chabot@amber.DEC (10/25/85)
Let's get rid of net.unix. The signal to noise ratio is ~ 0:100. Furthermore, let's get rid of all the non-work related topics: net.sf-lovers, net.books, net.singles, net.cooks, net.startrek, net.rec.nude...all that stuff. As someone aptly described the situation, users shouldn't get the idea that the usenet is for their pleasure, it's for work, and they should remember that their employers would explode if they found out how much money and time was spent on discussing new coke. I hope all those who've been posting articles about why other newsgroups should be deleted because of their high noise or their lack of relevance will not hesitate to jump on the bandwagon and post their requests to get rid of all the net junk. (-: This message brought to you by the Effort to Offend Thousands. :-) Disclaimer: I barely speak for myself, so how could I for the vaxian empire.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/29/85)
In article <1059@decwrl.UUCP> chabot@amber.DEC writes: > >Let's get rid of net.unix. The signal to noise ratio is ~ 0:100. I disagree, I think it is more like 50:50! > >Furthermore, let's get rid of all the non-work related topics: >net.sf-lovers, net.books, net.singles, net.cooks, net.startrek, >net.rec.nude...all that stuff. > >I hope all those who've been posting articles about why other newsgroups should >be deleted because of their high noise or their lack of relevance will not >hesitate to jump on the bandwagon and post their requests to get rid of all >the net junk. > Well, I do not find many of these groups to have a particularly high signal/noise ratio, they are mostly just on topics I am not interested in. But is *my* lack of interest really justification for calling the material *junk* or *noise*, I do not think so. As for lack of relevance, I think of it as an employee relations matter, like having a corporate tennis court or gymnasium. The main function of these groups is *morale*, keeping employees happy and satisfied. I find the ability to exchange interesting ideas with people around the world to be a very exhilerating experience, and would be very disappointed to lose that ability. As it is I try to restrict my reading of the "entertainment" groups to my off hours, such as lunch time or weekends. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/04/85)
> Consider the following situation: An announcement about the availability of > a new version of the source to (insert name of program you hate seeing the > most) is posted to mod.sources. MOD.SOURCES and NET.SOURCES are not for posting announcement about availability of source. It is for posting source. This other shit belongs in one of the related groups. > > I offer this as a practical argument for keeping net.sources. Well, you're wrong. > I'm reading the news, I > can make a single keystroke, then type the name of a file and I have a copy > of the source. If I had to send mail to someone > every time, it would be a bigger pain in the ass. You can with mod.sources as well. All mod groups do is put a shit-filter on the input. You don't have to mail to people to get the answer. -Ron