ege@cblpf.ATT.COM (Ernie Englehart) (07/07/87)
Well, it looks like rec.gambling is a big loser. I got about three yes votes and about ten no votes. I found extremely interesting the discussions that have followed regarding the "right" or "privledge" or "ability" of people to post articles to certain groups, or to create new groups. If an individual can control which newsgroups he wants to read, via the .newsrc file, then why can't a machine have a similar file? The machine ought to be able to toss out those articles that he does not want, or to specify a list of newsgroups to be accepted, and reject all others. This ought to solve people's objections to new groups due to the volume of articles that could be posted. Creating a mail.gambling group is a great idea, but I don't have the time or resources to manage something like that effectively. On another note, I must regretfully unsubscribe to soc.singles because there is just too much junk to read. I am a single guy who doesn't want to stay single for the rest of my life. I was hoping that I could get some fresh ideas from soc.singles. Oh, well, I'll survive without it. -- ********************************************************************* ** Ernie Englehart, AT&T Network Systems ** "Good things come ** ** (ihnp4,cbosgd)!cblpf!ege ** in small packages" ** *********************************************************************
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (07/12/87)
In article <577@cblpf.ATT.COM> ege@cblpf.ATT.COM (Ernie Englehart) writes: > Well, it looks like rec.gambling is a big loser. I got about three > yes votes and about ten no votes. > > I found extremely interesting the discussions that have followed regarding > the "right" or "privledge" or "ability" of people to post articles to > certain groups, or to create new groups. > > If an individual can control which newsgroups he wants to read, via the > .newsrc file, then why can't a machine have a similar file? The machine > ought to be able to toss out those articles that he does not want, or > to specify a list of newsgroups to be accepted, and reject all others. > This ought to solve people's objections to new groups due to the volume > of articles that could be posted. This is being done, however the whole purpose of creating a newsgroup is to obtain widespread distribution, so one would have to think twice about creating a group that many sites would have serious reservations about receiving or passing on. > Creating a mail.gambling group is a great idea, but I don't have the time > or resources to manage something like that effectively. This is perhaps the key item. If *you* don't have the time or resources to support this topic you feel is worthwhile, why do you expect some hundreds/thousands of news administrators to devote any particular incremental time and resources to it? If you expected hundreds of list members, you might have a point, but I doesn't require much effort to maintain a list less than 100 members, which might be a reasonable transition point for reconsidering the creation of a newsgroup... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)