Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!silver!burleigh
From: burleigh@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (frank burleigh)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: How does a RUSH category sound?
Message-ID: <3915@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>
Date: 5 May 89 06:09:38 GMT
References: <7090@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> <13097@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: burleigh@silver.UUCP (frank burleigh)
Followup-To: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Distribution: na
Organization: sociology, indiana university, bloomington
Lines: 26

In article <13097@lanl.gov> jxdl@lanl.gov (Jerry DeLapp) writes:
>In article <7090@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In response to the recent noise about an unmoderated group RD
>writes:
>> How does a RUSH category sound for comp.binaries.ibm.pc?  If an
>> incoming submission is marked RUSH in the subject heading,
>
>[mucho deleto]
>
>To RD: I for one think you're doing a fine job. Don't go making
>work for yourself. If folks can't wait a few days while you

I agree that RD does an excellent job, and RUSH hardly seems necessary
-- though I don't have any principled opposition to it.

The problem with RUSH is that someone will have to come up with a
criterion separating RUSH postings from normal postings.  This will
certainly be difficult (games are RUSHed, apparently:-)).  What will
prevent posters from labelling their stuff for RUSH, besides some sort
of shared understanding that it is a less desirable category?  This will
still beg the question of distinguishing RUSH from nonRUSH.

-- 
Frank Burleigh  burleigh@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
USENET: ...rutgers!iuvax!silver!burleigh BITNET: BURLEIGH@IUBACS.BITNET
Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405