Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: These stubborn group champions
Message-ID: <33610@looking.on.ca>
Date: 14 Oct 89 19:51:13 GMT
References: <8910132350.AA08591@helios.enea.se> <35637@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 25
Class: rebuttal

In article <35637@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>Some would say that she held the group up for blackmail -- do it my way or
>no way at all. How is this different from what people are accusing the
>name.czars of doing? 

I would ask instead, "how is it similar?"  I find this an odd statement
to come from a moderator.  If she wanted to create and moderate the group, then
of course she can say she's not interested in doing it certain ways.

I am disturbed by the fact the the hierarchies are now getting stigmas and
plusses around them, to the point that people fight tooth and nail over
what hierarchy a group goes in.

What's the point?  Typical "talk" group propagation (the 'worst' hierarchy)
is 80%.  Typical "comp" is 96%.   Typical "rec" is about 86% and goes as
high as 94.  "soc" is similar, "misc" is slightly higher.  "sci" is around
90-95%.

In other words, who the fuck cares?   All this fuss about whether a group
goes in a hierarchy that might give it 5% more distribution?  And that 5%
mostly marginal sites that will prune any group they don't like anyway?

People wake up.  GET A LIFE!
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473