Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hound.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hound!rfg
From: rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: use of net.general
Message-ID: <420@hound.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Mar-84 01:42:29 EST
Article-I.D.: hound.420
Posted: Sun Mar  4 01:42:29 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Mar-84 08:59:53 EST
References: <498@osu-dbs.UUCP> <287@oliveb.UUCP> <528@ihuxb.UUCP>, <1053@cbosgd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 13

I think the popularity of net.announce since its inception demonstrates
the problem with most of the objections to net.general. When you strip
away all the not important to important people stuff there isn't much
left.  Personally, I think the status quo isn't so bad. A little barking
now and then by the watchdogs keeps things from getting out of hand.  I also
think there is a need for a topic that has the properties of "general."
Something that most everyone reads and yet is general purpose. For one
thing it reduces the need for multiple posting if you want to access
a sizeable percentage of the membership.
Perhaps a better idea would be to borrow from the (old?) BBC. Use two
channels: net.general and net.general2.(or net.general3, etc) Getting
progressively less restrained. People could subscribe to as many as
they felt they could stand.    Dick Grantges hound!rfg