From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,544c98121879c710 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,d4b3d171336fca98 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 14e27f,d4b3d171336fca98 X-Google-Attributes: gid14e27f,public X-Google-Thread: f753e,544c98121879c710 X-Google-Attributes: gidf753e,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,544c98121879c710 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,544c98121879c710 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,544c98121879c710 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,544c98121879c710 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: ell@access.digex.net (Ell) Subject: Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated Date: 1998/10/14 Message-ID: <362a2db9.20745931@news.erols.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 400874020 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <907918039.22235@isc.org> <36237050.278941@news.erols.com> <3623921A.CD61B9E4@objectshare.com> <8zPU1.660$zi4.293929060@newsreader.digex.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com X-Trace: autumn.news.rcn.net 908341185 5741 207.172.182.90 (14 Oct 1998 04:59:45 GMT) Organization: Universe Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: ell@access.digex.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Oct 1998 04:59:45 GMT Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.ada,comp.object.corba,comp.software-eng,news.groups.news.announce.newsgroups Date: 1998-10-14T04:59:45+00:00 List-Id: Patrick Logan wrote: >In comp.object Ell wrote: >: >: You elided the part where I quoted from the RFD that one-upsmanship will >: be allowed. >A moderator that bends the mentioned rules for "one upmanship" would >be in violation of the rules and would receive more than a little >wrath from the others. > >Also each moderator has stated a reluctance to use these specific >rules even to the fullest extent expressed in the rules, per se. These >rules are from other moderated groups, they seem to work, and yet the >moderators for this RFD have expressed reluctance to employ them to >any great extent. What's intended should be exactly what's in the RFD. Also what's wrong with doing better than the past? Some of the rules from the past are terrible and should be modified. The framers of the US Constitution were correct not to just accept the traditional monarchical ideas on the state. They could have, but they did better. That is if there is, or should be, a group at all, which still has to be decided. Elliott -- :=***=: VOTE NO TO MODERATION! :=***=: CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM! MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS! :=***=: Objective * Pre-code Modelling * Holistic :=***=: Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.