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