Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site pucc-j Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!pucc-j!rsk From: rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.flame,net.religion,net.politics,net.philosophy Subject: Re: net.bizarre is just the first... Message-ID: <546@pucc-j> Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 23:25:59 EST Article-I.D.: pucc-j.546 Posted: Thu Nov 7 23:25:59 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 07:25:17 EST References: <1319@pucc-k> <1085@jhunix.UUCP> Reply-To: rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) Organization: Purdue University Lines: 38 Xref: lsuc net.news.group:1699 net.flame:2221 net.religion:546 net.politics:1898 net.philosophy:515 In article <1085@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes: >In article <1319@pucc-k> rsk@pucc-k (Wombat) writes: >> >>net.bizarre is permanently dead at this site. >>I think net.religion, net.politics, and net.philosophy are next, simply >>because they are soapboxes (and big ones at that) with little or no redeeming >>value. I expect that the deletion of these four groups will cut our volume >>by 25%, maybe more. > >Isn't this a catch-22? You have to have demonstrated volume to create a >newsgroup, but these groups should be deleted to "cut our volume by 25%". >Also, who decides what "redeeming value" is? Do these groups have no >redeeming value just because some people express opinions in them which >don't agree with your own? > >(And note: the original article went to net.flame and net.news.group. >It did _not_ go to net.religion, net.politics, or net.philosophy, which >seems somewhat unfair.) Listen up, mush-for-brains. I didn't say word one about whether or not I agreed with anyone's opinion as expresed in the named groups. Nor did I say anything about cutting those groups anywhere but *locally*. Note the careful inclusion of "...at this site" in my original article. And even then, I was cautious ("I think..."). Note that I posted the article to net.news.group, which is certainly relevant, and to net.flame simply because I felt it might be classified as a flame by some folks. So you may take your backhanded comment ("...somewhat unfair") and ram it. Tired of people who cannot read, -- Rich Kulawiec rsk@pur-ee.uucp rsk@purdue.uucp rsk@purdue-asc.arpa