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..."