moderation of alt.sources vs. automated harangues

[Kevin Carothers]

In article <4363 at sugar.hackercorp.com> karl at sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes:
>In article <15110 at bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> wolfgang at BBN.COM (Wolfgang Rupprecht) writes:
>>I guess I don't get it.  If we moderate alt.sources how will it differ
>>from mod.sources, ahem, comp.sources.unix?  
>
>Agree, agree!  The interesting and useful thing about alt.sources over
>comp.sources.unix and comp.sources.misc is that it is not moderated.
>
>If it were moderated, hardly anybody would use it, because c.s.u and c.s.m
>have better distribution.
>
 I agree three.
 I'll probably lose interest in it if it gets moderated. Personally 
 I don't like throwing things at a moderator -- Kind of removes the
 spirit of a posting if it is first "judged" or otherwise "screened" --

 I think (no offense) that Rich $alz's pithy "comments" at the beginning 
 of some postings would otherwise discourage some people from posting.

 Take the "bozo.c" source  posted here -- God knows what Rich or 
 some other moderator would do to me  or others for posting some 
 of the versions of that little ditty :)

 People who get all bent-out-of-shape at one or two non-source postings
 need to lighten up. IMHO the group is doing great  (so far). A mild
 flame directed at someone who infarc's should suffice. We simply don't need
 another moderated source group.

--
    Kevin Carothers           {philabs,csun,psivax}!ttidca!kevin