Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!hplabs!hao!woods From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: net.internat Message-ID: <1827@hao.UUCP> Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 15:06:20 EST Article-I.D.: hao.1827 Posted: Mon Oct 28 15:06:20 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 06:57:09 EST References: <471@cheviot.uucp> Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 69 > For the first time we have a group created to fulfill a real need and > the netlords decide we cant have it!! The problem is, the only need demonstrated for the group was shown AFTER the group was created improperly. The rules for newsgroup creation CLEARLY state that the FIRST thing that must happen is sufficient volume of postings must appear in other groups to justify creation of a new group. If they don't, then there's no need for the group. There is nothing to stop you from discussing a new topic in an existing group. IF the topic generates a lot of traffic, THEN propose a new group. > I bet there were more people at the > Copenhagen meeting than there were votes for net.auto.tech or some such thing. Why waste money on transmitting votes about when you can arrange Maybe so. net.auto.tech was not created because of the votes for it. It was created because there was a demonstrated volume of postings in net.auto to justify a new group. > net.internat fills a critical need in the os > world at this time and its about time that the US woke up to the fact > there are other people and cultures out there. For the 101st time, the content of the group is not why it was removed. I think that SHOULD be clear to anyone who can read by this time. > I think disguising > bigotry by flaming about voting procedures is utterly despicable. Then why are YOU doing it?? Read your last two sentences. I think YOU are the bigot. Read what you're saying. "It's the Americans fault, we Europeans are better than that, we would NEVER stoop to such a low level". You are using accusations of bigotry as a somkescreen to hide the fact that your pet group was created improperly. THE CONTENT OF THE GROUP IS NOT AT ISSUE. Nor is who created it. The objection to it is SOLELY based on HOW it was created. > As I > said above we have to put up with ridiculous newsgroups so I dont see > why the US shouldnt put up with something useful for a change. The US is perfectly willing to "put up with", and probably even (gasp!) participate in and benefit from, discussions on this topic, provided that the group is created properly. The reason that we HAVE the rules for creating groups are to cut down growth of traffic and to PREVENT discussing the merits of a particular topic and confine new group discussions to whether the group is NEEDED, as opposed to whether we should discuss the topic. > Yes, the > net does seem to be full of flamers and cranks with very little > technical content, but it is noticeable that there are very few (if any) > flames from outside the US part of the net - the people in the real > world out here cant afford the comms charges and try and keep it > technical. Another VERY thinly-veiled bigoted remark. If that doesn't qualify as "garbage", then what does? And, it came from Europe! :-) :-) > So lets make a choice NOW - either we have a sensible net > (and net.internat is certainly sensible) or we just forget it. I agree. I vote for a sensible net, which means no random creation of even USEFUL newsgroups, until a demonstrated need for the group has been established. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY