Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 (Fortune 01.1b1); site graffiti.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter From: peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: the recent rmgroups have started me thinking ... Message-ID: <385@graffiti.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 22:33:15 EST Article-I.D.: graffiti.385 Posted: Fri Nov 1 22:33:15 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 16:29:36 EST References: <179@mit-eddie.UUCP> <1823@hao.UUCP> Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX Lines: 22 Xref: watmath net.news:4242 net.news.group:4220 > I disagree. Failure to remove those groups would be a statement in fact > that the rules of newsgroup creation are just words and have no real meaning. Then net.bizarre should have been zapped right away. As it is it was let alone for too long. This set an unfortunate precedent. Maybe there need to be different rules for technical & non-technical groups. > > the removal of said groups should have been done on a site-to-site basis, in > > other words they should have no longer agreed to carry it, leaving the > > rest of the sites who wish to carry the groups alone. > > This does not follow. This would only be true if the groups had been > created properly in the first place. Since they weren't, this doesn't apply. Maybe groups need to be *created* on a site-to-site basis as well. I find the concept of groups growing from certain core sites as neigbours find them useful very appealing. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter