551rcg@hound.UUCP (R.GANNS) (01/04/85)
In my opinion, one of the big sources of trouble in our society is the mentality that says: "I don't like it, therefore it should be banned/abolished/destroyed etc.". If you don't LIKE net.general, then don't READ net.general.
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (01/07/85)
>In my opinion, one of the big sources of trouble in our society is >the mentality that says: "I don't like it, therefore it should be >banned/abolished/destroyed etc.". If you don't LIKE net.general, >then don't READ net.general. In my opinion, one of the big sources of trouble is to pick whatever is first at hand and seems likely; this is certainly the case with net.general, if only because of its name. Then just not reading it doesn't help very much, the article has been sent already to sites all over this world. And *that* is the real problem. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (01/08/85)
A comment on a suggestion to abolish net.general: > In my opinion, one of the big sources of trouble in our society is > the mentality that says: "I don't like it, therefore it should be > banned/abolished/destroyed etc.". If you don't LIKE net.general, > then don't READ net.general. In my opinion, the suggestion to abolish net.general was a suggestion to get rid of something that doesn't work and hasn't worked particularly well for a long time. It has little or nothing to do with any general social malaise but a lot to do with general misunderstanding of net.general. Based on what's submitted, I'd like to read the 20% or so that actually belongs there, but as far as I can tell, there's no option to readnews, vnews, or even rn, which allows me to specify "read only articles submitted by people clever enough to find out what the newsgroup is for before they submit an article to it." I don't necessarily care to see it abolished--but we really oughta either fix it or throw it away, and it's damned tough to fix it when there are so many sites that won't spend 30 seconds educating a new netnews user even enough to keep him from submitting all manner of crap to net.general. If you don't think it should be abolished, why not suggest how to get it used for its intended and stated purpose? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile.
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (01/09/85)
[!]
At last it has come to me. The ultimate improvement would be to
establish ...
net.abolish
That would really help clear the air(?)waves.
--
"It's the thought, if any, that counts." Dick Grantges hound!rfgmazur@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
>In my opinion, one of the big sources of trouble in our society is >the mentality that says: "I don't like it, therefore it should be >banned/abolished/destroyed etc.". If you don't LIKE net.general, >then don't READ net.general. I agree. If we didn't have net.general, the articles might get sent all over the world in net.net-people, or net.wanted or net.misc, or net.announce. But if the majority insist, why stop with net.general? There are certainly a few other newsgroups that are flagrantly abused by these users. Let's get rid of: 1) net.jokes - since some users just can't help posting non-jokes (and discussions of Dune) to this group. What idiots. 2) net.singles - since Jeff Sargeant (and too, too many tolerant people) continue to discuss religion even when constantly reminded to move to one of the net.religion(s). Dense, dense, dense. 3) net.women.only - since men just have to get their two cents in (always preceded by "gee, pardon me for posting to this newsgroup, but"). 4) net.flame - since some people don't know what a flame is, and treat net.flame like net.misc. You *!#%^ morons know who I'm talking about. 5) net.sources - since some people just *have* to post their "VMS rot13 program wanted" requests where the majority will see them. 6) net.misc - Can you figure out why people would post to a newsgroup named net.misc if they have net."distinct" on the distribution list? I mean, surely it's obvious that if it belongs in net."distinct", it doesn't belong in net.misc. Duh. You, yes you, can stop reading net.general. It's certainly serving as useful a purpose as net.rec.nude, or net.tv.soaps. But if it really bothers you, why don't you post a note, say once a month or so, that says "hey you bozos, you should be doing it this way". That way the Usenet community can be grateful that, in our lifetime, we won't have to see "Upper Oshkosh Class of 1965's 20th Reunion" in net.general. Like, if you didn't know, another cynical :-) from Beth Mazur {ihnp4,ima,harpo}!inmet!mazur "Hey, when did *you* stop reading net.general?"