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