net.bizarre is just the first...
Wombat
Sender:
Reply-To: r...@pucc-k.UUCP (Wombat)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Purdue University
Keywords: paying the piper
First off, I support the decision made by the backbone site admins and
implemented by Gene Spafford 100%.
And now...a mini-editorial:
It's about time all of us wake up to the reality that Usenet is not
some bulletin board running on a PC somewhere; it's a damn big network
that costs a lot of money and time to keep running. It's not an anarchy;
maybe it never was. It is controlled in large part by the backbone sites,
who pay for a lot of this, and by the volunteers (like Spaf, the Hortons, Chuq,
Rick Adams, Larry Wall) who spend their time working on software, documents,
and so on for it. These people have bent over backwards to make Usenet more
organized, more cost-effective, and more acessible; if you object to what
they're doing, then maybe *you* should run a backbone site, and then *you*
can run your chunk of the net the way *you* like.
A now...a comment.
I've been bringing up news 2.10.3 on our machines; and I've been looking
at the news we receive rather closely, since in the interim I've been
forwarding it by hand. net.bizarre is permanently dead at this site.
I think net.religion, net.politics, and net.philosophy are next, simply
because they are soapboxes (and big ones at that) with little or no redeeming
value. I expect that the deletion of these four groups will cut our volume
by 25%, maybe more.
--
Rich Kulawiec r...@pur-ee.uucp r...@purdue.uucp r...@purdue-asc.arpa
Stanley Friesen
>
> net.bizarre is permanently dead at this site.
>I think net.religion, net.politics, and net.philosophy are next, simply
>because they are soapboxes (and big ones at that) with little or no redeeming
>value. I expect that the deletion of these four groups will cut our volume
>by 25%, maybe more.
>--
unilaterally stop forwarding a group it should notify its downstream
sites a fair period ahead of time and *suggest* *alternate* feeds for
these groups to the sites they feed, so that there is at least a
chance that other sites will not find themselves losing a group they
want.
--
Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!fri...@rand-unix.arpa
Kenneth Adam Arromdee
>implemented by Gene Spafford 100%.
>
>I think net.religion, net.politics, and net.philosophy are next, simply
>because they are soapboxes (and big ones at that) with little or no redeeming
>value. I expect that the deletion of these four groups will cut our volume
>by 25%, maybe more.
>--
>Rich Kulawiec r...@pur-ee.uucp r...@purdue.uucp r...@purdue-asc.arpa
Isn't this a catch-22? You have to have demonstrated volume to create a
newsgroup, but these groups should be deleted to "cut our volume by 25%".
Also, who decides what "redeeming value" is? Do these groups have no
redeeming value just because some people express opinions in them which
don't agree with your own?
(And note: the original article went to net.flame and net.news.group.
It did _not_ go to net.religion, net.politics, or net.philosophy, which
seems somewhat unfair.)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Lord Frith
>
> some bulletin board running on a PC somewhere; it's a damn big network
> that costs a lot of money and time to keep running. It's not an anarchy;
> maybe it never was. It is controlled in large part by the backbone sites,
> who pay for a lot of this, and by the volunteers (like Spaf, the Hortons, Chuq,
> Rick Adams, Larry Wall) who spend their time working on software, documents,
> and so on for it. These people have bent over backwards to make Usenet more
> organized, more cost-effective, and more acessible; if you object to what
> they're doing, then maybe *you* should run a backbone site, and then *you*
> can run your chunk of the net the way *you* like.
That's not a bad idea. Instead of one backbone... let's distribuite the
load among several backbones. Can administrative functions be distributed
as well? What administrative functions? What is necessary to "keep the
net going?"
I think net.religion and net.philosophy should be spared the hand of death.
Wombat
>In article <1319@pucc-k> rsk@pucc-k (Wombat) writes:
>>
>>net.bizarre is permanently dead at this site.
>>I think net.religion, net.politics, and net.philosophy are next, simply
>>because they are soapboxes (and big ones at that) with little or no redeeming
>>value. I expect that the deletion of these four groups will cut our volume
>>by 25%, maybe more.
>
>newsgroup, but these groups should be deleted to "cut our volume by 25%".
>Also, who decides what "redeeming value" is? Do these groups have no
>redeeming value just because some people express opinions in them which
>don't agree with your own?
>
>(And note: the original article went to net.flame and net.news.group.
>It did _not_ go to net.religion, net.politics, or net.philosophy, which
>seems somewhat unfair.)
Listen up, mush-for-brains.
I didn't say word one about whether or not I agreed with anyone's opinion
as expresed in the named groups.
Nor did I say anything about cutting those groups anywhere but *locally*.
Note the careful inclusion of "...at this site" in my original article.
And even then, I was cautious ("I think...").
Note that I posted the article to net.news.group, which is certainly
relevant, and to net.flame simply because I felt it might be classified
as a flame by some folks.
So you may take your backhanded comment ("...somewhat unfair") and ram it.
Tired of people who cannot read,