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