|
Another fine message from the rec.arts.movies.erotica reading room...
[Prev][Subject][Thread] Re: RFD: rec.arts.movies.erotica moderated
(news.admin.hierarchies removed from newsgroups line - I'm not sure why it was there) In article <[email protected]>, Tim Evanson <[email protected]> wrote: >lamont ([email protected]) wrote: > >: If there is to be a moderated group, then I agree that it should contain >: "moderated" in the title. Those behind the proposed formation of a new >: group thought long and hard on how to create a group that would best >: satisfy their needs. Since they concluded it would best serve their >: interests to avoid adding "moderated" to the title, I wonder what their >: thinking was? Perhaps they fear that a sex movies group with "moderated" >: in the title might scare readers away, readers who sense that "moderated" >: implies censorship in some form, an anathama to the free interplay of >: ideas and opinions on any subject, especially in conversations dealing >: with sex and porn. However, in the proposal and in Tim's reply to my >: opposition, much is made about how a moderated or censored group will >: attract "mature" discussion of porn. If they really believed this, I >: wonder why they so carefully left "moderated" out of the title? > >Rather than slur the proponents' good names and motives, Lamont, why >don't you accept the simple answer: > >Because we forgot to put "moderated" there. It should also be remembered that very few moderated groups have names including the keyword "moderated", as the following shows: sable(23)% wc .newsrc 2140 4228 109347 .newsrc sable(24)% grep moderated .newsrc alt.atheism.moderated! 1-10252,10428 Oxford, with 2140 newsgroups, has only a single newsgroup containing the final keyword "moderated". While this may not be entirely representative of the situation elsewhere, it can hardly be said that including "moderated" is standard practice. Jonathan References:
|