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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-sem!ron
From: ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie )
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: As long as we are taliking about rmgrouping ...
Message-ID: <506@brl-sem.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 20:08:48 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-sem.506
Posted: Thu Nov  7 20:08:48 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 05:27:22 EST
References: <245@mit-eddie.UUCP> <136@vcvax1.UUCP> <687@ucsfcgl.UUCP> <683@ecsvax.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 24

> Personally I would
> never trade reading a censored newspaper for a one published
> without restriction.

Oh cripes, your newspaper is edited.  Perhaps we could make a big
psycological difference if we refered to the moderators as editors.
I personally, would not like to see an unedited newspaper, it would
be sort of like reading UNIX/WORLD.

> If you don't like it don't subscribe to it.

Unsubscribing doesn't cause it to go away.  What the proponents would
rather see is all the stuff that is dumped in net.sources go to the
moderated list.  We like the sources too, but it is too difficult picking
the signal from the noise.  We administrators are trying to help readers
at our sites.  We try not to expire the good groups like net.sources too
often, but this whole discussion which keeps drifting back into net.sources
is one of the reasons I'll have to expire everything in the group this
week.  With a moderated group, I could leave the source on line for a long
time and then move it to a convienient archive location, because discussions
like this, infinite requests for reposts, and other non-source stuff would
not be contained in that group.

-Ron