u-pgardi%sunset.utah.edu@utah-gr.UUCP (Phillip Garding) (03/17/88)
I have been following with disgust the ongoing and eternal discussion of
WHAT TO DO about the state of things in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.
I have two points to consider:
1) The satisfaction that I receive from reading this news group has
been seriously hampered by having 4 out of 5 articles be "discussion."
2) I don't want to subscribe to sys.ibm.pc in order to hear of bug reports,
etc.; there is tooooooo much other stuff that I don't want to read on
sys.ibm.pc to make it worth while to find the articles pertaining to
comp.binaries.
The logical solution to everyone's problems, I think is to leave comp.binaries
UNmoderated, and create a new group for discussion: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d.
Whatever is done, lets do it in a hurry, and get all of this garbage off of
the "binaries" newsgroup.
Phil.drich@bgsuvax.UUCP (Daniel Rich) (03/18/88)
From article <2410@utah-gr.UUCP>, by u-pgardi%sunset.utah.edu@utah-gr.UUCP (Phillip Garding): > The logical solution to everyone's problems, I think is to leave comp.binaries > UNmoderated, and create a new group for discussion: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d. > > Whatever is done, lets do it in a hurry, and get all of this garbage off of > the "binaries" newsgroup. > > Phil. I have to agree with this. I am getting tired of going into news every day and seeing nothing but discussion in this group. What needs to be done to propose/create comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d? Anyone want to take the job? -- - Dan Rich UUCP: ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!drich CSNET: drich@andy.bgsu.edu PHONE: (419) 372-6002 - Sometimes a majority simply means that all the fools are on the same side -
keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (03/18/88)
In an earlier article Phillip Garding writes:
<The logical solution to everyone's problems, I think is to leave comp.binaries
<UNmoderated, and create a new group for discussion: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d.
<
<Whatever is done, lets do it in a hurry, and get all of this garbage off of
<the "binaries" newsgroup.
<
This is a fantastic idea. It follows the precedent for the (unix) sources group
and makes good sense.
Any reason _not_ to do it?
keithboneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) (03/18/88)
In article <3229@tekgvs.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.UUCP (Keith Ericson) writes: >In an earlier article Phillip Garding writes: ><The logical solution to everyone's problems, I think is to leave comp.binaries ><UNmoderated, and create a new group for discussion: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d. >< ><Whatever is done, lets do it in a hurry, and get all of this garbage off of ><the "binaries" newsgroup. >< > >This is a fantastic idea. It follows the precedent for the (unix) sources group >and makes good sense. > >Any reason _not_ to do it? > >keith I don't see where you get your 'precedent'. comp.sources.unix is a MODERATED newsgroup, along with most other sources groups, except .bugs and .d. As far as a discussion group, we already have one - comp.sys.ibm.pc. I don't see any reason for adding another discussion group to the net, when one already exists for the purpose needed. If comp.binaries.ibm.pc was left without a moderator, 'garbage' as stated may be cleaned up, but eventually it will clutter up again. How do you think we got here in the first place??? I definitely believe we need a moderator, no matter who. Its time we get binaries where they belong, and discussions where THEY belong. P.S. I'm not flaming the discussions about moderation in this group. I think it's better to be in the group that it concerns, but lets hope it won't be here much longer. ============================================================================ Brian O'Neill University of Lowell boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu - boneill@hawk.UUCP ...!ulowell!hawk!boneill MS-DOS Software Exchange Coordinator - E-mail for details
keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (03/21/88)
In article <5537@swan.ulowell.edu> boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) writes:
<>
<>[Creating a discussion newsgroup] is a fantastic idea. It follows
<>the precedent for the (unix) sources group and makes good sense.
<>
<>Any reason _not_ to do it?
<>
<>keith
<
<I don't see where you get your 'precedent'. comp.sources.unix is a MODERATED
<newsgroup, along with most other sources groups, except .bugs and .d. As far
<as a discussion group, we already have one - comp.sys.ibm.pc. I don't see
<any reason for adding another discussion group to the net, when one already
<exists for the purpose needed.
[And this from the guy collecting votes to creat the discussion
newsgroup?]
Look - there are questions, clarifications and specific discussions
about the binaries posted to this newsgroup that NEED to be carried
on, and including them in the general newsgroup disassociates them
and loses them in the discussions about hard disk drives, networking
and VGA/EGA monitors.
<
<If comp.binaries.ibm.pc was [sic] left without a moderator, 'garbage' as stated
<may be cleaned up, but eventually it will clutter up again. How do you
<think we got here in the first place???
<
By people asking questions about the stuff posted here: "Is anyone
else having problems un-arcing the ....." "I missed part n of the
...; will someone please send me a copy" "I found a bug in the ...
and here's how to fix it."
<I definitely believe we need a moderator, no matter who. Its time we get
<binaries where they belong, and discussions where THEY belong.
<
Right - in the discussion group!
keith
Keith Ericson at TekLabs (resident factious factotum)
Tektronix, PO 500, MS 58-383 Beaverton OR 97077 (503)627-6042
UUCP: [uunet|ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4|hplabs]!tektronix!tekgvs!keithe
ARPA: keithe%tekgvs.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET
CSNet: keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COMalexb@m2-net.UUCP (Alex Beylin) (03/21/88)
In article <1738@bgsuvax.UUCP> drich@bgsuvax.UUCP (Daniel Rich) writes: >From article <2410@utah-gr.UUCP>, by u-pgardi%sunset.utah.edu@utah-gr.UUCP (Phillip Garding): > The logical solution to everyone's problems, I think is to leave comp.binaries > UNmoderated, and create a new group for discussion: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d. > > Whatever is done, lets do it in a hurry, and get all of this garbage off of > the "binaries" newsgroup. > > Phil. I agree with that suggestion. Comp.ibm.pc is too busy as is to post stuff about comp.binaries.ibm.pc. Comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d gets my vote! Alex Beylin !umix!metavax!b-tech!m-net!alexb
ml_cdw@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Williams) (03/24/88)
Huge -and probably unjustifiable- flame on This is comp.binaries.ibm.pc, not comp.lets ramble on incessantly about moderators, new groups for discussion etc.ibm.pc Any danger of seeing some binaries in this newsgroup? Flame off. And, please, no followups to this article! Chris