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