From: Paul Shirley Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: c.o.m.djgpp retro-moderated? Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 22:49:44 +0000 Organization: wot? me? Lines: 37 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Paul Shirley NNTP-Posting-Host: chocolat.foobar.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp In article , Michael Phelps writes >On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Paul Shirley wrote: > >> In article <199703022040 DOT PAA22429 AT delorie DOT com>, DJ Delorie >> writes >> >As for the usual censorship argument, let me remind you all that >> >moderation and retro-moderation don't stop posts, they only stop posts >> >in the wrong groups. >> >> The only choice needed really is wether crossposts are automatically >> deleted or do they need examining first. >> Of course I could be being a little extreme here ;) >> >> Back in the real world: I suppose its worth discussing what an >> appropriate response to the FAQs that annoy Eli so much should be. >> Converting them to an email response *most* of the time sounds >> reasonable to me. > >I'm not completely convinced of that. It's easy to say when you're a I'd better clarify. My question is : if someone asks 'Why is my hello world program is 200K long?' is it reasonable to remove the public post and email a response instead, provided the message gets through to the newsgroup *some* of the time (to head of other requests). For many of the really common FAQs this would stop the usual cascade of replies adding to the noise level. I fully support deleting all spam and most crossposts. The question is simply which topics get fully cancelled, partially cancelled (as described above) or let through. Assuming moderation goes ahead thats all that really needs discussing. --- Paul Shirley: shuffle chocolat before foobar for my real email address