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