Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-sem.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-sem!ron
From: ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie )
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.sources
Subject: Re: As long as we are taliking about rmgrouping ...
Message-ID: <476@brl-sem.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 3-Nov-85 00:30:27 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-sem.476
Posted: Sun Nov  3 00:30:27 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Nov-85 03:09:16 EST
References: <245@mit-eddie.UUCP> <136@vcvax1.UUCP> <687@ucsfcgl.UUCP> <5647@amdcad.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.news.group:4233 net.sources:3800

> 
> The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator
> 'evaluates' the posting.  His criteria will vary according to:
> 
> 	1) His beliefs.
> 	2) How much time he has.
> 
> What happened to 'the free interchange of ideas'.  

Free interchange of ideas?  While I am generally opposed to moderated
discussion groups for these reasons, these arguemnts just do not hold
water for the sources groups.  The source groups are by definition, not
discussion groups and a year or so ago we actually split off discussion
groups like the bug-group and the wanted-group to keep discussions out
of net.sources.  It is not going to hurt the free exchange of ideas any
if the latest version of the terminal lock-up program takes three or four
days to get past the moderators busy schedule.  And it doesn't take a whole
lot of insight on the part of the moderator to determine what is source and
what is misposted.

I heartily cast my vote that such archival groups such as net.sources.*
and the proposed net.doc group be moderated.

-Ron