moderation of alt.sources vs. automated harangues

[David C Lawrence]

In article <17149 at rpp386.cactus.org>, jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II):
John> How about you tell us what the need =isn't=.  Your argument has been
John> no more persuading than his.

I never said my argument was persuading, but at least it does have the
characteristics of a more civilized debate.  I already had stated what
the need "=isn't=".  I not only presented further elaboration on
Kyle's posting I also presented why that position might be supported
and why it might be undermined.  And then Ray returned by saying "but
there is a need for an unmoderated source group, and alt.sources fills
that need" without providing _anything_ to indicate what that need is.
I asked for more support for that point of view (which I am very
receptive to -- I am not steadfastly pushing for moderated
alt.sources) and then you came and did a grep of your active file and
said that I need to tell you why moderation would be a good thing,
which I had already done.  There has _got_ to be more to than this
simply countering with, "No.  It's not good."

John> I will now state, without further proof, that in the case of
John> alt.sources and friends moderation is a Bad Thing[tm].

Okay, why?  And how was a grep on your active file was sufficient proof?
alt.sources.amiga was being "actively" moderated by Peter, so it isn't
a good comparison for the matter at hand.  It was also limited to one
sort of source code which has a companion group or comp.sources.amiga.

I like Russ Nelson's proposal.  Read it in alt.config.

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