Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!phri!roy From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Announcement of unmoderated sources mailing list. Message-ID: <2747@phri.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Jun-87 08:11:15 EDT Article-I.D.: phri.2747 Posted: Wed Jun 17 08:11:15 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 15:36:05 EDT References: <1787@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> <1789@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) Lines: 23 Keywords: unmoderated sources Summary: Cancling unwanted messges Xref: mnetor news.groups:1045 comp.sources.d:865 In <1789@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> barnett@ge-crd.arpa (Bruce G Barnett) writes: > Whenever non-sources gets posted to the new unmoderated comp.sources.misc - > someone Cancels the article? If this is done enough times, eventually > people will get the message. I seem to remember something like this going on a while ago -- somebody took it upon themselves to send out cancel messages for articles that s/he thought were innapropriate (don't remember the details; was it net.sources?) Once people figured out what was going on, the uproar was loud and angry. Preventing postings is one thing, inflicting random carnage to already posted stuff (remember the article trasher?) is another thing altogether. Besides, it's not likely that the poster of a message which later gets cancled will even realize it. I rarely go back and look at stuff I've posted (after reading it the first time to make sure it came out as I anticipated). If somebody cancled this article for example, it would take a few days for the cmsg to get back here and I'd probably never know it happened at all. Not much educational value in that. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016