I agree.

In my opinion, this list is not in particular need of moderation.

I don't always have time to read all the long posts, but when I do have
time, I usually enjoy them.

This list does not seem to me to have a serious problem with spam, off-topic
discussions, or discussions of low intellectual quality.

There is a lot of speculative, non-rigorous opinion-giving, but, that is the
nature of the list.  It is not an announcements list, nor a list for
collaborative work among a group of closely-collaborating colleagues; it is
a list for general discussion among a fairly heterogeneous group, on a
fairly generally-defined topic.  I think it serves its purpose well as is.

-- Ben Goertzel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 5:48 PM
> To: Hal Finney; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: A moderated everything-list substitute (was: Re: Provably
> exponential time algorithms)
> Hal Finney wrote:
> > Maybe you could look at the list archive at
> >
> > and say which posts from, say, December 30th and 31st you would reject.
> > (Or, if the list would be shorter, you could say which posts in that
> > period you would keep!)
> Actually, one doesn't have to dig very deep in the archive. This
> very thread
> is an example of an off topic irrelevant discussion. Irrelevant, because
> there are so few other postings that should not have appeared on
> this list.
> Saibal

Reply via email to