allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (05/27/86)
Expires: Quoted from <13964@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> ["Re: Suggestions for talk.* groups follows"], by gsmith@brahms.UUCP... +--------------- | How do statistics prove what is "soapbox"? "Soapbox" has never been | defined in a satisfactory way. Thus postings like that of "jj". +--------------- +--------------- | >> net.sf-lovers | >> As much as I like SF, it's hardly work related, and there's | >> a lot of traffic. | | >Agreed. However, there are a lot of computer professionals with strong | >interests in sf. I have yet to see a call for removal of sf-lovers from | >the net -- from the looks of things most sites will continue to pay for | >it. Besides, by admitting your liking for sf, you have provided | >justification for it, as long as you are willing to use the resources. | | But why sf rather than some of the other groups? Last time, it came | out #16 in size, #11 in per-reader cost (if you believe the statistics). | What makes it non-"soapbox"? +--------------- With your comment above, I see a null message. How does #16 in size, #11 in cost make it soapbox if statistiocs don't prove what is soapbox? If I used your apparent criterion, we have talk.sources -- manifestly ridiculous. (If you disagree, we have a MAJOR disagreement -- we have a LARGE /usr/local/bin at TDI, most of which is from {net,mod}.sources.) A soapbox is (IN MY OPINION) a group where there is more useless flaming than discussion. The closest net.sf-lovers comes to this is multiple replies to someone's ``what is this book'' request, and *that* seems to have resolved itself. I unsubscribed from net.singles when it started to follow this (it may have recovered by now; I haven't checked); net.games.frp I axed from my .newsrc when it bacame filled with flames between Christians and FRPers and Christian FRPers and ... (I tried to make some sense out of it and failed, so I got out). Some groups (net.politics, net.religion, net.philosophy) are more prone to this than others; the three I mentioned above have a large basis in faith (in a religion, in a political system, in a philosophical system), and faith is notoriously unaffected by discusssion. (That is in fact the purpose of faith, is it not?) It's okay if the people in those groups want to ``discuss'' their faiths with others, but they should pay for it themselves, as I'm not interested and therefore won't pay for it. (tdi2 doesn't get news, so I sidestep it anyway. Not enough free space for ANY news. Anyone got a 14" Fujitsu for sale?) BTW, your division seems to be talk.* and tech.* -- a division which has always been rejected in the past. If we do it at ALL, the divisions should probably be like: rec.* net.tv.*, net.startrek, net.movies, net.books, net.rec.*, net.games.*, net.photography comp.* net.micro.*, net.unix, net.unix-wizards, net.eunice -- anyone else out there on a non-Unix system (on the Usenet, not Internet or CSNet or Bitnet or ...)? src.* net.sources.* -- so sites can skip it if they wish; admitted, net.sources IS (or should be) large misc.* anything which can't be classified -- assuming there are more classifications, this should be a SHORT list Then you divide by groups which can be dropped at will to adjust subject AND size. Moreover, subgroups can be used to affect this too: comp.micro.* comp.unix.* src.unix.* src.micro.* src.d rec.tv.* rec.games.* In two levels you can define by subject -- and often by size as well -- almost precisely. How about it, Mark Horton? You have the master newsgroups list; you should be able to devise a way to do this with all newsgroups. (I DO suggest against talk.* -- make it net.talk.*, and same with the above. Or else make sure distributions work in ALL versions of news out there.) --Brandon -- ihnp4!sun!cwruecmp!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@Case.CSNET ncoast!tdi2!brandon (ncoast!tdi2!root for business) 6615 Center St. #A1-105, Mentor, OH 44060-4101 Phone: +01 216 974 9210 CIS 74106,1032 MCI MAIL BALLBERY (part-time)