proposed destruction of net.bizarre
Glenn Reid
Sort of an open letter to Gene Spafford:
You and your backbone site friends have every right to not FORWARD
net.bizarre, and you probably would be justified in doing so. I read
net.bizarre, and have even been known to post to it, but it is true
that the group is filled with drivel and nonsense.
However, the net is an anarchy, as you have pointed out, and although
you have the right to not forward any given newsgroup, you do not have
the right to arbitrarily send out an RMGROUP on it. Save your own
phone bills--I realize the burden placed on the "backbone" sites, and
evereyone appreciates the mail forwarding and netnews forwarding that
is done by such sites--but there is no need or sense in deliberately
trying to destroy it for everybody else.
YOU HAVE NO MORE RIGHT TO DESTROY A NEWSGROUP WITHOUT POLLING PEOPLE
THAN I DO TO CREATE ONE WITHOUT ASKING YOU.
There. Flaming runs in the family, but nothing personal, you under-
stand. I don't belive in the wasting of resources for nerds to post
the value of pi, but fair is fair. And if a backbone site is not
prepared to be fair across the board, then it shouldn't be a backbone
site.
Glenn Reid {backbone | backbone | decwrl | glacier}!adobe!greid
--
There are stopped jobs.
David Herron, NPR Lover
>Sort of an open letter to Gene Spafford:
>YOU HAVE NO MORE RIGHT TO DESTROY A NEWSGROUP WITHOUT POLLING PEOPLE
>THAN I DO TO CREATE ONE WITHOUT ASKING YOU.
Uh. you have a short memory there. Don't you remember talk about
this a month or two ago? Didn't we poll the net on the subject?
(I know, because I was one of the original suggestors to kill the group).
At the time opinion seemed to run about 50-50. Plus the quality
seemed to improve a little.
But really, when you look at it, its really drivel, its really HUGE, and
it was never properly created. I support killing the group. However,
like spaf said ... if y'all want to keep it around, keep it amongst
yourselves. Don't spread it around.
>There. Flaming runs in the family, but nothing personal, you under-
>stand. I don't belive in the wasting of resources for nerds to post
>the value of pi, but fair is fair. And if a backbone site is not
>prepared to be fair across the board, then it shouldn't be a backbone
>site.
I don't understand where you get off expecting the backbone to carry
absolutely EVERY single piece that is posted. EVERYTHING has its
limits ya know.
--
David Herron, cbosgd!ukma!david, da...@UKMA.BITNET.
English is a second language to me -- Baby talk was my first language.
Bob Van Cleef
>
> Sort of an open letter to Gene Spafford:
>
> THAN I DO TO CREATE ONE WITHOUT ASKING YOU.
>
I personally would support giving Gene that right under the
guidelines that he is using. I would rather have a net
controlled by concensus of a few, then NO net at all.
Maybe we need to set up a USENET Council, consisting of 'elected'
representatives of the users. Any net user can run/participate
electronically. Annual nominations and elections in
net.news.council.elections, with the 13 net users with
the highest number of votes becoming the dictators of the net
for one year. They could discuss proposed changes in
net.news.council. You wouldn't need the finacial support
to go to USENIX, you wouldn't even have to be 36 years old,
you would only need to prove net participation for over one year.
Bob
--
Bob Van Cleef {ihnp4|akgua|decvax|dcdwest|ucbvax}
(619) 457-2701 ...sdcsvax!gwsd!revc
Gateway Computer Systems CompuServe - [71565,533]
4980 Carroll Canyon Road
San Diego, CA 92121
Monica Cellio
>YOU HAVE NO MORE RIGHT TO DESTROY A NEWSGROUP WITHOUT POLLING PEOPLE
>THAN I DO TO CREATE ONE WITHOUT ASKING YOU.
As you may recall (but probably don't), this was discussed in net.news.group
(the correct place for that sort of discussion) and people were polled. Also,
the people who created net.bizarre didn't follow the rules in the first place.
