From: joe@sfbooks.com 
  
 In article <864qmoutmw.fsf@sol01.isp.gweep.ca>, 
 Brian Edmonds   wrote: 
  
 > ru.igarashi@usask.ca writes: 
  
 > > So, is this really a serious proposal (the headers looked legit to 
 > > me, but the tone looked prankish)? 
  
 > Don't know.  I'd certainly recommend that it be moderated, if only 
 > lightly, to prevent floating flamewars and such.  Moderation seems to 
 > be fairly common in soc.*, particularly for anything that tends to 
 > attract the kind of both serious and troll attention that is is likely 
 > to. 
  
 Well, actually, I'm reading its nan approval as acknowledgement that 
 "all of soc.religion.* [except sr.quaker] should be moderated" is 
 not a nan-enforced rule, but at most a voter-enforced one.  If I 
 remember recent announcements correctly and haven't mixed up people 
 with the same name, um, that means *you* aren't enforcing any such 
 rule as you rather mildly understate above. 
  
 (The other theoretically all-moderated sub-hierarchy in soc.*, 
 as far as I recall, is soc.sexuality.*, and in that case without 
 the Quaker exception.) 
  
 Joe Bernstein 
  
 -- 
 Joe Bernstein, bookseller and writer                   joe@sfbooks.com 
  
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)