[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Moderation
- From: Charles Stroom <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 02:00:00 MEST
- Message-ID: <33F0B260683@nrm.se>
I don't think it's worthwhile to repeat all arguments for or against
moderation: all have been repeated many times and the conclusion is
Personally, I cannot see any at all reason why this list should be
moderated and the dangers of inadequate techniques disclosed to
laymen is small as compared to the dangers not to mention such
methods with adequate commentary.
I have not heard of any period which claim to do a better
restoration/conservation job than the experts of 10, 25 or
whatever years ago, but it is difficult to believe that only the
experts of our decade are not making gross errors. After all it
is not so long ago that an ideal inert, non-corrosive, non-toxic
technical fluid with full scientific evidence was introduced as
the perfect solution for all problems, called Freon.
Just to keep commercials out is a somewhat thin argument and
overloading does not really seem to be a problem for this list.
Besides, there are high volume news groups with high interest
values which have contributed to the solution of problems we had
at hand, also in Dana Emery's speciality.
Conclusion, away with moderation (but as Jeremy remarked, it's
up to the maintainer of the list; he does the work).
Charles Stroom, Estec/YCV
firstname.lastname@example.org or CSTROOM@ESTEC.BITNET
European Space Technology Centre, Noordwijk, the Netherlands
Phone: +31 1719 84014, Fax: +31 1719 12142, Telex: 39098