Looks to me like Spaf is in the right and the people who created and support
net.bizarre are in the wrong.
But what are you really complaining about? If the backbones don't forward
it, it may as well be rmgrouped. It's not going to get very far, and will
only have very local circulation. Funny, Spaf suggested making it a local or
regional group in his post.... Looks like you're upset because Spaf asked the
people who want it to go to the work of maintaining it.
-Dragon
--
UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon
ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
Gene Spafford
rights under an anarchy -- I'm issuing "rmgroup" messages.
The majority (by a 18 to 1 margin, so far) of letters I've received
on this topic are in favor of the move, so if the net is a democracy,
then we''re still in the clear.
But you're missing the point altogether, I'm afraid. A "net" group
implies worldwide distribution. If no backbone site carries the group,
how is that a worldwide distribution? How is it even close? If you
want "net.bizarre" then create it on your machine. If you want to
share it with some other machines, fine, create a distribution for it
and call it by that name. I won't delete it. But as far as the rest
of the world is concerned, it isn't a "net" group.
And by the way, although some people like to proclaim that the
net is an anarchy, it isn't actually. And it hasn't been for
a long, long time. But that is a different discussion.
--
Gene "sometime in 1986" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
Michael Browne
>From: gr...@adobe.UUCP
>>YOU HAVE NO MORE RIGHT TO DESTROY A NEWSGROUP WITHOUT POLLING PEOPLE
>>THAN I DO TO CREATE ONE WITHOUT ASKING YOU.
>
>As you may recall (but probably don't), this was discussed in net.news.group
>(the correct place for that sort of discussion) and people were polled.
Yes, there was a discussion in net.news.group, but I doubt if most of the
bizarre people participated. I know that I tend to read the "frivolous"
newsgroups and avoid the "serious" groups, such as net.news.group, and I
imagine that many others do the same. As a result, a group of serious
people decided (25-9) that they didn't like a silly newsgroup.
WHY DIDN'T YOU CROSSPOST THE DELETION DISCUSSION TO NET.BIZARRE SO THAT
EVERYONE COULD PARTICIPATE???
Well, I propose that we recreate net.bizarre. If anyone is interested (or
not) send me mail. Even if net.bizarre isn't recreated, maybe mail.bizarre
could be created if there is enough interest.
P.S. - So far, the vote is 2-1 for the creation of net.bizarre. So unless I
hear otherwise, I'll create net.bizarre later this week. :-)
--
UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb ARPA: m...@k.cs.cmu.edu
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Monica Cellio
>Yes, there was a discussion in net.news.group, but I doubt if most of the
>WHY DIDN'T YOU CROSSPOST THE DELETION DISCUSSION TO NET.BIZARRE SO THAT
>EVERYONE COULD PARTICIPATE???
I don't have the old posts to back this up, but I think the initial message
in that discussion was posted to net.bizarre as well. If people can't take
enough of an interest to read net.news.group when their pet group is being
discussed, I hardly think the rest of the net is to blame. What you are
implying is that almost every message in net.news.group should be
cross-posted somewhere else as well.
-Dragon
P.S. This is obviously a vote against net.bizarre.
Michael Browne
>>Yes, there was a discussion in net.news.group, but I doubt if most of the
>>bizarre people participated. [...]
>>WHY DIDN'T YOU CROSSPOST THE DELETION DISCUSSION TO NET.BIZARRE SO THAT
>>EVERYONE COULD PARTICIPATE???
>
>I don't have the old posts to back this up, but I think the initial message
>in that discussion was posted to net.bizarre as well.
I don't think so. If there was any mention of deletion in net.bizarre, it
didn't mention voting. (I read EVERY article in net.bizarre, so I would
remember seeing a deletion notice.)
>If people can't take
>enough of an interest to read net.news.group when their pet group is being
>discussed, I hardly think the rest of the net is to blame.
