tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Thomas Krueger) (01/04/90)
In E-mail discussions with Trisha, I discovered I left out a piece of
information that might affect the way many people vote on the proposed
creation of Rec.Audio.High-End.
When I moderate Info-High-Audio, sure, I might toss an inappropriate
article, but I never have. The main reason Info-High-Audio is moderated is
that it is a DIGEST. I collect articles and put them together into digests.
If you would like to see an issue or two of Info-High-Audio to help decide,
you can get current and previous issues via anonymous FTP from
csd4.csd.uwm.edu in the directory high-audio
Thanks for your interest.
- Tom
--
"A Veteran of the Psychic Wars"
Thomas Krueger UW-Milwaukee College of Engineering Electronics Shop
tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu [moderator, info-high-audio] +1 414 229 5172ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) (01/05/90)
In article <1771@uwm.edu> tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Thomas Krueger) writes: >When I moderate Info-High-Audio, sure, I might toss an inappropriate >article, but I never have. The main reason Info-High-Audio is moderated is >that it is a DIGEST. I collect articles and put them together into digests. Can anyone explain any advantages (in USENET) that a digest format has over the normal group article set? The digest format is a pain-in-the-fingers when using tools like rn, and is hopeless except for read-only mode. Digests are acceptable if they mean information collected in another forum is being fed that would otherwise not be, but I do believe we should try to minimize the use of digests within USENET wherever possible. In particular I see no reason why USENET originated articles should be presented back to USENET in anything other than normal article format. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ray@philmt.philips.ca Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext : 2347 (Phonemail) St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX : 05-824090