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