Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!soma!usenet
From: usenet@soma.bcm.tmc.edu (USENET maintenance)
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: Looking for archives of non-source groups!!!
Message-ID: <3113@soma.bcm.tmc.edu>
Date: Mon, 18-May-87 19:36:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: soma.3113
Posted: Mon May 18 19:36:00 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 24-May-87 02:00:18 EDT
References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP> <7947@utzoo.UUCP> <125@academ.UUCP> <229@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: sob@cortex.UUCP (Stan Barber)
Organization: Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Lines: 24

In article <229@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
>It hardly matters that 90%+ of the mod.sources code works (although I doubt
>that that is true considering how little `working code' I have seen
>over the years).
If we get so little `working code', why bother having sources newsgroups?
I find the moderation processes of comp.sources.unix a boon. You do not.
Start up a net.sources of your own and distribute it. Rutgers can probably
afford to allow you the pleasure of the endeavor. :-)

>[comp.sources.unix archive] is certainly an important service.  
>However, it has nothing to do with whether or not a group is moderated.
>The net is in desparate need of archivers.
Agreed, but I'd have a hard time justifying disk space to archive junk
(like appears in the old net.sources) while I could probably justify space
for comp.sources.unix since there is some element of "quality" there.

You seem to argue that quality is second to quanity.

>--------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)


Stan	     uucp:{shell,rice,seismo}!soma!sob        Opinions expressed here
Olan         domain:sob@rice.edu or sob@soma.bcm.tmc.edu   are ONLY mine &
Barber       CIS:71565,623   BBS:(713)790-9004               noone else's.