amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) (05/13/88)
Are we witnessing the advantage of having this binaries group moderated? The move was meant to reduce the discussion of binaries and promote the proliferation of executables. Instead, the opposite has occurred. The only activity is the discussion of non-existent binaries. Why must things be this way? It is FAR inferior to the old arrangement. Is there something I'm missing? Clue me in if I am! -- amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963. disclaimer: These are MY opinions. You only WISH they were yours.
dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) (05/15/88)
In article <2875@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) writes: > Are we witnessing the advantage of having this binaries group moderated? > The move was meant to reduce the discussion of binaries and promote the > proliferation of executables. Instead, the opposite has occurred. The > only activity is the discussion of non-existent binaries. ^^^^^^^^^^ Tony, you posted this to comp.binaries.ibm.pc.D (note the "D"--it's that thing at the end--it stands for Discussion. ^----(that's it there *8-) ^ I daresay you haven't seen a whole lot of discussion lately in the now- moderated comp.binaries.ibm.pc, and soon you will see your proliferation of executables. > Why must things be this way? It is FAR inferior to the old arrangement. > Is there something I'm missing? Clue me in if I am! Well, try this. Pick a day, any day. Now let's assume that that is the day a popular newsgroup is to become moderated. Okay, now let's pick two more days; one about five days before our start-of-moderation day, and one about five days after. You have now defined a period of time a little less than two weeks in length. During this period of time the newsgroup in question will be in absolute CHAOS! Part of the net won't realize it is moderated, part of it will, and another part of it won't be sure. *8-) Some posted articles will be intercepted and sent to the moderator, some will be delivered, and some will be unceremoniously dumped because they're "unapproved." Give it time, Tony, it'll calm down. Dick -- Dick Flanagan, W6OLD GEnie: FLANAGAN UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!slvblc!dick Voice: +1 408 336 3481 Internet: slvblc!dick@ucscc.UCSC.EDU LORAN: N037 04.7 W122 04.6 USPS: PO Box 155, Ben Lomond, CA 95005
boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) (05/15/88)
In article <2875@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) writes: >Are we witnessing the advantage of having this binaries group moderated? >The move was meant to reduce the discussion of binaries and promote the >proliferation of executables. Instead, the opposite has occurred. The >only activity is the discussion of non-existent binaries. > Patience, patience. Rahul posted a message stating that when the control message went around for moderation, he was flooded with hundreds of attempted postings, and needed to sort through them. give him time, and all will be well... ============================================================================ Brian O'Neill, MS-DOS Software Exchange Coordinator ArpaNet: boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu UUCP : {(backbones),harvard,rutgers,et. al.}!ulowell!hawk!boneill
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (05/15/88)
In article <2875@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) writes: >Are we witnessing the advantage of having this binaries group moderated? >The move was meant to reduce the discussion of binaries and promote the >proliferation of executables. Instead, the opposite has occurred. The >only activity is the discussion of non-existent binaries. > >Why must things be this way? It is FAR inferior to the old arrangement. >Is there something I'm missing? Clue me in if I am! The move was meant to eliminate chatter in comp.binaries.ibm.pc -- this has in fact happened. We're not holding this discussion in c.b.ibm.pc, we're holding it in c.b.ibm.pc.d -- check your Newsgroups header! The .d group was created to hold DISCUSSION about postings to the (separate) binaries group, and is not moderated. If you don't want to read this stuff, just unsubscribe and stick to checking comp.binaries.ibm.pc. (Conversely, there shouldn't be any binaries posted to this group.) In short, each group seems to be fulfilling its function well, and I do not see any problem. Were you aware of the split? -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: are you kidding?