Xref: utzoo news.misc:1147 comp.sources.d:1692 news.groups:2231
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber)
Newsgroups: news.misc,comp.sources.d,news.groups
Subject: Re: why alt.sources? (Definitive answer, some history)
Message-ID: <736@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: 20 Jan 88 05:59:02 GMT
References: <171@sea375.UUCP> <1459@sigma.UUCP> <2989@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 29

In article <2989@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes:
> ...

:-)

> Bottom line:  if you have source you want to share, and if you take a
> little time to put some documentation (and maybe a makefile) together,
> the moderated groups will give you the widest possible forum.  On the
> other hand, if you have some source or discussion that doesn't meet the
> requirements for the moderated groups, you can post to "alt.sources"
> and reach 1/3 to 1/2 of the same sites.  

Actually, the standards of the various moderated sources groups have varied
quite a bit over the past year.  At many times they have claimed to reject
absolutely no source (so don't be intimediated by a supposed need to 
document or figure out make).

However, if you have a source that you want to share with a more discerning
group of readers who can fend for themselves instead of be nurse-maided by a
moderator, you should consider posting to alt.sources.

Of course, with an unmoderated alt.sources as well as so much source
appearing in non-source groups, it is not surprising that people seem
content with the moderated sources group -- by and large they just
bypass them whenever they are annoyed by them (just as they do when
mcvax boycotts rec.arts.poems or when news software tries to restrict
the percentage of quoted material).

--- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)