Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call For Votes: REC.AUDIO.HIGH-END
Message-ID: <50202@bbn.COM>
Date: 29 Dec 89 21:14:12 GMT
References: <1656@uwm.edu> <11644@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 30


In article <11644@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones writes:
>I voted against the proposal. As usual, I oppose moderated groups
>except in purely technical areas.

Surely you should try to evaluate each proposal on its own merits,
rather than applying blanket litmus tests (non-tech + moderated = NO).
Of course, this isn't to say that you should have voted yes in this
case.

>Am I reading something into this that I shouldn't? It seems as though just
>about every call for a moderated group lately has been a call to duplicate
>some talk or rec group, but to keep out those who would suggest that the
>Emperor's clothes were less than sufficient for the winter season. Is it
>my imagination, or is this more of the same? 


You're misinterpreting the requests. People want to have useful and
intelligent discussions without having to deal continually with
disruptive hecklers who can't control their outbursts but who have no
substantive arguments to offer. The emperor's new clothes is (as
usual) the wrong paradigm. Nobody's afraid of arguing real arguments;
people are just bored with pointless hostility and flaming. That's one
reason why they want moderated groups. 

If you're going to suggest that such proposals be uniformly opposed,
you'll have to come up with something better than a misapplied
children's story.

.rs