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