davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (10/14/88)
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) said:
[some editing has occured in this posting]
-Granted, I could chop out a lot of the drivel by just not getting the
-soc and rec groups (we already don't get alt and talk), but sometimes I think
-that the quality of comp.unix.wizards isn't much better, and certainly most
-of news.* is turning into a sewer.
-
Actually, much of the reason behind news.* turning into a "sewer" (a view
I don't agree with) are people not properly using features of rn, and new
users not understanding the purpose of the specific news.* groups. (There
are, of course, a few exceptions.) For instance, while moderation of
news.admin is appopriate to this group, discussion of the reasons for
moderation in general (like this article) is more appropriate to news.misc
(at least I think so).
- I don't understand why people keep trying to equate moderation with
-censorship, with all its evil connotations.
[ Note. Some editing occurred. ]
-Even things like Omni (which I don't read)
-have somebody at the helm deciding what is worth printing and what isn't.
-The key is to find a publication whose editorial policy matches your own, not
-to find a publication which has no editorial policy at all.
But no editorial policy IS an editorial policy. And I like the no editorial
policy for news.admin. Remember...a moderated newsgroup is only as good
as it's moderator. Peter Neumann does a fantastic job with comp.risks.
Brad Templeton doesn't do nearly as good a job with rec.humor.funny but
it's still mostly readable.
And until someone can prove to me that they're flexible enough to introduce
new topics to news.admin, and have enough time to wade through the volume
of mail of stuff for submission (and not just say "I guess I'll do it")
then I'd rather maintain the status quo.
--
David Bedno (aka The Cat in the Hat) Now appearing at: davidbe@sco.COM -OR-
...!{uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucbvax!ucscc}!sco!davidbe -OR-
At home: 408-425-5266 At work: 408-425-7222 x5123 (I'm probably here...)
Disclaimer: Not SCO's opinions. At least not that they've told me.
The future is a long fly ball, curving foul.