ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/03/85)
In article <552@moncol.UUCP> john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) writes: >>From: rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) >>In article <4494@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >>>IT'S TIME! I CALL ON NET ADMINISTRATORS WHO WANT THE NET TO >>>CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION! >>pull your head out. if there ISN'T a flame, it will rear it's ugly head >>in all the other groups. at least in net.* if people get "out of line" you >>can say "move this to flame, that's what it's there for," and most of the >>time they do. at least now all of us flamer types and pseudo flamers, and >>even the jerks (arndt etc.) play in the sandbox here. without flame, the >>rest of the USENET community will pay the price. > >I disagree with that. Much of net.flame is already cross-posted to other >groups such as net.politics and net.religion. An article was posted which expressed support for the deletion of net.politics, net.religion, and net.philosophy, on the grounds that they are just soapboxes with no redeeming value. If this gains enough support to delete these groups, would you then support the existence of net.flame? Somehow, I doubt it. Furthermore, I am not permitted to read net.news.group, which means that the ONLY way I could read your posting about net.flame was in net.flame. This applies also to other postings not relating to net.flame that appeared in net.flame and net.news.group only. If net.flame is cut off, there will be no way I can read these postings. >Those flames would exist with >or without net.flame. Also, flames exist independent of net.flame already- >try putting a posting in net.micro praising the 80x86 over the 680x0 or >vice versa; you will need an asbestos terminal. > >Rather, net.flame seems to be more like net.bizarre, but with some sort of >permission (no, not a raison d'etre). When net.bizarre was first being >considered for "official" creation, many worried that by not creating the >group, the other net groups would become deluged with postings that should >have been in net.bizarre. Well, net.bizarre is now dead (actually, it's >most sincerely dead) and none of the deluge has come. If a deluge HAD come, what would you have said? Would you have said that this proved the arguments of the net.bizarre supporters and that net.bizarre should now be officially created? Or would you have claimed that the deluge of postings somehow shows that net.bizarre should still not be created? By the way, what is the difference between "dead" and "sincerely dead"? >I think that the >general sensibility of *most* netters is such that they realize that if >something is not *that* important and there is no apropriate group, then it >may not be worth posting. If something IS "that" important and there is no appropriate group, then it STILL might not be posted. The lack of postings when a group doesn't exist isn't proof that the group isn't important. >To say "move this to net.flame, that's what it's there for" is a lot like >saying "post it to net.bizarre, they'll like it there". >Name: John Ruschmeyer One of the main arguments for eliminating net.bizarre was that it was formed using an improper procedure. Now the victim's net.flame, which was formed properly. When net.bizarre was eliminated, the warning was given that other groups might be next. Are net.religion, net.philosophy, and net.politics going to be next? It seems that the procedure for deleting the netnews entirely has been as follows: First, find a group that, though popular, had irregularities in its creation, and has been claimed by some to be "worthless", so you have handy excuses for deleting it (i.e. net.bizarre). Next, find a group that was created irregularly, but cannot be argued as worthless (net.internat). Use the argument that after all, we deleted one irregularly-created group, this is just an extension. Then find an allegedly worthless group, and get it deleted (net.flame) although it was created properly, also just an extension. Now you have set precedents for deleting properly created groups, and deleting non-worthless groups. Next: almost all the net. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/07/85)
In article <1097@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes: > >Furthermore, I am not permitted to read net.news.group, which means that the >ONLY way I could read your posting about net.flame was in net.flame. This >applies also to other postings not relating to net.flame that appeared >in net.flame and net.news.group only. If net.flame is cut off, there will >be no way I can read these postings. > I find this policy to be exceedingly *strange*! To allow reading of pure noise groups like net.flame and *forbid* reading of important administrative groups taht are critical to the proper operation of the net is, to say the least, absurd, or even inconsistant! Would sending mail to the News Admin at John Hopkins help to get a more rational policy? Or is there some other way we could influence the News Admin to seriously reconsider this policy? I do not see that it is proper to cripple your interaction with the net in this manner. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa