Re: Upcoming RFD: comp.compilers.unmoderated

"Trevor Jenkins" <Trevor.Jenkins@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:slrnd7ido2.fsf.Trevor.Jenkins@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 4 May 2005 12:34:55 +0000 (UTC), Kunle Odutola
<noemails@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> > Having an unmoderated counterpart would not change that. It provides
an
> > additional forum for discussions free from moderation. Yes, spammers
would
> > probably post to it and would all sorts of other detractors but,
unmoderated
> > discussions would still occur.
>
> Sure discussion could take place there but one has to ask why it can't
> take place in the established newsgroup that has served the compiler
> writing community well since it was started back in 1986.

Perhaps because not everyone interested in discussing issues related to
compilers and language processing can (or wish to) post to the existing
moderated group?.

Perhaps because it takes too darned long for posts to appear in the
moderated group. It is almost always quicker to find some other discussion
forum.

> > > I say forget issuing an RFD; let's keep compiler discussions spam
and
> > > nonsense free in the existing well-moderated comp.compilers.
> >
> > You haven't presented any sound arguments for dismissing the proposed
RFD
> > yet.
>
> The present newsgroup serves the community perfectly adequately and has
> done so for nigh-on 20 years. As well as being moderated by some one who
> knows what the %^&* he's talking about.

That isn't an argument for dismissing the proposed RFD. It's an argument
for
maintaining the existing moderated group.

> As a rejoinder I don't think that the original poster has even hinted at
> why he's issuing an RFD. A pointed question early in the thread has so
far
> gone unanswered.

I think the answer to that is obvious - a place for unmoderated discussion
of compiler-related issues.

Kunle