If I had known of the discussion, I would have read net.news.group and
participated. THAT'S WHAT I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT!!! I would have been
interested enough to read net.news.group IF I HAD KNOWN THAT MY "PET" GROUP
WAS SCHEDULED FOR DELETION!!! Furthermore, I'm not blaming the rest of the
net, only the people in net.news.group. :-)
>What you are
>implying is that almost every message in net.news.group should be
>cross-posted somewhere else as well.
In the case of messages about deletion, that's exactly what I'm implying.
(OK, maybe not EVERY message, but the message that calls for votes should
DEFINITELY be cross-posted.) If the voting had been cross-posted to
net.bizarre, I would not be happy about the deletion, but I would have
accepted it. But it wasn't, so I'm not and I don't.
P.S. - I noticed that net.bizarre was back this morning. Since I
"threatened" to recreate net.bizarre in a previous post, I want say that
I didn't do it. (I DO believe in following rules.)
gregory samson
>in that discussion was posted to net.bizarre as well. If people can't take
>enough of an interest to read net.news.group when their pet group is being
>discussed, I hardly think the rest of the net is to blame. What you are
>implying is that almost every message in net.news.group should be
>cross-posted somewhere else as well.
>
time now, and something like that would have caused me to jump on to
net.news.group so fast I probably would have had trouble with the Fitzgerald
contraction.
Also, how am I to know that net.bizarre is being discussed on net.news.group?
Telepathy? Word-of-mouth? From whom do I get this information?
I think that messages in net.news.group RELATING TO THE DELETION OF GROUPS
should be cross-posted to the group that is going to go. For instance,
cross-posting deletion messages to net.games.video would likely draw
little response. So? So the group gets wiped, that's what! Neat and simple,
isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. T. Samson
The Evil MicroWizard
g...@wjh12.HARVARD.EDU
Ron Natalie <ron>
> I personally would support giving Gene that right under the
> guidelines that he is using. I would rather have a net
> controlled by concensus of a few, then NO net at all.
>
of it are those who can yell the loudest and those who can back up what
they are saying. If you want to make a power play, grab a bunch of modems
and offer to feed news to everyone who wants it. After you control the
net flow, you will be in the same postion as Spaf, et al.
> Maybe we need to set up a USENET Council, consisting of 'elected'
> representatives of the users. Any net user can run/participate
> electronically. Annual nominations and elections in
> net.news.council.elections, with the 13 net users with
> the highest number of votes becoming the dictators of the net
> for one year. They could discuss proposed changes in
> net.news.council. You wouldn't need the finacial support
> to go to USENIX, you wouldn't even have to be 36 years old,
> you would only need to prove net participation for over one year.
>
This is likely go over even worse than the USENET corporation idea
that was bounced around a couple of years back. I think the most
organization you are likely to get is sort of like OPEC, where the
big time sites get together on their own and form a coalition.
I don't disagree with most of what SPAF is trying to do, but he seems
to be specializing in doing it in away that is designed to piss-off
the maximum number of users.
-Ron
John Quarterman
> rights under an anarchy -- I'm issuing "rmgroup" messages.
> And by the way, although some people like to proclaim that the
> net is an anarchy, it isn't actually. And it hasn't been for
> a long, long time. But that is a different discussion.
> --
> Gene "sometime in 1986" Spafford
Well, I'd like to know what your definition of anarchy is.
Also whether you've ever read any Kropotkin or Bakunin.
And what form of government or lack thereof you think
USENET resembles.
By the way, I think you're right about net.bizarre:
it was a bad idea from the first and got worse.
But you're wrong about net.internat: it's too verbose
and it should have been a moderated newsgroup, but it
serves a real purpose and is of more value than 80% of
other newsgroups.
Claiming the only question is due process and not content
of the newsgroups is petty and undeserving of you and the
others supporting that view.
