Xref: utzoo news.admin:14709 news.software.b:7997
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!miclon!miclon!nreadwin
From: nreadwin@micrognosis.co.uk (Neil Readwin)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b
Subject: Re: Really funny jokes being missed
Message-ID: <1991May28.070326.25818@micrognosis.co.uk>
Date: 28 May 91 07:03:26 GMT
References: <283E8081.4669@tct.com> <qZwL326w164w@mantis.co.uk>
Sender: news@micrognosis.co.uk (News account)
Reply-To: nreadwin@micrognosis.co.uk (Neil Readwin)
Organization: Micrognosis, London, UK
Lines: 14

In article <qZwL326w164w@mantis.co.uk>, CNEWS MUST DIE!
<mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|> Which is more valuable -- the "guarantee" that no old news will reappear, or
|> the "guarantee" that people's postings will get out to the net?

Let me put it this way. If somebody dumps old news onto the net then it
wastes a lot of my time - either rereading things or (in extreme cases)
repairing the damage. If (say) your postings get dumped then I *save* time
since I don't get to read them. In fact if somebody wrote a news transport
that dumped every article with a prime number in the message id but guaranteed
not to flood the net with old postings then I would still pick the former.

 Phone: +44 71 528 8282  E-mail: nreadwin@micrognosis.co.uk
 Everything is a cause for sorrow that my mind or body has made