sdo@u1100a.UUCP (Scott Orshan) (06/15/84)
I've seen five articles in the past few days which were actually
posted to net.junk along with their other groups. The subject
seems to be the functioning of the brain.
The articles are:
<186@isrnix.UUCP>
<9@cbosgd.UUCP>
<189@isrnix.UUCP>
<3588@fortune.UUCP>
<20@cbosgd.UUCP>
I suppose net.junk is better than net.general, but you're not
supposed to post to it. Anyway, who would read an article whose
author thought that it belonged in net.junk?
--
Scott Orshan
Bell Communications Research
201-981-3064
{ihnp4,allegra,pyuxww}!u1100a!sdomr@isrnix.UUCP ( Michael Regoli ) (06/18/84)
It seems I am to blame for this whole mess. I originally
posted my inquiry (How many bytes in the brain?) to net.
junk...thinking the question to be just that, Junk. I
have heard the *horror* stories of people getting toasted
by posting to the wrong newsgroup. I didn't want to fall
in that category. I was searching for maximum saturation,
if you will. I wanted to reach the maximum number of
newsgroups without misposting.
No one at our site forbade us to post to net.junk. I thought
that group to be full of net.misfits and net.deformities that
could never make it in netland.
And, as it appears, someone *DOES* read net.junk!!
Still waiting for net.bullshit,
Michael Regoli
...isrnix!mr
--
Michael Regoli
...ihnp4!inuxc!isrnix!mrfaunt@saturn.UUCP (Doug Faunt) (06/21/84)
Net.bullshit is redundant.
paulsc@tekecs.UUCP (Paul Scherf) (06/23/84)
Re: who would read an article posted to net.junk? You did.