🚀 go-pugleaf

The Tibetian Traveller wrote:
 
> Keith A. Glass wrote:

> > The news-admin community isn't an issue here, it's the admin of the
> > dc.hierarchy
> > that comes into play here.  I had merely suggested it, to conserve
> > bandwidth:
> > when you effectively take a group moderated, you wipe the original. . .
 
> Your insistance on removing the unmoderated version of dc.general makes
> it seem that since you don't like some of the views expressed, you want
> to take away the format.  Again, what harm does having an unmoderated
> and moderated version of dc. general at the same time?  The unmoderated
> version won't inconvience you if you unsubscribe to it.

Actually, (and this is the LAST time I'm saying it. . .) I defaulted to
old habits of network bandwidth conservation. . .

> > The future is moderated groups, if for nothing else than to cut down the
> > noise level from spams. . .
 
> Perhaps for you.  90% of the newsgroups I follow are unmoderated.

Likewise, but those are fairly specialized newsgroups.
 
> > As far as this goes, I get flamed a few more times, I might just drop
> > this too, and
> > let dc.general get what it deserves. . .
  
> You seem to equate disagreement with flaming.  Most of the responses I
> have seen were disagreements with your proposal for removing dc.general.
> They have not been abusive.

I was referring to the privately emailed flames and the mailbombing I
got
yesterday.  It tends to set one on edge. . .