--
John Quarterman, UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!jsq
ARPA Internet and CSNET: j...@sally.UTEXAS.EDU, formerly j...@ut-sally.ARPA
Edward C. Bennett
In article <6...@k.cs.cmu.edu>, m...@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) writes:
>
> Yes, there was a discussion in net.news.group, but I doubt if most of the
> bizarre people participated. I know that I tend to read the "frivolous"
> newsgroups and avoid the "serious" groups, such as net.news.group, and I
> imagine that many others do the same. As a result, a group of serious
> people decided (25-9) that they didn't like a silly newsgroup.
'Silly' is an understatement, try 'worthless'.
>
> WHY DIDN'T YOU CROSSPOST THE DELETION DISCUSSION TO NET.BIZARRE SO THAT
> EVERYONE COULD PARTICIPATE???
How could possibly have noticed it in there? There was SO much
GARBAGE in net.bizarre that anything of any value would be quickly lost.
>
> Well, I propose that we recreate net.bizarre. If anyone is interested (or
> not) send me mail. Even if net.bizarre isn't recreated, maybe mail.bizarre
> could be created if there is enough interest.
There's an idea. Create a mailing list.
>
> P.S. - So far, the vote is 2-1 for the creation of net.bizarre. So unless I
> hear otherwise, I'll create net.bizarre later this week. :-)
Please NO!! I don't care if you did use a ':-)', that's not
funny. Keep your trash to yourself. Don't pollute the net with it.
> --
> UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb ARPA: m...@k.cs.cmu.edu
--
Edward C. Bennett
UUCP: ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!edward
/* A charter member of the Scooter bunch */
"Goodnight M.A."
Jim Clarke
>>Yes, there was a discussion in net.news.group, but I doubt if most of the
>>bizarre people participated. [...]
>>WHY DIDN'T YOU CROSSPOST THE DELETION DISCUSSION TO NET.BIZARRE SO THAT
>>EVERYONE COULD PARTICIPATE???
>
>I don't have the old posts to back this up, but I think the initial message
Yes. I don't usually read net.news.group, but I used to read net.bizarre
occasionally after turning my mind to mush by working too long in the
evening. My current bout of net.new... reading began after a message appeared
in net.bizarre telling people it was about to vanish. It should vanish, too.
There are better ways to harden a mushy mind.
About net.internat: I read it during its short life, and agree that it should
be recreated after the proper discussion. However -- speaking as one who
is a little overwhelmed (if you can be "a little" overwhelmed) by the number
of newsgroups, the volume in some of them, and the confusing names of others,
I do think that (1) a better name than net.internat could perhaps be found,
and (2) new groups should not spring up without following some sensible
protocol. It's a pain checking out every new group with a vaguely interesting
sounding name, and I'd like to know that its creation has followed rational
discussion. The current protocol for group creation sounds quite adequate
to me. Indeed, I can't imagine any very different protocol that could work.
Clearly, any successful protocol must be independent of the content of the
proposed group, since such a large variety of people are to be served by the
net; clearly, also, there must be rules to prevent unthinking proliferation
of groups; clearly, also, all groups must follow the same rules. I think
that means net.internat has been treated correctly.
But let's see it recreated after a proper discussion.
of new groups that would seem, well, strange to
--
Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
(416) 978-4058
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke
Jim Clarke
>>>WHY DIDN'T YOU CROSSPOST THE DELETION DISCUSSION TO NET.BIZARRE SO THAT
>>>EVERYONE COULD PARTICIPATE???
>>I don't have the old posts to back this up, but I think the initial message
>>in that discussion was posted to net.bizarre as well.
>
>I don't think so. If there was any mention of deletion in net.bizarre, it
>didn't mention voting. (I read EVERY article in net.bizarre, so I would
>remember seeing a deletion notice.)
If you really read every article in net.bizarre, I doubt that you can now
remember anything at all....:-)
I am very sure that there was a mention in net.bizarre of the debate in
this group. I don't think it mentioned voting, but in any normal group that
should have been unnecessary. I presume the reason why this group was not
swamped by net.bizarrers demanding that it be retained was either (for some
of them) they didn't have enough sense to figure out what was going on
[suppose I'd better :-) here too] or (for most) they could see they were
just fooling around and couldn't honestly claim the group should stay alive.
