Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: About nuking newsgroups:
Message-ID: <519@opus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-May-84 22:44:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.519
Posted: Thu May 24 22:44:40 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 05:45:10 EDT
References: <2788@alice.UUCP> <647@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 20

alice!alb:
>>	"There is almost always a suitable place to test-run a new discussion.
>>	  If not that's what net.misc is for. "
ut-ngp!werner:
>Not the first time that I see this argument, and repetition does not make
>it any better.  net.misc is simply not a good forum to bring up anything,
>because most people don't read it.  How the hell can you get a discussion
>started then, when you can't reach the people who'd be interested...

The volume of material posted to net.misc and the lengths of some of the
interchanges shows this not to be the case.  The articles are coming from
somewhere - and I don't think people post something and ignore the
responses.

Anyway, you seem to have missed Adam's point - net.misc only has to handle
the new discussions that don't fit anywhere else, and he's correct that
there are very few such discussions.
-- 
...Stop to smell the flowers.				Dick Dunn
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd				(303) 444-5710 x3086