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 Paarlbergcharlie@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
rob@phavl.UUCP (Robert Ransbottom) (06/01/89)
[ FOLLOWUP TO NEWS.GROUPS ] In article <5194@rpi.edu>, kibo@pawl.rpi.edu (James 'Kibo' Parry) writes: > In article <1465@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: > >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. ... > > Absolutely. If a *discussion* is supposed to take place -- as it > should, before a vote on a newsgroup creation is taken -- you need an > unmoderated group to do it in... Agreed. > (The proper purpose for a moderated group is for dissemination of > information, i.e. "Everyone should know this", not discussion. It's > less quick to spread things around and less interactive.) Agreed, that is why there is a call for creation of news.groups.d, because Everybody should know about the CALLS FOR ... but wading through n.g is a deterent that only grow stronger. -- news.groups SMALL for ALL -- Support new.groups.d, only CALLS & RESULTS in n.g ( sloganizing is making me feel ill) ...!uunet!phavl!rob Robert Ransbottom