Xref: utzoo news.admin:5137 news.groups:8058 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!killer!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Removing alt.sources.amiga (was: Re: soc.human-nets, and removing groups in general) Summary: moderating alt.sources.amiga. a very strenuous activity. Message-ID: <13707@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 16 Mar 89 15:18:29 GMT References: <3392@ficc.uu.net> <10979@well.UUCP> <3442@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) Organization: River Parishes Programming, Dallas TX Lines: 23 In article <3442@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Moderators put a lot of time >and effort into the net, and should be involved in any decision about the >group they moderate. So far the only effort that particular moderator has put into the net is defending a newsgroup with no traffic in well over the agreed upon three month idle limit. Comparing oneself to the real moderators who actually moderate newsgroups with real traffic and put in real effort doing more than defending the need for an empty newsgroup is very nervy. Peter has repeatedly been asked to post submissions or issue an rmgroup. Perhaps someone else should be questioning his agenda. Why would someone want to moderate a newsgroup with no traffic? So they can be a moderator? Why would someone complain about another moderator [ comp.sources.amiga ] when that moderator has been posting submissions? -- John F. Haugh II +-Cause of the Week:------------------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | St. Patricks Day: Wear white for InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | peace. End the bloodshed in Ireland. UucpNet : !killer!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------