jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (05/28/89)
I'd like to issue a call for the status quo on news.groups. I have no problem with the discussions of new groups, and, even when things get off on a tangent, find the postings interesting. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (05/29/89)
In article <4333@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > I'd like to issue a call for the status quo on news.groups. > I have no problem with the discussions of new groups, and, > even when things get off on a tangent, find the postings > interesting. I agree. Leave news.groups unmoderated. Otherwise we will need news.groups.moderated news.groups.flame.the.moderator People get emotional about this stuff. It seems to be the way of the net.
rob@phavl.UUCP (Robert Ransbottom) (05/30/89)
> In article <4333@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > > [ I'm ...] for the status quo on news.groups. > > I have no problem with the discussions of new groups, and, > > even when things get off on a tangent, find the postings > > interesting. Admitted: recreational readers of news.groups gain little by the proposed creation of news.groups.d. The intent is to make news.groups accessable to more people. In article <1465@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>, charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: > ... Leave news.groups unmoderated. Otherwise we will need > > news.groups.moderated > news.groups.flame.the.moderator > > People get emotional about this stuff. It seems to be the way of the net. News.groups could be moderated IF it is JUST for calls & counts. It would not be a moderator's place to reject proposals that seem frivolous, etc.; just non-proposals. I don't see why there would be more flames. News.groups.d should generate more flames temporarily in news.groups; until the change is known. -- ...!uunet!phavl!rob Robert Ransbottom