Re: BD: comp.binaries.apple2.d

[photon!uunet!pro-magic.oau.org!bdoherty (Benjamin Doherty)]

anthony@seas.smu.edu (Richard Anthony) writes:

>WEll a .d group might be a good idea.  As many might recall Jawaid was willing
>to moderate the binaries, but it was voted down.  Personally I think Moderation
>would be better than a .d group.  If you look at any of the other groups
>that have .d's, non 'uuencoded' posts still pop up on the groups.  I think
>a request for moderation can be brought up again in a few months, I'm not sure
>but I am sure someone can post when a revote can be brought up

Yes, but there is a difference.  A .d group wouldn't just alleviate the
non-binary messages in c.b.a2 but provide a discussion area for the programs
posted.  I don't read c.s.a2 every day because it is too large of a group and
I don't have enough time on my accounts.  Moderation and a .d group are two
completely different things.  A moderated group would inhibit postings and a
.d group would allow for non-binary requests, comments, or descriptions to be
posted.

Benjamin Doherty@1:363/152| \/\  _O_ |Benjamin.Doherty@f152.n363.z1.fidonet.org
Ask me about TunaNET v3.80| /\/   |< |Starkist - 407-859-9999 - FidoNET/UseNET