Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!harpo!decvax!vortex!root
From: root@vortex.UUCP (The Superuser)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Newsgroup creations and deletions
Message-ID: <729@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 23:44:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.729
Posted: Thu Aug  1 23:44:22 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 10:20:27 EDT
References: <1352@cbosgd.UUCP>
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 32
Xref: watmath net.news:3767 net.news.group:3371

The BOF in question was a year ago, at least.  Certainly some things
DO change.  For example, the traffic in net.general that I see
(I never desubscribed) is very low volume.  I've never really understood
the complaints about net.general.  What's a few misplaced messages
when there is so much crapola in the CORRECT groups that is MUCH, MUCH
more time consuming to wade through?

A key point at that BOF was that "public" comment be taken.  I never
saw even a rough consensus emerge from the net at large on that score.
Given that the volume on net.general is so low (I'll bet that the
silly one liners in net.bizarre already far out-volume it) I just
don't see the point in worrying too much about it.  I am much more
concerned about very high volume groups than about comparatively low
volume groups!

--Lauren--

P.S.  Regarding net.bizarre: I thought it was for truly bizarre stories
      or tales.  But I've noticed that it has already become a sort
      of garbage bin for one-liners (and of course endless replies
      to the one-liners, including the original text of course) that
      hardly seem so wonderful that the whole world needs to see them.

      What seems to be going on is that some people just have a funny
      thought and now feel free just to dash it off to net.bizarre.
      This is hardly the sort of thing we really want to encourage, given
      the current load, is it?  I hope not.  I'd love to see net.bizarre
      stay really bizarre.  There's *some* good stuff in there now.  I think
      that the suggested "rules" for net.bizarre that were published were
      good ones.  But please, let's not turn it into a high volume net.stupid.

--Lauren--