Michael Browne
>... In light of this, I believe that since the following groups are
>strictly for the information of the individual, and not the organizations we
>are associated with, they should be removed along with net.bizarre:
>
> net.abortion
> net.bicycle
> ...
> et cetera
>If recreational groups like net.bizarre are so terrible, I believe that for
>Justice's sake all of them should be removed.
> Harold H Gaines
I agree. I vote to remove ALL of these groups, AND net.flame. Net.bizarre
may have been "silly" and "worthless", but it was rarely offensive.
Net.flame IS offensive. (Remember this summer's discussion of "Women and
the Consumption of Toilet Paper"??) If net.bizarre deserves to die, then
net.flame deserves to die a thousand times over.
--Mike
--
UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb ARPA: m...@k.cs.cmu.edu
"It came time to move, so I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two
blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch..."
Kenneth Adam Arromdee
>[Yes, I know this is in three groups.]
>In article <6...@k.cs.cmu.edu>, m...@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) writes:
>> Yes, there was a discussion in net.news.group, but I doubt if most of the
>> bizarre people participated. I know that I tend to read the "frivolous"
>> newsgroups and avoid the "serious" groups, such as net.news.group, and I
>> imagine that many others do the same. As a result, a group of serious
>> people decided (25-9) that they didn't like a silly newsgroup.
>
> 'Silly' is an understatement, try 'worthless'.
If someone is an extremist who thinks net.religion.jewish is worthless,
should it be removed? Regardless of whether you think it's worthless,
deciding that a group should not exist because it is "worthless" is
censorship. You can say that all non-technical groups are "worthless",
but once you have agreed that some such groups should exist, you should
not use "I think it's worthless" as a reason to selectively decide that
some should exist and some should not.
>> WHY DIDN'T YOU CROSSPOST THE DELETION DISCUSSION TO NET.BIZARRE SO THAT
>> EVERYONE COULD PARTICIPATE???
>
> How could possibly have noticed it in there? There was SO much
>GARBAGE in net.bizarre that anything of any value would be quickly lost.
This is patently ridiculous. Don't post it because nobody will read it anyway?
You have based a totally unwarranted conclusion on your prejudicial
viewpoint of net.bizarre (i.e., it's full of garbage). If you feel that
it's garbage, that's your opinion, but don't use that as an excuse not to
inform its readers of something you know will affect them.
Furthermore, I am located at a university which does not permit me to read
net.news.group. Leaving discussions about a group's fate out of the group
whose fate is being discussed is not fair to those who will not, or in
my case, CANNOT, access those discussions otherwise.
>> Well, I propose that we recreate net.bizarre. If anyone is interested (or
>> not) send me mail. Even if net.bizarre isn't recreated, maybe mail.bizarre
>> could be created if there is enough interest.
>
> There's an idea. Create a mailing list.
This seems to be inconsistent with your remark below not to "pollute the
net". Mail does go over the net, you know! True, you don't have to read
someone else's mail, but you don't have to read net.bizarre either if
you don't want to. Furthermore, the original net.bizarre deletion announcement
also said "DON'T consider setting up a mailing list that would end up
passing the equivalent of 'net.bizarre' through the mail..."
>> P.S. - So far, the vote is 2-1 for the creation of net.bizarre. So unless I
>> hear otherwise, I'll create net.bizarre later this week. :-)
>
> Please NO!! I don't care if you did use a ':-)', that's not
>funny. Keep your trash to yourself. Don't pollute the net with it.
>Edward C. Bennett
As I already said, if you think something is trash, that is not a sufficient
justification for not letting someone else who doesn't think so read it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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_...@jhunix.CSNET
ARPA: ins_akaa%jhu...@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa
Michael Browne
>In article <6...@k.cs.cmu.edu> m...@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) writes:
>>didn't mention voting. (I read EVERY article in net.bizarre, so I would
>>remember seeing a deletion notice.)
