[news.misc] Appalling cost of soc.singles

macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) (06/01/87)

In article <15752@gatech.gatech.edu> spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes:

>...Netwide, soc.singles
>is possibly costing in the millions of dollars a year to support.

Considering the high volume of pap, trivia, ephemera, foo-foo, and drivel,
it's a bad deal all around.

woods@hao.UUCP (06/02/87)

In article <1713@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>Considering the high volume of pap, trivia, ephemera, foo-foo, and drivel,
>it's a bad deal all around.

  This is a personal judgment with which not everyone agrees. I could make
the same argument about comp.sources.amiga. I don't own an Amiga. No
one here does. Therefore all the bytes we pass around are garbage and should
be eliminated. Clearly a bogus argument. It also ignores the fact that the
"drivel" in soc.singles would probably get posted somewhere else if there
were no such group. Just consider it lucky it's in a group by itself so you can
unsubscribe to it if you don't want to read it.

--Greg
-- 
UUCP: {hplabs, seismo, nbires, noao}!hao!woods
CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
INTERNET: woods@hao.ucar.edu

chuq@plaid.UUCP (06/03/87)

> Clearly a bogus argument. It also ignores the fact that the
>"drivel" in soc.singles would probably get posted somewhere else if there
>were no such group. Just consider it lucky it's in a group by itself so you can
>unsubscribe to it if you don't want to read it.

I almost hate to step into this argument, but there is no proof that this
occurs. In fact, the history of net.flame shows that it is likely that most
of the material (that isn't already cross-posted) disappears instead of
shifting to another group. 

chuq
Chuq Von Rospach	chuq@sun.COM		Delphi: CHUQ

Now, where did my ex-wife put my Fairy Dust?