Xref: utzoo alt.config:1343 news.config:1505
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rice!cathyf
From: cathyf@rice.edu (Catherine A. Foulston)
Newsgroups: alt.config,news.config
Subject: Re: Call for votes
Summary: Should alt consider the net's opinion?
Keywords: folklore   computers
Message-ID: <3403@brazos.Rice.edu>
Date: 5 Dec 89 09:40:38 GMT
References: <30845@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: cathyf@brazos.rice.edu (Catherine A. Foulston)
Followup-To: alt.config
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Lines: 47

In article <30845@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (keenan royle) writes:
> [there are lots of legends about computers]
>
>I think this topic deserves its own group.
>
> [examples of the kind of stuff people post over and over in groups
> where it is inappropriate]
>
>So what does everyone think?

I don't know if it deserves its own group - I think giving it a group
will only encourage the dissemination of completely untrue stories.
It seems to me that it will be rather repetetive.

But then, this will probably happen no matter what, and it would be
worth it if it kept the bimonthly-or-so "hey, let's all post our favorite
computer [funny/horror/stupidity] stories" thread out of rec.humor and
various other inappropriate places.  And it would hardly be the first Usenet
group that had the same discussions over and over every few months as new
people discovered the net.
I say go for it.
                          __________________

From reading news.groups and news.admin, I know there are a number of
news admins who are about ready to give up on carrying alt at all.
Every new alt group that they perceive as stupid or useless drives them
a step closer to putting !alt.all in their sys files.  I wonder what
those admins would think of this group?  I wonder if anyone in alt
should care?  I mean, it's true that the whole point of alt is that those
who don't like it can ignore it and refuse to carry it, while those 
who do carry it can administer it without worrying about what the rest
of the net thinks, whether a group can get enough votes, etc.etc.  But is
there a point where one should say, "Stop, this is silly, no one will
carry alt if it does this"?  [I don't suggest that this is true of the
above-discussed group.]  If alt consisted only of alt.stupidity,
alt.tasteless, alt.sex.carasso.snuggles, and alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork,
I wouldn't carry it either.  And there are a lot of news admins who
perceive alt that way, who miss the better things happening in alt.
They don't see the freedom, or the good things that come from it.  All
they see is the alt.stupidity.

So how about it?  Should alt EVER consider what the rest of the net
will think, or does that compromise the purpose of alt?

Cathy Foulston
cathyf@rice.edu		usenet@rice.edu
wait, don't start yet, I have to find my asbestos suit.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com