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 from  to 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