>
>If you really read every article in net.bizarre, I doubt that you can now
>remember anything at all....:-)
Actually, I was this way long before I started reading net.bizarre. :-)
>I am very sure that there was a mention in net.bizarre of the debate in
>this group.
I am equally sure that there wasn't. Does anybody know for sure? Did
anybody archive net.bizarre?
>I presume the reason why this group was not
>swamped by net.bizarrers demanding that it be retained was either (for some
>of them) they didn't have enough sense to figure out what was going on
>[suppose I'd better :-) here too] or (for most) they could see they were
>just fooling around and couldn't honestly claim the group should stay alive.
IF there was any mention that net.bizarre might be deleted (and I don't
admit that there was), it was very brief and was probably thought to be a
joke. (Come to think of it, I seem to remember a message suggesting that
net.bizarre should be the first newsgroup to commit suicide. Was THAT the
mention that you are thinking of??? If so, are you surprised that no one
responded?)
I dare say that net.bizarre had as much reason to exist (if not more) than
net.flame, net.jokes, or a lot of other newsgroups. (Net.bizarre was
originally created illegally, but it WAS eventually accepted by the Powers
That Be. I can't believe that anyone is actually trying to argue that
net.bizarre was deleted because it was illegally created 3 MONTHS AGO!!?) If
everyone is so interested in reducing net traffic, why do we still have
net.flame???
I'm still interested in hearing from anybody who wants to save net.bizarre
and/or create mail.bizarre.
Actually, I'm not certain that I need net.bizarre any more. Net.news.group
is almost as much fun! :-)
--
UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb ARPA: m...@k.cs.cmu.edu
"It came time to move, so I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two
John Allred
>may have been "silly" and "worthless", but it was rarely offensive.
>Net.flame IS offensive. (Remember this summer's discussion of "Women and
>the Consumption of Toilet Paper"??) If net.bizarre deserves to die, then
>net.flame deserves to die a thousand times over.
> --Mike
If you don't like such discussions, Mike, why are you here? You *do* know
where your 'u' key is, right?
--
John Allred
General Computer Company
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
^^^^
note new path-------------||
vc1...@unmc.uucp
>From: gr...@adobe.UUCP
>>YOU HAVE NO MORE RIGHT TO DESTROY A NEWSGROUP WITHOUT POLLING PEOPLE
>>THAN I DO TO CREATE ONE WITHOUT ASKING YOU.
>
>As you may recall (but probably don't), this was discussed in net.news.group
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What people? I never saw <any>
polls in the group itself. I
never saw any <real> discussions
on disbanding the newsgroup, or
an article on where poor grunt
type users could go to grovel
before the Gods of the Net for
the right to a newsgroup to
discuss the random and bizarre
occurance in life!
Maybe what my gripe is that if I had never been 'strolling' through
the newsgroups and hadn't during my random wanderings come across and article
in this newsgroup about the disbanding of net.bizarre, I would, probably like
many others, be wondering what in the hell happened to the group.
Ronald C. Rosul Jr. (vc155ah!unmc!unmvax)
Carlo Sgro
First of all, this discussion does NOT belong in net.misc, OK?
Secondly,
In article <10...@jhunix.UUCP> ins_...@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes:
>
>Furthermore, I am located at a university which does not permit me to read
>net.news.group. Leaving discussions about a group's fate out of the group
>whose fate is being discussed is not fair to those who will not, or in
>my case, CANNOT, access those discussions otherwise.
>
Wow. Talk about priorities :-). WITHOUT getting into the argument as to
whether or not net.bizarre should exist or not, I would like to know how
an institution on the net can justify carrying net.bizarre and NOT
net.news.group. I consider net.news.group to be up there in importance
with net.announce.newusers (which, unfortunately, too many people tend
to ignore).
