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