Path: utzoo!utgpu!tmsoft!spectrix!John_M From: John_M@spectrix.UUCP (John Macdonald) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: talk.* =? net.* (Re: Poll: Should all Usenet newsgroups be moderated?) Keywords: Usenet, newsgroup, moderate Message-ID: <702@spectrix.UUCP> Date: 30 Jun 88 18:32:52 GMT References: <3220@s.cc.purdue.edu> <690@spectrix.UUCP>Reply-To: jmm@lsuc.UUCP (John Macdonald) Organization: soon to be announced Lines: 31 In article webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: %In article <690@spectrix.UUCP>, John_M@spectrix.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: %< Specifically, I think that all groups outside of talk should be %< moderated. The talk hierarchy should be expanded to include at least %< talk.comp.misc, talk.rec.misc, talk.soc.misc, and talk.sci.misc. %< ... % %Just out of curiousity, do you realize that your proposal means that talk.* %would de facto be the old net.* and the rest of the net would be various %descendants of mod.*. I guess we can add you to the list of people who %opposed the ``Great Renaming Fiasco.'' % %---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) It would be similar to the old system in that there would be an obvious distinction between moderated and non-moderated groups. However, the old system had a nearly flat naming structure, compared to the current hierarchical organization. The mod vs. net distinction was the ONLY clear distinction that was made - the current groupings for comp, rec, soc, etc. are a major step forward. I do not want to lose the descriptive power current of the current naming scheme. Moving a group into talk does not mean that it would go back to its pre-Renaming one-dimensional name with net changed to talk, but would keep its current multi-level name with talk prepended. I did not oppose the ``Great Renaming Rationalization'', I approved it whole-heartedly and still do. -- John Macdonald UUCP: lsuc!jmm (for now)