WHY does jhunix.ARPA not carry net.news.group? Could it be that they
carry it but (as Mr. Arromdee states) they don't allow certain users
to read it? Does their feed not carry it? Have they decided that
it is a spurious newsgroup? What's the scoop?????
--
Carlo Sgro
...![ihnp4||decvax||allegra||clyde||utzoo]!watmath!watrose!cjsgro
"ihnp4 Express: Overnight to the USA or you don't pay!"
Mark Aden Poling
elaborate execution, while groups that have been sitting around for
months with less than a hundred articles to their names are seen as
"beneficial".
"God is on the side with the largest artillery."
Mark!
Roy Smith
> net.flame, net.jokes, or a lot of other newsgroups.
I would have said "net.bizarre has as little reason to exist as net.flame,
net.jokes, and a lot of other newsgroups".
--
Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy>
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
P. Kirsch
For those of you that are still interested in net.bizarre someone wrote to
me regarding a possible bizarre mailing list. If any of you are interested
his name is Michael Browne and the e-mail address I have for him
is: allegra!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb
If you can't reach that address send it to me and I'll pass it along.
I am dying for the recreation of net.bizarre but if a mailing list can be
organized that would be almost as good.
--
Another wunnerful letter from the semi-intelligent rotting brain of:
Paul Kirsch
St. Joseph's University
Philadelphia, Pa
{ astrovax | allegra | bpa | burdvax } !sjuvax!kirsch
Warning: Objects in Terminal Room are Closer than they Appear...
John Slasher Wersan III
>
> Sort of an open letter to Gene Spafford:
>
> You and your backbone site friends have every right to not FORWARD
> net.bizarre, and you probably would be justified in doing so. I read
> net.bizarre, and have even been known to post to it, but it is true
> that the group is filled with drivel and nonsense.
>
> YOU HAVE NO MORE RIGHT TO DESTROY A NEWSGROUP WITHOUT POLLING PEOPLE
> THAN I DO TO CREATE ONE WITHOUT ASKING YOU.
>
> the value of pi, but fair is fair.
>
>
As a co-news administrater, when I saw the rmgroup control
message reach our site, I took it with a heavy heart, one
of the few things that I looked forward to was the things
that I would read in net.bizarre. But as it was pointed out
the cost was very high, so I accepted the removal of the
group. But after reading this article, what I think would
have been a better way, was to have those sites that did not
want to receive the group just to remove it at their site,
or not accept the newsgroup at all. Then those sites that
still wanted it could keep it.
--
John Wersan
UUCP : {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax}!sunybcs!daemen!wersan
inhp4!kitty!daemen!wersan
"The doctor said I had dain bramage...
But my friends don't know what 'dat shit is"
Donn Seeley
From: cjs...@watrose.UUCP (Carlo Sgro)
... WITHOUT getting into the argument as to whether or not
net.bizarre should exist or not, I would like to know how an
institution on the net can justify carrying net.bizarre and NOT
net.news.group. ...
Let's do a bit of comparison shopping here. Since net.bizarre is no
longer with us, we'll pick on net.flame, another one of those tacky
rebel planets from the Lucasfilm production RMGROUP WARS.
+ Type of material: Both groups seem to carry the same sorts of
articles; in fact cross-posting is not uncommon. The articles
are almost all concerned with petty putdowns of people or their
interests (newsgroups).
+ Educational value: net.flame is a study in human psychology --
you wouldn't believe what human beings would do or say unless
you read net.flame! net.news.group is very similar, but less
appealing.
+ Entertainment value: Again, this one has to go to net.flame.
Brian Reid is the only reason I still read net.news.group.
+ Volume of garbage:
% du net/flame
533 net/flame
% du net/news/group
1005 net/news/group
%
I think that says it all.
The prosecution rests. Let's rmgroup net.news.group!
Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept do...@utah-cs.arpa
40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn