"Alan Adams" wrote in message
...
In message
JH wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:19:45 +0100, "SatNav"
wrote:


"Kegs" wrote in message
...
"SatNav" writes:

"MatSav" m a t t h e w D O T s a v a g e A T d s l D O T p i p e x
D OT
c o
m wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:43:42 +0100, JH
wrote:

Does anything ever happen in this group, or are you all down with
Davy
Jones?

Discussion has migrated to url:http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk


The above fake little dialogue is designed to divert gullible usenet
users
to a commercial page.

Bing! Wrong, UKRGB is a free site, with free discussion boards, and
free access to the river guides, which are contributed by the
readership.

Ads and selling stuff like t-shirts are about the only ways to pay
for
the, non-negligable, overheads of running a popular site like that,
without
directly charging the end-users.


My point precisely, UKRGB depends on advertising revenue to keep going.
You
know what happens when your website depends financially on someone?

Even if they don't overtly call the shots, you make sure you don't
upset
them. Freedom of speech goes out the window etc. etc.

This by contrast is a free AND independent NG. I regret if people post
here, announcing that 'discussion has migrated' to a commercially
funded web
site.

The motivation is obvious - adverts fetch more the more hits your site
gets.



Given the popularity (growing it seems to me) of "paddling", it seems
amazing that a newsgroup can be "killed" off by two individuals with a
point to prove.

Shame really, the moderators rule. (Again..)

J.

No, you misunderstand. The group is unmoderated, which was the cause of
the
problem. When it was hijacked, there was no way to stop it, other than
leaving. The forum is moderated, hence hasn't been hijacked.


How's that? An open newsgroup where anything goes, and is allegedly
hijacked by people offering a viewpoint that perhaps questions the NGB,
perhaps making people far removed from the troublesome topics feel
uncomfortable - I don't know. But having chat on moderated forums where
moderators can remove anything they don't like is okay.... seems like
turkeys voting for Christmas if you ask me.

Personally I think it goes completely against the grain and I'd much rather
put up with different opinions and challenging viewpoints, and even the odd
obnoxious outburst than face unquestioning censorship. But then again, maybe
I have driven some away from another newsgroup...

Ewan Scott