Date:	Wed, 5 Mar 1997 16:54:00 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Jesse Bennett <jbennett AT ti DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: c.o.m.djgpp retro-moderated?
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.3.91.970305030454.321A-100000@lenny.dseg.ti.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.970305164326.18300B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Jesse W. Bennett wrote:

> In summary, the risk of *arbitrary* cancellation on *personal* or other
> irrelevant grounds DOES exist.  Sorry, but this is the current state of 
> USENET.  I wish it weren't true.

Yes, this risk indeed exists, but it is not unique to the r-m groups.

> best interest of the group to understand the issues involved.  If the
> concensus is that R-M is the Right Thing I will accept that as the will of
> the community.  But I want to feel confident that it was an informed
> choice.

No, I'm not sure there is such a consensus.  In fact, I personally am not 
convinced that it is the Right Thing to do.  So your contribution to the 
discussion is welcome.

> example, if an off-topic question is posed it should not be answered in
> the newsgroup.  If someone wants to be helpful they should reply by email.

Experience shows that this doesn't work, not because of malice but perhaps
because that is how many DJGPP users behave.  The only practical way to
make the noise lower is to have designated people on the news group who
would point out such cases and ask the involved to kindly take their
discission off the group.  This requires that the majority of the
participants will accept such judgement and abide by it.  Personally, I
would hesitate to become such an arbiter, even if I were asked (and had
the time), since I am not sure how well my opinions match those of others. 

> factors.  My opposition to R-M should not be interpreted as a lack of 
> trust.  I simply don't believe it is necessary.

I'm not sure it's necessary either.

- Raw text -