Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site stl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww
From: dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Abolishing of net.general
Message-ID: <202@stl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 16:25:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: stl.202
Posted: Fri Aug  2 16:25:23 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 06:01:49 EDT
References: <3375@drutx.UUCP> <599@usl.UUCP>
Reply-To: dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright)
Organization: STL,Harlow,UK.
Lines: 22

In article <599@usl.UUCP> jih@usl.UUCP (Juha I. Heinanen) writes:
>I am in favor of abolishing net.general.  Here is today's example
>article that explains why:
>
>>Dinette Set - 2 month old - smoked octagonal   ... etc.

If you look at the original that came TWICE (!), you'll see that it
had "net.wanted" shown in "distribution" - it looks to me as if 
someone perhaps new to the net was trying to get the right group,
but didn't know how.  Of course it should have been to att.wanted 
(or at least na.wanted).   But this is not justification for removal
of net.general, rather it is justification for making some at least
of the several improvements suggested to the user interface to the
news programs, to help users get the right group and distribution.
Yes I know that such improvements take a while to permeate to all
sites, but the problem's not so bad we can't live with it for a while
if we know it is going to get better rather than worse.

I also have another suggestion:  keep mod.general, but keep net.general
too.  People like me who still want net.general can have it; people like
jih who don't can unsubscribe (we'll both read mod.general if it ever has
anything).   Then everyone will be happy. Or if not they should be!