Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site pertec.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!felix!pertec!bytebug
From: bytebug@pertec.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: nuke net.general? & a radical proposal
Message-ID: <160@pertec.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Jul-84 23:10:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: pertec.160
Posted: Sun Jul  1 23:10:43 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Jul-84 04:46:03 EDT
References: <32@cbosgd.UUCP>  <105@stc70.UUCP>  <8335@gatech.UUCP> <1023@hao.UUCP> <66@cbosgd.UUCP>
Organization: Pertec Computer Corp., Irvine, CA
Lines: 27

I think I originally responded to get rid of net.general, agreeing with most
of the others who have stated that it's gotten out of hand, and a lot of
people had un-subscribed.

I've continued to read the arguments pro and con, and would like to bring
up something that I haven't heard mentioned as yet:  what do we want to do
with the rest of the *.general newsgroups.  Are they to have the same fate?

Here in the Los Angeles area, we have "la.general", but our site is fairly
new to the net, and la.general doesn't have a lot of traffic, but it's nice
to know there is a mechanism to local announcements!  Should we change it
over to la.announce and elect a local moderator?  Can Mark post to
"net.announce" with a distribution of "la"?  Hmmm...

Do you see what I'm getting at?  If there isn't a "net.general", then
"la.general" really doesn't make much sense.  Perhaps we should reconsider
boldly wiping out net.general and look for other solutions.

(Also, after looking at all of these messages, use of the word "nuke" as
a verb is beginning to bother me.  Continued use of "nuke" in this 
context could lead to de-sensitization, so that "nuking" the Soviet Union
is no bigger deal than a simple "rm -r /world/ussr".)
--
	roger long
	pertec computer corp
	{ucbvax!unisoft | scgvaxd | trwrb | felix}!pertec!bytebug