[comp.binaries.ibm.pc] NO MODERATOR, JUST A NEW NEWSGROUP

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?

keith

boneill@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.COM

alexb@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