Moderated C group ? (was Re: Posting)

[Karl Heuer]

In article <18227 at unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu> jcbst3 at unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (James C. Benz) writes:
>How about comp.lang.c.bsd, comp.lang.c.sysv, comp.lang.c.pc, comp.lang.c.mac?

Questions that are really about the compilation or execution environment
rather than C itself (e.g. "How do I print sideways on the paper?  I'm using
C.") should go to the appropriate comp.sys group *instead* of comp.lang.c.
This problem can be solved by moderation, or partially reduced by education.
Or it can be ignored.

In article <18230 at unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu> jcbst3 at unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (James C. Benz) writes:
>I vote for unmoderated.  As many of the readers of this group already know,
>I often post *really* stupid questions, some of which I already know the
>answer to, but just don't know I know.  In a moderated group, a question the
>moderator thinks is stupid might not get through the filter, but the person
>posting it (me) thinks it is mighty important, and may be sitting around
>tearing their hair out looking for an answer.

So, let's draw up a charter: The moderator shall not reject a question for
being "stupid".  He/she may reject an *answer* for being wrong ("int is always
32 bits") or redundant (the 25th consecutive posting saying "no it isn't"), or
any posting for being inappropriate ("How do you pronounce `#'?").  Does this
sound reasonable?

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl at haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint