Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!fair From: fair@ucbvax.ARPA (Erik E. Fair) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: Removing net.flame Message-ID: <8853@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 01:45:33 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8853 Posted: Mon Jul 8 01:45:33 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 07:30:38 EDT References: <3892@alice.UUCP> <484@oliveb.UUCP> <268@luke.UUCP> <1304@cbosgd.UUCP> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 27 Xref: watmath net.news:3594 net.news.group:3235 Let's consider the argument that flames would smear all the other ``good'' newsgroups if net.flame were removed. For the class of postings that appear in both net.flame and in some other newsgroup, having net.flame does no good, since the flames are also being posted to the group involved. Ucbvax keeps one month of netnews on line, and the numbers there are 49% cross posted (338 articles), 51% only in net.flame (359 articles). So half the identified flames on the network already DO appear in the other newsgroups. I suggest that all of you ask yourselves two questions: 1. In your experience, how often have flaming arguments been completely moved fromto net.flame so that other discussion could continue on, ``business as usual''? 2. Would you (do you!) tolerate or condone unbridled flaming in your favorite newsgroup (this assumes that your favorite newsgroup is not net.flame)? Further comments are solicited. keeper of the network news on ucbvax, Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU