Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!clarke
From: clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: proposed destruction of net.bizarre
Message-ID: <1541@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 00:27:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsri.1541
Posted: Sun Oct 27 00:27:41 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Oct-85 00:41:51 EDT
References: <384@cad.cs.cmu.edu> <617@k.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 24
Summary: 

In article <617@k.cs.cmu.edu> mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) writes:
>>>WHY DIDN'T YOU CROSSPOST THE DELETION DISCUSSION TO NET.BIZARRE SO THAT
>>>EVERYONE COULD PARTICIPATE???
>>I don't have the old posts to back this up, but I think the initial message
>>in that discussion was posted to net.bizarre as well.  
>
>I don't think so.  If there was any mention of deletion in net.bizarre, it
>didn't mention voting.  (I read EVERY article in net.bizarre, so I would
>remember seeing a deletion notice.)

If you really read every article in net.bizarre, I doubt that you can now
remember anything at all....:-)

I am very sure that there was a mention in net.bizarre of the debate in
this group.  I don't think it mentioned voting, but in any normal group that
should have been unnecessary.  I presume the reason why this group was not
swamped by net.bizarrers demanding that it be retained was either (for some
of them) they didn't have enough sense to figure out what was going on
[suppose I'd better :-) here too] or (for most) they could see they were
just fooling around and couldn't honestly claim the group should stay alive.
-- 
Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
              (416) 978-4058
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke