Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!ultnix.enet.dec.com!taber
From: taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: Re: RFD comp.sys.handelds split
Message-ID: <4926@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
Date: 22 May 91 12:29:48 GMT
References: <7601@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <1991May22.032223.27895@eecs.nwu.edu>
Sender: guest@ryn.mro4.dec.com
Reply-To: taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber)
Organization: KC1TD@KB4N.NH.USA.NA.EARTH.SOLAR_SYSTEM.UNIVERSE.MIND_OF_GOD.01463
Lines: 73

In article <1991May22.032223.27895@eecs.nwu.edu>, kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu
(Michael L. Kaufman) writes:
|>Path:
|
ryn.mro4.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.
.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!kaufman
|>From: kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman)
|>Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
|>Subject: Re: RFD comp.sys.handelds split
|>Message-ID: <1991May22.032223.27895@eecs.nwu.edu>
|>Date: 22 May 91 03:22:23 GMT
|>References: <7601@rex.cs.tulane.edu>
|>Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
|>Lines: 33
|>
|>I posted on this earlier, but it seems to have gotten eaten without
|>being sent.
|>
|>In article <7601@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu
|>writes:
|>>If there is one issue which seems not to have generated controversy,
|>it is the
|>>idea of a moderated comp.sources.hp48 group. Unless someone wishes to
|>voice an
|>>objection to that, I plan to proceed with the CFV on that next week,
|>as I
|>>believe it will succeed in short order.
|>
|>I don't like this idea for two reasons:
|>
|>I don't think we need two hp48 specific groups. I really don't think
|>that there
|>is anyone out there who would read c.sources.hp48 and not c.sys.hp48
|>(or
|>calculators or whatever).  So having more then one group would cause
|>all the
|>disadvantages of two groups (multiple mailing lists, mulitple
|>archives, cross
|>posts etc) without any of the advantages of two groups (automatic
|>pruning for
|>people who are not interested in both).
|>
|>Even if the group is created, I would not like to see if moderated.  I
|>have
|>been reading c.s.h for over a year, and except for a few requests for
|>asc, and
|>a few requests to be unsubscribed, there haven't been any posts that I
|>would 
|>have wanted someone else to discard for me.
|>
|>I urge everyone who is against this to speak up, so we can quash this
|>evil
|>satan-inspired (Just kidding Jeff) idea in the bud.

I think you misunderstand the reason moderated source groups exist. 
It's not an alternate place for discussion.  It's more like an archive
for posted source code.  It is relatively low volume compared to a
discussion group and because there is a moderator gating access, there
are no cross-posts, flame-wars or other things we've come to love about
traditional newsgroups.  It exists so when the weekly questions, "Where
do I get Tetris?" "Can someone re-post ASC->?" can be answered by a
reference to the sources group.  

Ideally, those huge multi-hundred or multi-thousand line postings of
source code that now go into the discussion group would be sent to the
source group.  The discussion group would remain essentially unchanged
but, if people cooperate, it would have its traffic load reduced.
--
                                             >>>==>PStJTT
                                     Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber,
KC1TD

Those who think, write. Those who can't, spell.