djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (12/29/89)
I voted against the proposal. As usual, I oppose moderated groups except in purely technical areas. Discussions as to the subjective merits of various commercial audio products is not in this category. I mentioned that I might vote for a moderated sci.accoustics, or sci.amp-circuitry. Am I reading something into this that I shouldn't? It seems as though just about every call for a moderated group lately has been a call to duplicate some talk or rec group, but to keep out those who would suggest that the Emperor's clothes were less than sufficient for the winter season. Is it my imagination, or is this more of the same?
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (12/30/89)
In article <11644@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones writes: >I voted against the proposal. As usual, I oppose moderated groups >except in purely technical areas. Surely you should try to evaluate each proposal on its own merits, rather than applying blanket litmus tests (non-tech + moderated = NO). Of course, this isn't to say that you should have voted yes in this case. >Am I reading something into this that I shouldn't? It seems as though just >about every call for a moderated group lately has been a call to duplicate >some talk or rec group, but to keep out those who would suggest that the >Emperor's clothes were less than sufficient for the winter season. Is it >my imagination, or is this more of the same? You're misinterpreting the requests. People want to have useful and intelligent discussions without having to deal continually with disruptive hecklers who can't control their outbursts but who have no substantive arguments to offer. The emperor's new clothes is (as usual) the wrong paradigm. Nobody's afraid of arguing real arguments; people are just bored with pointless hostility and flaming. That's one reason why they want moderated groups. If you're going to suggest that such proposals be uniformly opposed, you'll have to come up with something better than a misapplied children's story. .rs
cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) (12/30/89)
[I forgot to include the article, but this is in response to the person
who said that they oppose all moderated groups and voted no to this
proposal.]
I don't generally like moderated groups either, but I'd like to comment
on this proposal. I've been on Thomas' mailing list for over a year
and he really has done a great job. Newcomer questions are encouraged
(and answered), all points of view (tubes vs solid state, LP vs CD
etc) have been represented and no one has been flamed. Further, the
variety of topics has been extrordinary: construction hints, reviews
of audio shows, record reviews and lots of input from "off-shore"
participants. I think the only real point in having a moderated group
is to facilitate exchange between the on-going mailing list and the
proposed newsgroup.
I urge you to reconsider your "No" vote (and join us "on the fringe!")
- Dale (N1US) Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass.
INTERNET: cook@encore.com "Clever people seem not to feel the natural
UUCP: buita \ pleasure of bewilderments, and are always
talcott } !encore!cook answering questions when the chief relish
bellcore / of life is to go on asking them."
- Frank Moore Colbybill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (01/09/90)
In article <10771@encore.Encore.COM> cook@encore.com writes: >[I forgot to include the article, but this is in response to the person >who said that they oppose all moderated groups and voted no to this >proposal.] ........ >I urge you to reconsider your "No" vote (and join us "on the fringe!") And I tried to vote yes but mail keeps bouncing. sigh! bill -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP