Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucsfcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold
From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Delete net.flame?
Message-ID: <699@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 21:28:14 EST
Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.699
Posted: Thu Nov  7 21:28:14 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 03:31:53 EST
References: <690@h-sc1.UUCP> <3500017@ccvaxa>
Reply-To: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold)
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab
Lines: 23

In article <3500017@ccvaxa> wombat@ccvaxa.UUCP writes:
>3. The death of net.bizarre is a Good Thing. I have no sympathy for a group
>that degenerated into a slushpile as fast as net.bizarre did. I also have
>none for anyone who doesn't read net.news.group.  If you didn't read far
>enough into the netiquette article to find out about it, you shouldn't have
>a vote anyway. If you "aren't allowed to read net.news.group" you should
>work on your site adminstrator to get that policy changed. You could
>probably get a lot of leverage from the net to support such a request.

Look, I voted for both the creation and the deletion of net.bizarre.
It certainly did become garbage quickly.  But this is hardly a
reasonable attitude.  net.news.group is (read it and weep) a *high*
*volume* newsgroup.  So it isn't a minor thing just to keep up on it in
case someone talks about deleting a group you like.  It is so
reasonable to post a simple message to the group saying its deletion is
being discussed in net.news.group that I can't see why anyone would
oppose this.  (There seems to be some disagreement over whether this
was done for net.bizarre -- did anyone out there *send* it?  Several
people saying "I think I saw one" isn't convincing enough for me.)

I agree that not carrying net.news.group is not smart, but the whole
net shouldn't have to suffer from it.  On this, Wombat and I agree.
		Ken Arnold