Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!husc6!m2c!ulowell!hawk!boneill From: boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc Subject: Re: NO MODERATOR, JUST A NEW NEWSGROUP Message-ID: <5537@swan.ulowell.edu> Date: 18 Mar 88 02:47:02 GMT References: <235400004@prism< <235400005@prism> <2963@pbhyf.UUCP> <1699@uoregon.UUCP> <2410@utah-gr.UUCP> <3229@tekgvs.TEK.COM> Sender: news@swan.ulowell.edu Reply-To: boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) Distribution: na Organization: University of Lowell, CS Dept. Lines: 36 In article <3229@tekgvs.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.UUCP (Keith Ericson) writes: >In an earlier article Phillip Garding writes: >< >< > >This is a fantastic idea. It follows the precedent for the (unix) sources group >and makes good sense. > >Any reason _not_ to do it? > >keith I don't see where you get your 'precedent'. comp.sources.unix is a MODERATED newsgroup, along with most other sources groups, except .bugs and .d. As far as a discussion group, we already have one - comp.sys.ibm.pc. I don't see any reason for adding another discussion group to the net, when one already exists for the purpose needed. If comp.binaries.ibm.pc was left without a moderator, 'garbage' as stated may be cleaned up, but eventually it will clutter up again. How do you think we got here in the first place??? I definitely believe we need a moderator, no matter who. Its time we get binaries where they belong, and discussions where THEY belong. P.S. I'm not flaming the discussions about moderation in this group. I think it's better to be in the group that it concerns, but lets hope it won't be here much longer. ============================================================================ Brian O'Neill University of Lowell boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu - boneill@hawk.UUCP ...!ulowell!hawk!boneill MS-DOS Software Exchange Coordinator - E-mail for details