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