As long as we are taliking about rmgrouping ...

[jpn at teddy.UUCP]

>>The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator
>>'evaluates' the posting. 
>
>That's not a problem, that's a feature.
>
>>What happened to 'the free interchange of ideas'. 
>
>Free interchange of garbage and flames is more like it. We're trying to
>increase the ratio of ideas to garbage. I *love* mod.sources. Net.sources
>is much less useful.

Just to clarify the issue, as moderator of mod.sources, I have tried NOT
to do a whole lot of 'evaluating' postings.   My policy has been that
just about any posting that belongs in a "sources" newsgroup would be
passed through (meaning I will reject any article that is not source code).
Actually, I have criticized for being too "easy" - but my feeling is that
a moderator is not necessarily the same as an editor - especially for a
group like mod.sources.

Mod.sources was intended to filter out the "garbage and flames" and to
prevent repeated postings of the same program.  I don't particularly
like "censorship", either.  But let's face it, the noise level of
net.sources is getting pretty high!

John P. Nelson, Moderator, mod.sources
    (please submit sources to: panda!sources)
(decvax!genrad!panda!jpn  seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!jpn)