Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!bch From: bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: Fear and Loathing on the Clouds Message-ID: <680@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 14:49:27 EST Article-I.D.: ecsvax.680 Posted: Fri Nov 1 14:49:27 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Nov-85 04:25:15 EST References: <614@h-sc1.UUCP> <1817@hao.UUCP> <326@pedsgd.UUCP> Reply-To: bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) Organization: N C Educational Computing Service Lines: 47 Xref: watmath net.news:4265 net.news.group:4280 Summary: In article <535@scirtp.UUCP> dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: >Eric was pushing the issue when he said "NEVER". I aggree that "NEVER" is >not entirely correct. However, I don't think these minor exceptions matter. >Perpetuation of the ideals of group-creationism is wrong and should not be >used as an argument, much less a justification. Then we agree that the notion that there has always been a consensus about newsgroup creation or deletion is a myth. Groups with high legitimacy, like net.announce, have been correctly created by fiat -- whether an exception or not -- directly in contradiction to the published procedure for newsgroup creation. >I don't really think the "mod" groups count as genuine "news groups" since >they are moderated. I see the mod groups more as Arpa-style mailing lists >that get posted instead of mailed. Odd. They generate traffic that takes up disk space. They occupy a line in my active file (which occasionally overflows.) They need to have expire run against them. They're subject to newgroup and rmgroup messages like anything else. They have subject matter which may be technical or recreational. Gee, they look just like newsgroups to me. Where does it say in the rules for usenet conduct that the procedure for creating mod.* groups is different than the procedure for creating net.* groups? >Ok, It may have happened that way, but it isn't right. Creation OR deletion >of groups without a concensus is still wrong. See above complaint about >justification. If it the creation of net.announce was so wrong, why didn't you complain then? Why aren't people complaining about the current run of mod.groups being created. Oh yeah. They're different. They're not *real* newsgroups. :-) >On an ad hoc network as large >as USENET, "by and large" is the ONLY way things can be done since there is >no single controlling entity - nor should there be. Then the usenet document is meaningless (we've never reached consensus on it and, in fact, have violated it many times.) Net.internat should not have been rmgrouped. You can't have it both ways. -- Byron Howes System Manager -- NCECS ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch