home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!uvaarpa!murdoch!kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU!crb7q
- From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
- Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
- Message-ID: <1993Jan12.203251.18849@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
- Organization: University of Virginia
- References: <MERRITT.93Jan11100049@macro.bu.edu> <1993Jan11.223445.13105@galois.mit.edu> <MERRITT.93Jan12102855@macro.bu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:32:51 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <MERRITT.93Jan12102855@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
-
- > the reader) than she may place that moderator in a kill file.
- > Instead of undiscriminated signal like we have in sci.physics,
- > we will have 4 distinct signals with different thresholds.
- > If one channel becomes too noisy the reader has the option of
- > turning it off.
- >
- > I would even say we let the moderators "filter" themselves,
- > rather than have another moderator "approve" thier articles.
- > That way the moderator's own posts will either increase or
- > decrease the S/N ratio of that channel.
-
- First, if a 'channel' becomes noisy, then someone is not
- doing their job properly, and I hope someone would point that out.
- Second, I think it a matter of courtesy to the other posters
- that moderators submit to the same moderation procedure as
- everyone else. Third, I thought your basic objection was to
- too stringent moderation, not too lax.
-
- dale bass
- --
- C. R. Bass crb7q@virginia.edu
- Department of Mechanical,
- Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
- University of Virginia (804) 924-7926
-