🚀 go-pugleaf

vporguen@unlinfo.unl.edu (victor porguen) writes:

>Precisely. And no need for any kind of "moderation", either.
>Most of us are grown ups.
Speak for yourself :)

And cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes

>The reiteration of old ideas -- the eternal conflict between value systems
>-- belongs in a talk.* group, not in a sci.* group.
...

>sci.crypt a moderator who would refuse to permit any reiteration of a
>position already seen in the group, it would get back to its proper 1
>message a day or less.
What about us newbies who've never had the joy of iterating the
position, or even seeing it. Surely your not going to force every one to
wade throught 5 years of archived drivel before they can join? Besides the drivel
level here seems lower that say in sci.physics.

But yes, a moderated sci.crypt.serious group would be a good idea, with
the moderator pushing discussions, reiterations, flames etx into
sci.crypt. (Not that I'd want to be moderator- are there volunteers?)