Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!att!cbnewsj!ecl
From: ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Volunteer for rec.arts.movies.serious moderator/editor
Message-ID: <3182@cbnewsj.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 Jan 90 14:07:56 GMT
References: <702@hq.af.mil>
Reply-To: ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28

In article <702@hq.af.mil> illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) writes:
>      Why do we need to have this group moderated? ...
>      Don't get me wrong! I'm in favor of the group and am not trying to
> trash someone. I just don't see the need for a moderator. I just feel
> that those who want to continue to post articles about BTTFII and
> Hoverboard will continue to do it in r.a.m and those who want to discuss
> the technical and artistic aspects will include r.a.m.s in their daily
> reading.

I read comp.unix.questions and comp.unix.wizards, which are designed to be in
some sense parallel to rec.arts.movies and rec.arts.cinema (as proposed): one
for serious ("heavy") question, one for everything else.  Neither is moderated.
If I had a dollar for every article cross-posted to both that belonged only in
c.u.q because it was a basic question, but where the poster had decided to post
to every group that looked reasonable to her/him, I'd be a wealthy lady.

People who think those who want to post about BTTFII will stay out of
rec.arts.cinema are, I believe, overly optimistic about the facts of Usenet
life.

Another, perhaps less important reason, is that many sites refuse all rec/soc/talk
groups except those that are moderated.  They do this on the basis of cost and disk
space rather than any great love of moderation itself.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 201-957-2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
If I am not for myself, who is for me?  If I am only for myself what am I?
And if not now, when?  --Hillel