Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site k.cs.cmu.edu
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb
From: mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.flame,net.misc
Subject: Re: proposed destruction of net.bizarre
Message-ID: <622@k.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 15:26:24 EST
Article-I.D.: k.622
Posted: Mon Oct 28 15:26:24 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 09:20:28 EST
References: <384@cad.cs.cmu.edu> <617@k.cs.cmu.edu> <1541@utcsri.UUCP>
Organization: Society for the Protection and Preservation of net.bizarre
Lines: 48
Xref: linus net.news.group:3426 net.flame:11630 net.misc:7437

In article <1541@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes:
>In article <617@k.cs.cmu.edu> mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) writes:
>>... If there was any mention of deletion in net.bizarre, it
>>didn't mention voting.  (I read EVERY article in net.bizarre, so I would
>>remember seeing a deletion notice.)
>
>If you really read every article in net.bizarre, I doubt that you can now
>remember anything at all....:-)

Actually, I was this way long before I started reading net.bizarre. :-)

>I am very sure that there was a mention in net.bizarre of the debate in
>this group.

I am equally sure that there wasn't.  Does anybody know for sure?  Did
anybody archive net.bizarre?

>I presume the reason why this group was not
>swamped by net.bizarrers demanding that it be retained was either (for some
>of them) they didn't have enough sense to figure out what was going on
>[suppose I'd better :-) here too] or (for most) they could see they were
>just fooling around and couldn't honestly claim the group should stay alive.

IF there was any mention that net.bizarre might be deleted (and I don't
admit that there was), it was very brief and was probably thought to be a
joke.  (Come to think of it, I seem to remember a message suggesting that
net.bizarre should be the first newsgroup to commit suicide.  Was THAT the
mention that you are thinking of???  If so, are you surprised that no one
responded?)

I dare say that net.bizarre had as much reason to exist (if not more) than
net.flame, net.jokes, or a lot of other newsgroups.  (Net.bizarre was
originally created illegally, but it WAS eventually accepted by the Powers
That Be.  I can't believe that anyone is actually trying to argue that
net.bizarre was deleted because it was illegally created 3 MONTHS AGO!!?) If
everyone is so interested in reducing net traffic, why do we still have 
net.flame???

I'm still interested in hearing from anybody who wants to save net.bizarre
and/or create mail.bizarre.

Actually, I'm not certain that I need net.bizarre any more.  Net.news.group
is almost as much fun! :-)
-- 
UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb		ARPA: mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu

"It came time to move, so I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two 
blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch..."