Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!teklds!azure!chrisa
From: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Removing net.flame
Message-ID: <299@azure.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 00:14:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: azure.299
Posted: Wed Jul  3 00:14:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 01:32:00 EDT
References: <3892@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 32
Xref: watmath net.news:3505 net.news.group:3189
Summary: 

In article <3892@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes:
>
> I PROPOSE:
>	It is in the interest of those who wish to see nutnews continue
>as the nation's number one use of cpu and user cycles to formally,
>and permanantly remove nut.flame from the list of newgroups supported
>by nutnews.  Any site who wishes, desipite this lack of support,
>to continue carrying nut.flame may indeed do so, however, 
>those who feel that it is inappropriate and prejudicial to the
>continued existance of the net may remove it and remain "USENET"
>subscribers.

I thought that site adminstrators can already do this (as a matter of fact,
some have already done it).  If any site wishes to stop receiving net.flame,
they may do so (of course they may have to contend with the ire of their 
users).

I think that many of the problems (usually associated with cross-posting
to net.flame) can be eliminated if the news software was to prompt a poster
any time his/her followup will go to more then one newsgroup (not just net.flame
but ANY newsgroups).  This would make people more aware of just where there
"profound" words are going.  Also, changing the news prefix from "net" to
"world" as someone else suggested may also go far tworads solving these 
problems.  Many people may not realize just how many are actually
reading their words (and possibly getting quite a laugh out of them B-)).

If your suggesting the COMPLETE removal of net.flame then I would say that
this is a bad move.  People will naturally flame when they feel the need 
arises and I'm sure many would agree that it would be better to contain it
to one newsgroup instead of allowing it to pollute the entire net.

Chris Andersen