rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (11/09/85)
net.flame will no longer be distributed by or through the following sites: seismo, cbosgd, hao, decvax, gatech, burl, sdcsvax Other backbone sites may or may not continue to do so. I expect many of them to stop. It was never distributed outside North America No rmgroup will be issued. If you feel you need net.flame, you are free o continue to distribute it at your own expense, not ours. Those with long memories will remember that net.flame started as a joke. It eventually built up a small following on its own. Lately it has reached unreasonable volumes (the signal was always 0, the noise 1). Since net.bizarre was removed, it seems unreasonable to support a group whose sole purpose is flaming. It encouraged the waste of what is fast becoming a scarce resource. The removal of net.flame and net.bizarre by certain sites is the beginning of a re-examination of what this network has become and where those who are supporting it think it should go. Net.flame was not the first to fail to meet the minimum standards and I suspect it will not be the last. ---rick p.s. I never read nor respond to abusive mail.
mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) (11/12/85)
In article <738@seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >net.flame will no longer be distributed by or through the following sites: > seismo, cbosgd, hao, decvax, gatech, burl, sdcsvax >... >No rmgroup will be issued. WHY NOT??? Seriously, since net.bizarre was rmgrouped, why can't net.flame be rmgrouped as well? Kill it! -- UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb ARPA: mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu "It came time to move, so I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch..."
galenr@iddic.UUCP (Galen Redfield) (11/12/85)
I hope this is not tattling, but we read today that Tektronix will no longer pass net.flame (not to our own machines, nor to others down the line, I believe). I suppose it was inevitable (nothing lasts forever). It is hard for me to believe that we actually *need* a newsgroup with worldwide coverage just for the purpose of letting off steam, but then again, there must be a bit of antidisestablishmentarianist in each of us (I've been waiting a long time to use that "word"). Many articles have been (and probably will continue to be) written for and against this type of action. Flames are safer when fragmented. It is said that a flame may be extinguished either by removing the heat, the fuel, or the oxygen. In this case, I believe it must be all three. Combustion is a source of pollution anyhow. Warm regards, Galen.
cjsgro@watrose.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) (11/14/85)
Just so everyone won't think that this is a isolated phenomenon, watmath recently announced that it was not carrying net.flame any more, either. Apparently, this attitude was shared by our feeds. Frankly, I won't miss it. I hardly feel that we needed a group to encourage antisocial behaviour. I think that this (more than the creation or destruction of newsgroups such as net.bizarre or net.internat) will be the *real* indicator of where the net is going. -- Carlo Sgro ...![ihnp4||decvax||allegra||clyde||utzoo]!watmath!watrose!cjsgro "ihnp4 Express: Overnight to the USA or you don't pay!"
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (11/14/85)
> >net.flame will no longer be distributed by or through the following sites: > > seismo, cbosgd, hao, decvax, gatech, burl, sdcsvax > >No rmgroup will be issued. > > WHY NOT??? > > Seriously, since net.bizarre was rmgrouped, why can't net.flame be rmgrouped > as well? Because too many people write flames to net.news.group when rmgroups are sent out. Then again, now they're writing flames when rmgroups *aren't* sent out. So the news administrators at the backbone sites can't win -- someone is *always* mad at them. -- Karl Kleinpaste
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/16/85)
> > >net.flame will no longer be distributed by or through the following sites: > > > seismo, cbosgd, hao, decvax, gatech, burl, sdcsvax > > >No rmgroup will be issued. > > > > WHY NOT??? > > > > Seriously, since net.bizarre was rmgrouped, why can't net.flame be rmgrouped > > as well? > > Because too many people write flames to net.news.group when rmgroups > are sent out. Then again, now they're writing flames when rmgroups > *aren't* sent out. So the news administrators at the backbone sites > can't win -- someone is *always* mad at them. Besides, rmgrouping won't do any good unless you specifically stop redistributing a group. It just keeps coming back. -Ron
mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) (11/17/85)
In article <530@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >>> Since net.bizarre was rmgrouped, why can't net.flame be >>> rmgrouped as well? >> >> Because too many people write flames to net.news.group when rmgroups >> are sent out. Then again, now they're writing flames when rmgroups >> *aren't* sent out. So the news administrators at the backbone sites >> can't win -- someone is *always* mad at them. I'm not mad at anybody. I'm just curious why net.flame has been treated differently than net.bizarre. (I apologize for any "flame" content in my messages about net.flame and net.bizarre.) >Besides, rmgrouping won't do any good unless you specifically stop >redistributing a group. It just keeps coming back. I don't know about this. Net.bizarre seems pretty dead to me. And I doubt if net.flame would come back either. -- UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb ARPA: mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu "It came time to move, so I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch..."