rsk@pucc-k (Wombat) (10/29/85)
References: Sender: Reply-To: rsk@pucc-k.UUCP (Wombat) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Purdue University Keywords: paying the piper First off, I support the decision made by the backbone site admins and implemented by Gene Spafford 100%. And now...a mini-editorial: It's about time all of us wake up to the reality that Usenet is not some bulletin board running on a PC somewhere; it's a damn big network that costs a lot of money and time to keep running. It's not an anarchy; maybe it never was. It is controlled in large part by the backbone sites, who pay for a lot of this, and by the volunteers (like Spaf, the Hortons, Chuq, Rick Adams, Larry Wall) who spend their time working on software, documents, and so on for it. These people have bent over backwards to make Usenet more organized, more cost-effective, and more acessible; if you object to what they're doing, then maybe *you* should run a backbone site, and then *you* can run your chunk of the net the way *you* like. A now...a comment. I've been bringing up news 2.10.3 on our machines; and I've been looking at the news we receive rather closely, since in the interim I've been forwarding it by hand. net.bizarre is permanently dead at this site. I think net.religion, net.politics, and net.philosophy are next, simply because they are soapboxes (and big ones at that) with little or no redeeming value. I expect that the deletion of these four groups will cut our volume by 25%, maybe more. -- Rich Kulawiec rsk@pur-ee.uucp rsk@purdue.uucp rsk@purdue-asc.arpa
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/01/85)
In article <1319@pucc-k> rsk@pucc-k (Wombat) writes: > > net.bizarre is permanently dead at this site. >I think net.religion, net.politics, and net.philosophy are next, simply >because they are soapboxes (and big ones at that) with little or no redeeming >value. I expect that the deletion of these four groups will cut our volume >by 25%, maybe more. >-- A suggestion for a new net policy. If a site is going to unilaterally stop forwarding a group it should notify its downstream sites a fair period ahead of time and *suggest* *alternate* feeds for these groups to the sites they feed, so that there is at least a chance that other sites will not find themselves losing a group they want. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/01/85)
In article <1319@pucc-k> rsk@pucc-k (Wombat) writes: >First off, I support the decision made by the backbone site admins and >implemented by Gene Spafford 100%. > >net.bizarre is permanently dead at this site. >I think net.religion, net.politics, and net.philosophy are next, simply >because they are soapboxes (and big ones at that) with little or no redeeming >value. I expect that the deletion of these four groups will cut our volume >by 25%, maybe more. >-- >Rich Kulawiec rsk@pur-ee.uucp rsk@purdue.uucp rsk@purdue-asc.arpa Isn't this a catch-22? You have to have demonstrated volume to create a newsgroup, but these groups should be deleted to "cut our volume by 25%". Also, who decides what "redeeming value" is? Do these groups have no redeeming value just because some people express opinions in them which don't agree with your own? (And note: the original article went to net.flame and net.news.group. It did _not_ go to net.religion, net.politics, or net.philosophy, which seems somewhat unfair.) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa
frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith) (11/02/85)
In article <1319@pucc-k> rsk@pucc-k (Wombat) writes: > > It's about time all of us wake up to the reality that Usenet is not > some bulletin board running on a PC somewhere; it's a damn big network > that costs a lot of money and time to keep running. It's not an anarchy; > maybe it never was. It is controlled in large part by the backbone sites, > who pay for a lot of this, and by the volunteers (like Spaf, the Hortons, Chuq, > Rick Adams, Larry Wall) who spend their time working on software, documents, > and so on for it. These people have bent over backwards to make Usenet more > organized, more cost-effective, and more acessible; if you object to what > they're doing, then maybe *you* should run a backbone site, and then *you* > can run your chunk of the net the way *you* like. That's not a bad idea. Instead of one backbone... let's distribuite the load among several backbones. Can administrative functions be distributed as well? What administrative functions? What is necessary to "keep the net going?" I think net.religion and net.philosophy should be spared the hand of death.
rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) (11/08/85)
In article <1085@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes: >In article <1319@pucc-k> rsk@pucc-k (Wombat) writes: >> >>net.bizarre is permanently dead at this site. >>I think net.religion, net.politics, and net.philosophy are next, simply >>because they are soapboxes (and big ones at that) with little or no redeeming >>value. I expect that the deletion of these four groups will cut our volume >>by 25%, maybe more. > >Isn't this a catch-22? You have to have demonstrated volume to create a >newsgroup, but these groups should be deleted to "cut our volume by 25%". >Also, who decides what "redeeming value" is? Do these groups have no >redeeming value just because some people express opinions in them which >don't agree with your own? > >(And note: the original article went to net.flame and net.news.group. >It did _not_ go to net.religion, net.politics, or net.philosophy, which >seems somewhat unfair.) Listen up, mush-for-brains. I didn't say word one about whether or not I agreed with anyone's opinion as expresed in the named groups. Nor did I say anything about cutting those groups anywhere but *locally*. Note the careful inclusion of "...at this site" in my original article. And even then, I was cautious ("I think..."). Note that I posted the article to net.news.group, which is certainly relevant, and to net.flame simply because I felt it might be classified as a flame by some folks. So you may take your backhanded comment ("...somewhat unfair") and ram it. Tired of people who cannot read, -- Rich Kulawiec rsk@pur-ee.uucp rsk@purdue.uucp rsk@purdue-asc.arpa
dave@uwvax.UUCP (Dave Cohrs) (11/11/85)
> Listen up, mush-for-brains.
Argh! I can't take it anymore! I read net.news.group because I'm a
news admin and should know the going's-on of newsgroups, and what do
I get? Flamage. I propose the creation of mod.news.group to discuss
news groups in a sane, respectful manner. This doesn't mean that
conflicting opinions won't get posted (read Spaf's moderator message
for details on how mod.* groups really work). What it does means is that
what gets posted will at least be well thought out and will not be abusive.
I'll even go so far as to volunteer to be moderator. What do y'all say?
--
Dave Cohrs
(608) 262-1204
...!{harvard,ihnp4,seismo,topaz}!uwvax!dave
dave@romano.wisc.eduins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/11/85)
In article <546@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) writes: >>In article <1319@pucc-k> rsk@pucc-k (Wombat) writes: >>>net.bizarre is permanently dead at this site. >>>I think net.religion, net.politics, and net.philosophy are next, simply >>>because they are soapboxes (and big ones at that) with little or no redeeming >>>value. I expect that the deletion of these four groups will cut our volume >>>by 25%, maybe more. >> >>Isn't this a catch-22? You have to have demonstrated volume to create a >>newsgroup, but these groups should be deleted to "cut our volume by 25%". >>Also, who decides what "redeeming value" is? Do these groups have no >>redeeming value just because some people express opinions in them which >>don't agree with your own? >> >>(And note: the original article went to net.flame and net.news.group. >>It did _not_ go to net.religion, net.politics, or net.philosophy, which >>seems somewhat unfair.) > >Listen up, mush-for-brains. My brains seem to be working. What about yours? (Note: I have been careful to avoid personal insults except in response to others, which is what this is.) >I didn't say word one about whether or not I agreed with anyone's opinion >as expresed in the named groups. Then what do you mean by saying that they have no redeeming value? If you think the postings are otherwise worthwhile, but don't belong on the net, you might think that they have little redeeming value, but none? And you never did respond to my remark about the arguments being a catch-22. >Nor did I say anything about cutting those groups anywhere but *locally*. >Note the careful inclusion of "...at this site" in my original article. A quote from your posting (which you conveniently left out): "First off, I support the decision made by the backbone site admins and implemented by Gene Spafford 100%". In other words, you DO support a de- cision to remove those groups other than locally, and you DO believe that other groups will be next after net.bizarre, and you DO believe a) the postings in net.bizarre are not "particularly of value to the general readership" and that other groups that have "more volume and more problems" will be next. If you didn't really mean that you agreed with this 100%, you shouldn't have said so. (quotes other than the first in this paragraph are from Spafford's announcement of net.bizarre deletion) >And even then, I was cautious ("I think..."). But you agree 100% with Spafford. Doesn't sound cautious to me. >Note that I posted the article to net.news.group, which is certainly >relevant, and to net.flame simply because I felt it might be classified >as a flame by some folks. At the time, I was still not permitted to access net.news.group. I agree that that is relevant, and I never said that the article shouldn't have been there. What I said was that it ALSO should have been in the very groups the fate of whom you were discussing, where you didn't put it. >Tired of people who cannot read, >Rich Kulawiec rsk@pur-ee.uucp rsk@purdue.uucp rsk@purdue-asc.arpa When I say I agree 100% with someone, I know what that means. Do you? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa