tirade about breeders. Never mind that I put way more stock into what
a board certified vet tells me than a breeder. Some of his gems.

Think about it,
look at the mentality of the average breeder:
2 many cats + a few more cats = need more cats..

Reputable breeders are only interested in IMPROVING the breed.

And this:

Reputable breeders won't sell a cat
to just anybody.

"Yes. The buyer must have money."

Let's see, top breeders can have waiting lists of a year or more. All
reputable breeders require a spay / neuter contract, a Non-declaw
clause . Some won't part with their cats until they have seen your
home. Oh , and all the ones I bought from wanted a Vet reference. Does
that sound like somebody who will sell to anybody who just happens to
have the money? The top breeders show their cats worldwide. There is
no money in it for them. Cat Shows are a hobby. These people just
don't understand the difference between some " backyard" kitten mill
and the strict standards that reputable breeders have. Does anybody
need any more proof that a group is needed for purebred cat owners and
breeders?

At this point it is just a matter of proving numerical demand. Off and
on I have checked out the numerous cat groups for years. This type of
sentiment is the reason, I don't spend a lot of time in them. I
suspect that a lot of purebred cat owners picked up on the hostility
and left the groups. I just happened to stumble upon this RFD. It had
been months since I even looked at a cat group.


Perhaps we should look at those flame wars in context. There are plenty
of wars to go around besides the one over breeding. There's the
declawing war, the indoor-outdoor war, the dry food- wet food war, the
raw meat diet war, the alternative medicine war and a few users who have
their own personal wars going on. Yes, breeders get flamed, but so does
everyone else. As both a breeder and a rescuer of cats, I've had it from
both sides.

That is why I will ONLY support a moderated group. Any unmoderated
group would become just like the other cat groups.

As Brian said, there are many ways to set up a moderated group without
much maintenance for human moderators. The least amount of moderation in
this case, the better.


Noreen

While I respect Brian's opinion, he don't know rpc.*. I help moderate
news.newusers.questions. I have no trouble deciding if a post that got
past the bot and comes to me is off topic. It takes me two seconds to
approve or reject that message.

However deciding when a post about declawing or homeopathy for instance
passes the point of reasonable discussion and becomes hysterical rant
wouldn't be so easy. It can't be handled by a bot. I think a lot of
users wouldn't trust any moderator to make that decision for them. In
addition the stress on the moderators would be unbearable. They would be
castigated in the other groups for every rejected post.

Tentatively , the group title is rec.pets.cats.breeds. The vast
majority of the above would be rejected as off-topic. If someone tried
to start a topic like that , they would be told to post it in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav. That is the beauty of a moderated group.
People would be *restricted* to posting about the topic. Maine Coon
owners would post about the temperament and physical aspects of the
Maine Coon. Same for Ragdolls , Siamese etc. Breeders would post about
their breeds. The people who have volunteered to moderate are tired of
the incessant flames in the other groups for the " crime" of owning a
purebred cat. People are already being castigated in every other group
for owning a purebred cat.

Moderation is sometimes a good answer to keep out spam and trolls, but
in a group as divided as rpc.* I very much doubt it's the solution.
Personally I prefer to filter out the unreasonable myself rather than
expect someone to do it for me.

Well , I certainly would not vote for another unmoderated cat group.

BarB writes:
While I respect Brian's opinion, he don't know rpc.*. [...] However
deciding when a post about declawing or homeopathy for instance passes
the point of reasonable discussion and becomes hysterical rant
wouldn't be so easy. It can't be handled by a bot.

It doesn't have to be handled by a bot, but my software is somewhat
different than most moderation software that I've seen with its (to date
somewhat underutilized) support for true team moderation. It's quite
simple to set up the group so that no single moderator gets approve or
reject authority over any posting. You can separately require single,
double (two mods), majority, or unanimous votes for both approvals and
rejections. (Some combinations obviously wouldn't make much sense.

I'd love to see a sci.* group or two take it on with a moderation panel
of experts that would serve as a peer review board, requiring majority
approval for posts. Most groups have much lower bars to acceptance, and
run with single vote approval and either single or double vote rejects.

The bot only handles what you choose to delegate to it, and the rest of
the time just coordinates and executes the will of the moderation team.

Brian.

BarB writes:
While I respect Brian's opinion, he don't know rpc.*. [...] However
deciding when a post about declawing or homeopathy for instance passes
the point of reasonable discussion and becomes hysterical rant
wouldn't be so easy. It can't be handled by a bot.

It doesn't have to be handled by a bot, but my software is somewhat
different than most moderation software that I've seen with its (to date
somewhat underutilized) support for true team moderation. It's quite
simple to set up the group so that no single moderator gets approve or
reject authority over any posting. You can separately require single,
double (two mods), majority, or unanimous votes for both approvals and
rejections. (Some combinations obviously wouldn't make much sense.

I'd love to see a sci.* group or two take it on with a moderation panel
of experts that would serve as a peer review board, requiring majority
approval for posts. Most groups have much lower bars to acceptance, and
run with single vote approval and either single or double vote rejects.

The bot only handles what you choose to delegate to it, and the rest of
the time just coordinates and executes the will of the moderation team.

Brian.

BarB writes:
While I respect Brian's opinion, he don't know rpc.*. [...] However
deciding when a post about declawing or homeopathy for instance passes
the point of reasonable discussion and becomes hysterical rant
wouldn't be so easy. It can't be handled by a bot.

It doesn't have to be handled by a bot, but my software is somewhat
different than most moderation software that I've seen with its (to date
somewhat underutilized) support for true team moderation. It's quite
simple to set up the group so that no single moderator gets approve or
reject authority over any posting. You can separately require single,
double (two mods), majority, or unanimous votes for both approvals and
rejections. (Some combinations obviously wouldn't make much sense.

I'd love to see a sci.* group or two take it on with a moderation panel
of experts that would serve as a peer review board, requiring majority
approval for posts. Most groups have much lower bars to acceptance, and
run with single vote approval and either single or double vote rejects.

The bot only handles what you choose to delegate to it, and the rest of
the time just coordinates and executes the will of the moderation team.

Brian.