Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Removing net.flame
Message-ID: <527@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 22:55:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.527
Posted: Fri Jun 28 22:55:21 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:03:40 EDT
References: <3892@alice.UUCP> <1913@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> <517@rtech.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.news:3526 net.news.group:3199

Another point in the net.flame controversy:

Certain groups (the various religion groups, for instance) are very prone to
discussions which rapidly turn into (or start out as) flaming sessions.
These discussions rarely move over into net.flame, except when they are
cross-posted to both.  This only helps those rn users who don't want to read
anything from net.flame.

For these groups, I don't think that the removal of net.flame will change
things much.  It never seemed to sop up the perennial "driving courtesy"
fight in net.auto.  As I've watched groups get added, I've noticed that
people tend to post where they feel like, ragardless of the structure of the
system.  Attacks upon Christianity are still carried out in net.religion and
net.philosophy; evolution debates keep appearing in net.religion.
Trekkie discussions and Dr. Who continue to infest net.sf-lovers.  In that
respect I think that net.flame is a failure, especially considering how much
of its traffic is cross-posted to other groups.

Considering that one promonent and rather flamy netter has publicly stated
tht he will post articles wherever he feels like posting them, I think that
system adminstrators have every right to take matters into their own hands.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe