Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site k.cs.cmu.edu Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb From: mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.flame,net.misc Subject: Re: proposed destruction of net.bizarre Message-ID: <622@k.cs.cmu.edu> Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 15:26:24 EST Article-I.D.: k.622 Posted: Mon Oct 28 15:26:24 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 09:20:28 EST References: <384@cad.cs.cmu.edu> <617@k.cs.cmu.edu> <1541@utcsri.UUCP> Organization: Society for the Protection and Preservation of net.bizarre Lines: 48 Xref: linus net.news.group:3426 net.flame:11630 net.misc:7437 In article <1541@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >In article <617@k.cs.cmu.edu> mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) writes: >>... 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....:-) Actually, I was this way long before I started reading net.bizarre. :-) >I am very sure that there was a mention in net.bizarre of the debate in >this group. I am equally sure that there wasn't. Does anybody know for sure? Did anybody archive net.bizarre? >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. IF there was any mention that net.bizarre might be deleted (and I don't admit that there was), it was very brief and was probably thought to be a joke. (Come to think of it, I seem to remember a message suggesting that net.bizarre should be the first newsgroup to commit suicide. Was THAT the mention that you are thinking of??? If so, are you surprised that no one responded?) I dare say that net.bizarre had as much reason to exist (if not more) than net.flame, net.jokes, or a lot of other newsgroups. (Net.bizarre was originally created illegally, but it WAS eventually accepted by the Powers That Be. I can't believe that anyone is actually trying to argue that net.bizarre was deleted because it was illegally created 3 MONTHS AGO!!?) If everyone is so interested in reducing net traffic, why do we still have net.flame??? I'm still interested in hearing from anybody who wants to save net.bizarre and/or create mail.bizarre. Actually, I'm not certain that I need net.bizarre any more. Net.news.group is almost as much fun! :-) -- UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb ARPA: mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu "It came time to move, so I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch..."