moderation of alt.sources vs. automated harangues

[David C Lawrence]

This isn't a matter of wanting another newsgroup, it's a matter of
wanting only sources in alt.sources.  Use the "n" key?  Why do people
think that is a cure-all?  To take the example to the extremes, I like
bicycling.  I do not want to see articles about bicycling in
alt.sources though.  I love my motorcycle and I thoroughly enjoy
horseback riding, but I don't want to find articles about motorcycling
in rec.equestrian.

Yes, I'm convinced moderating alt.sources would be impossible.  But
not because anyone has shown what the great need of an unmoderated
sources group is -- we on the "c'mon, try moderation" side have never
said it should be moderated as much as comp.sources groups.  Approved:
forgeries and all would be more than fair game.  There will probably
never be a "newgroup alt.sources moderated" message that wouldn't be
immediately followed by newgroup for an alt.sources.unmod or such.
And that completely defeats the purpose.  I personally already read
both alt.sources and alt.sources.d; if another alt.sources.* group
showed up I would probably be reading that too.

Brandon (I think) and one or two other people have suggested that
perhaps just a name change would help.  Can we agree on that or is
there going to be conniptions and newgroup/rmgroup trigger-happiness?
Variations on alt.sources-only or alt.source-code seem the most likely
candidates.  Problems?

Dave
-- 
 (setq mail '("tale at pawl.rpi.edu" "tale at itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale at rpitsmts.bitnet"))