john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (10/27/85)
First the observation: The "official" history of net.bizarre states that it was accidentally created and then had its existence justified. As I recall, there was some concern in those days that by not allowing it to exist, the stuff that would have gone there would be posted to places like net.flame and net.jokes causing serious net pollution. Now that net.bizarre is officially gone, has anyone noticed that the worst has not happened. Bizarreness has not overwhlemed the rest of the net. Hmmm... I wonder... If a rmgroup was thusly applied to something like net.flame would its need similarly go away? (No, I am not so naive as to believe that there would not be flames, but many flames and flamers exist outside of net.flame already. Actually, much of net.flame is cross-posted from some other group already.) Now the question: I did not follow the fa->mod discussion, so forgive a naive question. I notice that there are now mod.* groups being gatewayed from APRA that had no fa.* equivalent. Are all the groups really going to be used of are thy here to fill in the namespace? If it is the former, won't that cause more overburdening of USENET than the likes of a net.bizarre or net.internat ever could? -- Name: John Ruschmeyer US Mail: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Phone: (201) 571-3451 UUCP: ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john ...!princeton!moncol!john ...!pesnta!moncol!john "It all started out as a mild curiousity in a junkyard... and now it's turned out to be quite a spirit of adventure."
mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) (10/30/85)
In article <546@moncol.UUCP> john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) writes: > Now that net.bizarre is officially gone, has anyone noticed that the >worst has not happened. Bizarreness has not overwhlemed the rest of the >net. Are you sure about that? :-) > Hmmm... I wonder... If a rmgroup was thusly applied to something like >net.flame would its need similarly go away? This is a trick question. Since there is no "need", it can't go away. (People will still flame in the other newsgroups, but net.flame only promotes the idea that flaming is OK and even encouraged.) If people are really serious about reducing net traffic, net.flame should be removed immediately. If people aren't serious about traffic, then net.bizarre should never have been deleted. (Let's face it, the only REAL reason that net.bizarre was deleted was size. "Legitimacy" arguments are only a smokescreen.) Vote YES to delete net.flame. -- 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..."
mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz) (10/31/85)
In article <623@k.cs.cmu.edu> mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) writes: >If people are really serious about reducing net traffic, net.flame should be >removed immediately. If people aren't serious about traffic, then >net.bizarre should never have been deleted. ... > >Vote YES to delete net.flame. Michael is right, so here's my vote to delete net.flame. In fact, I vote to delete all the groups that were on the utzoo hit list. We'd then have the bandwidth to support net.internat (or whatever) and many, many more specialty newsgroups while still significantly reducing overall traffic. Join the Henry Spencer Memorial USENET Preservation Society today! (Memorial because I'm certain Henry has been incinerated by flame-mail). -- Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl CSNET: mjl%rit@csnet-relay.ARPA
sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) (11/03/85)
In article <623@k.cs.cmu.edu> mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) writes: >(People will still flame in the other newsgroups, but net.flame only >promotes the idea that flaming is OK and even encouraged.) I disagree with this assertion. I believe net.flame is for those people who do not wish to make rational arguments, but argue for the sake of argument. I believe that having such a newsgroup is not condoning the idea, but an acknowledgement that there are such people using USENET and that it is better to have them do it in their own group than do it elsewhere. If there were no people who argue just to argue on USENET, net.flame would have no purpose. -- Stan uucp:{ihnp4!shell,rice}!neuro1!sob Opinions expressed Olan ARPA:sob@rice.arpa here are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)660-9262 noone else's.
revc@gwsd.UUCP (Bob Van Cleef) (11/12/85)
> In article <623@k.cs.cmu.edu> mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) writes: > >If people are really serious about reducing net traffic, net.flame should be > >removed immediately. If people aren't serious about traffic, then > > > >Vote YES to delete net.flame. > > Michael is right, so here's my vote to delete net.flame. In fact, I vote > to delete all the groups that were on the utzoo hit list. We'd then > > Join the Henry Spencer Memorial USENET Preservation Society today! (Memorial > because I'm certain Henry has been incinerated by flame-mail). Here's my vote to flame nut.flame and support Henry Spencer. I feel that the net is much too valuable of a tool to loose. Bob -- Bob Van Cleef {ihnp4|akgua|decvax|dcdwest|ucbvax} (619) 457-2701 ...sdcsvax!gwsd!revc Gateway Computer Systems CompuServe - [71565,533] 4980 Carroll Canyon Road San Diego, CA 92121