grbaer@umcp-cs.UUCP (11/30/83)
Then net.religion could be used for sensible discussions. For that matter, how about net.politics.flame?
bch@unc.UUCP (12/01/83)
Religious and political discussions are, by nature, non-rational. I suspect we have a case of people wanting to exclude articles they don't want to see. I suggest judicious use of the 'n' key on your terminal is a reasonable alternative to creating new newsgroups. I oppose the idea of net.religion.flame and/or net.politics.flame. -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!bch
notes@ucbcad.UUCP (12/04/83)
#R:umcp-cs:-412200:ucbesvax:6600010:000:610 ucbesvax!turner Dec 4 07:21:00 1983 Re: net.religion.flame Funny, I always thought that the only reason why net.religion and net.politics weren't explicit branches of net.flame (i.e., net.flame.religion and net.flame.politics) was because of the short-newsgroup-names problem. Any finer distinctions are, in view of content, quite beyond me. Why are rational discussions on religion/politics/etc. any more of a legitimate use of network bandwidth than flaming discussions? It's all just a joyride on other people's (albeit freely-offered) resources. Flaming in net.politics, politicking in net.flame, Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)