ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/01/85)
In article <1319@pucc-k> rsk@pucc-k (Wombat) writes: >First off, I support the decision made by the backbone site admins and >implemented by Gene Spafford 100%. > >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. >-- >Rich Kulawiec rsk@pur-ee.uucp rsk@purdue.uucp rsk@purdue-asc.arpa 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.) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa
rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) (11/08/85)
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
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/11/85)
In article <546@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) 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. My brains seem to be working. What about yours? (Note: I have been careful to avoid personal insults except in response to others, which is what this is.) >I didn't say word one about whether or not I agreed with anyone's opinion >as expresed in the named groups. Then what do you mean by saying that they have no redeeming value? If you think the postings are otherwise worthwhile, but don't belong on the net, you might think that they have little redeeming value, but none? And you never did respond to my remark about the arguments being a catch-22. >Nor did I say anything about cutting those groups anywhere but *locally*. >Note the careful inclusion of "...at this site" in my original article. A quote from your posting (which you conveniently left out): "First off, I support the decision made by the backbone site admins and implemented by Gene Spafford 100%". In other words, you DO support a de- cision to remove those groups other than locally, and you DO believe that other groups will be next after net.bizarre, and you DO believe a) the postings in net.bizarre are not "particularly of value to the general readership" and that other groups that have "more volume and more problems" will be next. If you didn't really mean that you agreed with this 100%, you shouldn't have said so. (quotes other than the first in this paragraph are from Spafford's announcement of net.bizarre deletion) >And even then, I was cautious ("I think..."). But you agree 100% with Spafford. Doesn't sound cautious to me. >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. At the time, I was still not permitted to access net.news.group. I agree that that is relevant, and I never said that the article shouldn't have been there. What I said was that it ALSO should have been in the very groups the fate of whom you were discussing, where you didn't put it. >Tired of people who cannot read, >Rich Kulawiec rsk@pur-ee.uucp rsk@purdue.uucp rsk@purdue-asc.arpa When I say I agree 100% with someone, I know what that means. Do you? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa