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 Subject: Re: An observation and a question Message-ID: <623@k.cs.cmu.edu> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 17:52:49 EST Article-I.D.: k.623 Posted: Tue Oct 29 17:52:49 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 09:24:37 EST References: <546@moncol.UUCP> Organization: Society for the Protection and Preservation of net.bizarre Lines: 26 In article <546@moncol.UUCP> john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) writes: > Now that net.bizarre is officially gone, has anyone noticed that the >worst has not happened. Bizarreness has not overwhlemed the rest of the >net. Are you sure about that? :-) > Hmmm... I wonder... If a rmgroup was thusly applied to something like >net.flame would its need similarly go away? This is a trick question. Since there is no "need", it can't go away. (People will still flame in the other newsgroups, but net.flame only promotes the idea that flaming is OK and even encouraged.) If people are really serious about reducing net traffic, net.flame should be removed immediately. If people aren't serious about traffic, then net.bizarre should never have been deleted. (Let's face it, the only REAL reason that net.bizarre was deleted was size. "Legitimacy" arguments are only a smokescreen.) Vote YES to delete net.flame. -- 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..."